Volume 658 Week 27 - Tuesday 20 October 2009(continued on Wednesday 21 October 2009) 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 658 Week 27 - Tuesday 20 October 2009(continued on Wednesday 21 October 2009) 
[Sitting date: 20 October 2009. Volume:658;Page:7253. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 20 October 2009 
( 
continued on Wednesday 21 October 2009 
) 
Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Amendments to Summary Proceedings Act 1957 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Part 2 deals with a number of issues in terms of making an attempt to reduce traffic offending by strengthening the powers of the courts in respect of the seizure of motor vehicles. I will concentrate for a moment on new section 100L which is to be inserted into the Summary Proceedings Act by clause 28. This provision authorises the sale by the court of a motor vehicle if any fine remains unpaid. We pose no argument in respect of that provision but without rehearsing the debate on Part 1 I would point out that there was a lot of debate. 
An argument was put forward last night by Mr Woodhouse in respect of the 10 cars that would be crushed per year—the 10 badges of honour that the Minister will wear. He said that there would be a large amount of recycling if this was not done. But that argument seems to be suspended in animation when we look at this provision. The argument is dissolved because under new section 100L a court can authorise the sale of a motor vehicle if any fines are unpaid. I have no problem with this. I think that is fine but I just point out to Mr Woodhouse and others that it will be interesting to see whether the recycling argument that they rehearsed last night will be rehearsed again today. The so-called issue of recycling has not dissolved; the problem though is that no evidence has actually been produced—and I do not think this would have been a problem—by the police the Ministry of Justice or anybody else in respect of the recycling of vehicles. Boy racers are unlikely to be whipping round to the back end of Turners Auctions as their $30000 Nissan Skyline or Jaguar goes under the hammer to attempt to buy it back. 
Mr Brownlee is an expert when it comes to those large-cylinder vehicles. I recall that he had a powder blue Jaguar at St Bede’s College. I say to the Minister who is looking quizzical that that is a type of car. But I know that he was not a boy racer. In fact I— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh come on! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh well maybe he was; I will leave that for him to decide. It is very hard to believe that a boy racer will nip round the back of Turners Auctions as his $30000 Nissan Skyline is going under the hammer in order to buy it back. I think the arguments put forward by Mr Woodhouse are fictitious unless some evidence—that would be nice—could be put forward. We support these provisions but with the rhetoric that we are hearing I would also point out that one would think that this is not being done now. 
I am sorry to harp on about Christchurch which is a great part of New Zealand but if one goes out with the police at any time there one sees that they have developed very very good and practical sting operations. They also have other operations when they just send out incident cars—plain-clothed cars. I was out one night with a couple of young police officers and I saw that they have today the ability under the law to pull over anybody if they think that something does not feel right. They can pull over the young person or the old person or whomever. They can go through the registration and the warrant they can check out the car and they can also have the bailiffs and the court on standby—as they do—right through the night when they are doing these operations. 
If it was Mr Brownlee in his Jaguar who owed a few fines then they could say that they are sorry but the tow truck is on its way unless he pays the bill. The car will be on the tow truck and the tow truck is gone. I am sure that Mr Brownlee would never engage in that behaviour good soul that he is but the point I am making is that that happens today. It happens nearly every night of the week. 
I know this because I have often been in the back of a police car over many years. The police can pull people over if things do not feel right and not just where a driver is boy racing or girl racing. They can pull over drivers—they have done this—and they can say: “Hang on I don’t think this feels right.” They can check the vehicle through. They can look at the vehicle to see whether it complies. And by the way they can ring the bailiffs ask them to put the details through the computer and find out whether Mr Smith owes any fines and costs. 
I recall being on Moorhouse Avenue one night when a young fellow was pulled up in this way. He gave the police what ho. The police professionals stood there and took it. I as a lesser mortal would probably have been less restrained. They told the driver that he owed $5000 and unless he paid up the car would be on the tow truck. He rang mum. Mum—a rather affluent looking person— pulled up in a Mercedes. She put her arm around Johnny lambasted the police for what they had done which was the correct thing to do and said that it was not Johnny’s fault. I ask what he learnt by that. 
We support these measures but we just say that some of the arguments put forward last night will be negated today. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call in respect of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill as we go through Part 2 of this important legislation. I reaffirm as we enter a new day—although it is still the same day in terms of parliamentary sitting time—that Labour strongly supports this legislation and its progress through the House. However we are trying to make sure that Parliament does not have to revisit this bill on an ongoing basis because it is our very firm belief that although the bill includes very many good measures it still has a gap in respect of how we best deal with the issue of the confiscation and seizure—the very name of the bill—of boy-racer cars. The Minister of Police has been stating that she wants to see behavioural change in respect of boy racers and our very clear position is that it will not be achieved by the measures involved with car confiscation and crushing if indeed we go through the process that this bill outlines. That process involves boy racers who have a deal with a mate or a family member for the car to be owned by somebody else. The driver does some illegal drag racing or burnouts the police pull him up and they then send a warning to the owner of the car. Under the procedures of this bill a second warning is then sent and then finally on the third offence the car may be seized— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: May be! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: —may be seized—and at the discretion of the judge if there are not extraordinary circumstances that he or she wishes to take into account the car might be crushed. The estimate from the Minister of 10 cars crushed a year nationally could mean that in my city of Christchurch with 10 percent of the population of New Zealand we may see just one car crushed a year. I hardly think that that will deliver the sort of behavioural change that is needed. Labour wants to see behavioural change because the boy-racer menace affects many parts of the country and none more so than my electorate. I was thinking last night about the visit I made earlier this year to a woman living on Fitzgerald Avenue who has moved out of her home and gone to live with family because she has had a gutsful of the menace that is brought. It is not just the noise; it is the ongoing behaviour and the threats that have been brought against her—quite a strong older woman—over the years. It has worn her down to the point where she has left her home without I believe having sold it because it is sometimes quite difficult to sell properties in that area of Christchurch because of the menace that these boy racers bring. She is a strong person who after years of going out watching the boy racers taking down the number plates and trying to do her best to give the police the support they need to deal with the problem has finally called it quits and moved at considerable cost to herself. 
I think the police deserve the best possible support that we can give them and I truly do not believe we are doing it with this bill. It has a kind of pyrrhic quality to it in that a few cars may be—may be—crushed but there is no signal to boy racers that they will lose their cars. That is really what is needed and that is why I strongly support the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove. 
Another visit in my electorate reinforced the need for some really tough legislation on this issue. It was a visit—again earlier this year or late last year—to residents living off Edgeware Road. They were not actually on the circuit of the boy racers—they were well away from the four avenues—but had the unfortunate experience of living a few houses away from a property where boy racers were resident. Of course on a Friday and Saturday night the boys like to begin their evening by doing a few burnouts up and down that street. These people want tough action against it and I believe they want to see the strongest possible measures emerging from this Parliament to deal with the problem. I do not think they would look at a bill that sees perhaps one car a year taken off the streets of Christchurch as a truly effective behavioural signal to the boy-racer fraternity; I think they would be strongly looking at the Government to do the very very toughest that it can. 
I believe the Supplementary Order Paper from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove would indeed deliver a tougher message. It would give a signal on the first offence that if the boy racer does it again his car will be gone confiscated sold and out of his ownership and he will not be able to get it back. One or two members opposite have suggested that this will simply allow boy racers to go and buy their cars back. I challenge any members opposite who want to state that again to give us some evidence. A number of inquiries have been made about that issue and no evidence has been put up to suggest that that is in fact happening. If we think about it for a moment how could it happen? If we are putting up for sale a car that is worth $10000 or $20000 and if we have people who have no credit history who often have bought the car on a long stretch of credit and who in many instances have a large number of fines against them where will they find the cash? If they are buying the car at Turners Auctions they will have to buy it via cash. They cannot put it on the never-never. They have to be able to actually buy the car so I ask how they will be able to do that. If any member wants to raise that issue again I ask him or her to bring some evidence to the Parliament that that happens. 
Let us look at another aspect of crushing. Here we are as a nation and as a planet debating issues like climate change. We need to make the best possible use of our resources. Crushing might have a photo opportunity attached but if the car has plenty of miles left in it still I ask what on earth is the sense in putting a perfectly good vehicle one that admittedly may have been used for some heinous purpose and which perhaps may need modification to put some decent tyres and other things back on it into the crusher. Perhaps one car a year will be crushed in Christchurch for a photo opportunity for the Minister and no doubt one or two other National members from Christchurch all so that they can stand there and have their photos taken with a car that is being crushed. That is what it is about. It is not about delivering the best possible outcome in terms of dealing with the menace that boy racers present both in my city and many other parts of the country. 
There is a very viable method here and I think my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has even indicated a preparedness—and the Government has this opportunity—to amend the Supplementary Order Paper to maybe look at crushing after the confiscation on the second offence. That is something that the Government could dwell on. It would then be making the bill tougher than it is currently. But at the moment there is no signal to the boy-racer community that this Government truly wants to be tough on the issue. This measure would in fact send the real signal to them. It would say that if they misbehave they have one chance. Everybody deserves one chance but people certainly do not deserve three chances with the possible outcome of a judge maybe sending a car to be crushed. I commend the Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I remind the member who has just resumed his seat and who is a new member Brendon Burns that the Supplementary Order Paper to which he refers was voted out last night. We are not debating it this morning. We are debating Part 2 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. 
I will refer to a couple of main points in Part 2. There has been some discussion this morning about why warnings are to be given to people who have an interest in a car and why these cars are not simply seized and sold. That provision deals with the fact that some of the interests in the cars are those of finance companies banks and parents. When we are putting in place legislation like this which can be considered quite Draconian from some people’s points of view we need to have a balance of interests. There is no point having legislation that people do not believe is fair. We have one of the best police forces in the world. The New Zealand Police is in my opinion almost the best in the world if not the best. One of the reasons why the police have one of the most fantastic success records in terms of public confidence—and I saw just yesterday a release about yet another new high of public confidence in the police—is that the public expects the New Zealand Police to act fairly and within the law. It is very important when we are taking away nana’s car mum’s car or a finance company - owned car that we act fairly. 
I actually believe it is very important that a finance company knows exactly what is going on with its security so that when it gets its first written warning about what is being done with the car over which it has security and which it has lent a lot of money to secure it can take action. The company understands that when a car is lost—it is gone it is sold or it is crushed—it has lost its security. I believe that finance companies will start taking action. Certainly when I was growing up and when a lot of people in this Chamber were growing up young people could not get new cars. They could not borrow from finance companies to buy cars because basically those companies were much tougher about the ways in which they lent. Over the last 10 years or so there has been a great loosening up in that lending and one of the results has been that a lot of very high-powered cars have been sold to people who cannot control them or their own behaviour unfortunately. 
There has been a lot of talk about how much crushing there will be. Actually the point of the bill is stopping the behaviour. For a party that says it is opposed to the crushing part of the bill yet says it is opposed to the bill because it is not tough enough I think Labour really needs to get its rhetoric right. This bill is actually not about me. It is not about photo opportunities. It is actually about trying to take some action that means something because the previous Government despite its very best efforts frankly could not put a bill together on this issue that had any standing at all. 
One of the reasons that the judges do not under the current legislation use confiscation and surrender of vehicles as much as was expected is that the legislation has every sort of loophole available. Frankly judges have to be able to apply the law as presented by Parliament. We have made it perfectly plain in this legislation that we expect that the judges will apply the law because that is what they do. We are giving judges discretion in terms of what happens to the cars of the worst recidivist offenders. If judges feel that they cannot use that discretion we would like to know why. I actually think that judges will use it. We have to get the law right. We have always said that this legislation will not be a silver bullet. But it is a vast improvement on the previous Government’s pathetic attempt which I have to say anybody with a law degree could have seen had loopholes right through it. It was very very difficult legislation. Of course one has to give the previous Government credit for at least trying but it did not try hard enough. 
Part 2 of the bill I believe will deal with the issue of people who sell their cars before the court has been able to take action and confiscate them. That is one of the big loopholes. On the subject of what happens when people’s cars are put up for auction I have some news for Mr Burns. When one buys a car at auction one pays whatever is the highest price bid. That is how an auction works. People do not actually turn up to an auction and say that because a car is worth $20000 they are going to pay $20000. I tell Mr Burns that what happens at an auction is that a car might be worth $20000 but if the highest bid is $300 that is what is paid for it. That is how it works in the real world. I know that is not something that members opposite have a lot of experience in but that is what happens. 
As for the question about where the evidence is that boy racers send their friends along to buy up a car at $250 or $300 I ask the member why he does not ask the police when he is strutting around police stations. That is what they say. The police in Canterbury tell me that that is exactly what happens. When Sergeant Nigel Armstrong was attacked by boy racers earlier this year I went down to Christchurch and I asked them there why this behaviour was still going on. The police said that the boy racers’ mates turn up at the auction they buy the cars for $250 or $300 and they are laughing. The police say that they are laughing at them. They are laughing at the previous legislation. This part of the bill is one of the steps that we are taking to close that loophole. If they want to keep laughing they will end up with their cars crushed frankly. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: 10 a year—10 people. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member calls out “10 a year”. Actually I hope that they get the message that we mean business and hopefully they will stop their behaviour. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You said all the cars would be crushed. You said that all the cars would go to the crusher. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Unfortunately Mr Cosgrove consistently makes up these things in the Chamber. Frankly we know that the cars will be closer to the crusher. Mr Cosgrove really needs to consider that he has been so mean-spirited all year about this legislation asking earlier this year what will happen to poor grandad’s car. Now he is suddenly asking why we are giving grandad a chance to take some action about his grandchild. On one hand he said that we should not have the cars crushed because it is Draconian. Now he is complaining that we are crushing only 10. Well for goodness’ sake Mr Cosgrove really needs to get with the programme and understand that the people of Waimakariri who almost voted him out last time will definitely do it next time. 
It is very very important that we focus on behaviour. This is about public safety. It is not about media opportunities; it is about public safety. When those people decided to take on the New Zealand Police this year to threaten them and to shoot at them they took on more than they ever bargained for. This Government supports the New Zealand Police and it supports the law-abiding people of New Zealand. This Government will not stand by and say that it is all too hard and we cannot do it which is what the previous Government did . 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to follow up on Mr Cosgrove’s point—he graciously acknowledged that I had one—regarding recycling through sales. He told a story which sadly is all too believable of silly mummy in the Mercedes turning up and comforting little Johnny who had several grand worth of fines. It is no surprise how little Johnny became like that. Sadly there is probably no surprise about how he will turn out as he gets older. But one source of the money is right there: silly mummies from Remuera or Fendalton who think little Johnny can do no wrong and who if the car is confiscated will turn up at Turners Auctions with the gold card and buy back the car. I personally get all of my old dungers from Turners and I can recommend it as a place for an absolute bargain. I think I got my last car which was valued at about $2500 for $1200. As the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins rightly says at the dunger end of the market where there are no reserves the highest bid gets it. Of course a seized car will not have any reserve at all so $2 might get it. That is one point. 
The other reason that we support the legislation is that it enshrines that wonderful principle of “three strikes”. It gives a chance gives another chance—and I would be a bit less generous than the Minister I have to say which is probably no surprise—and gives every opportunity. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How many chances would you give? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I think two is probably right with crushing on the third. The point is that judges need to be given the tools and this is the place where they are given the tools. But judges also have to use them. I know all the lofty arguments; I wrote essays in law school about who has the greatest influence in our constitutional arrangements. The answer is—and Professor Joseph would agree with me although he would use more elegant language—that the sovereignty lies here and if judges do not take the signal then we will be back next year. I put on record that if it is necessary to back Mr Cosgrove to make an amendment to this legislation in order to make crushing mandatory or confiscation or whatever will work then we will support it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I thank Mr Garrett for his bipartisan approach. I think it is the second time in almost a week when the ACT Party has pulled the rug out from under the National Party. First was the levies bill which ACT was very sceptical about. Mr Garrett said exactly the same thing in that he would be back here to back us if the legislation did not work and likewise with this legislation today. I will address a couple of points that the Minister made in her speech. It was an astounding contribution. 
Not many months ago the Minister of Police Judith Collins said like MacArthur’s “I shall return” statement those infamous words “every car will head towards the crusher.” They will be burned and etched into our memories. This Minister has declared war on everyone. She has declared war on gangs war on P war on boy racers—war on everyone. She is the General Custer of the Parliament except General Custer had a last stand. He had a last stand. Suddenly we had a speech today that is all about fairness balance and not wanting to be Draconian. The Ministry of Justice’s notes are riddled with the term “We need balance” but this is not about photo opportunities. It is not about sending a signal. 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Ha ha! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I tell the Minister in the chair Judith Collins to hang on a minute. I invite the journalists who might be taking an interest in this issue to go back and read the transcript of the Minister’s statements and the media statements. Somehow Labour is now being too tough. The Minister said that she thinks that grandads parents and finance companies should have due warning so that they can retrieve their vehicles or provide a remedy if someone has taken their vehicle and run amuck. In the case of a finance company it can preserve its assets. No one on this side disagrees with the Minister on that. 
This is what we disagree on fundamentally. It is not parents’ cars that kids take and run amuck with; they take mostly—one in five according to evidence the police gave before the select committee—their mates’ cars change the ownership and run amuck. The Minister said that herself. She is trying to construct an argument that in the case of parents whose sons or daughters take their cars somehow the Labour Party will give them only one warning and then the car is gone and that is terrible. There are two problems with that. Firstly kids are not taking their parents’ cars; they are—deliberately—taking their mates’ cars. I do not think we should give quarter to that. Secondly all the parents I have spoken with have the view—including a couple I talked to in Belfast a week or so ago—that if they got a letter a warning saying that little Johnny had taken their wagon and run amuck and that the next time he does that their car is gone well they would sort it out and that would not happen again. Likewise I believe that a finance company should get a warning to say that its client who owes it $20000 on a car has run amuck in it. We say give the finance company one warning and then take the car. I suspect that finance companies will put clauses in contracts in the future to say if they get a letter if they get the encumbrance the finance company will come around and take the car off the boy racer the first time themselves in order to preserve that asset value. 
But the problem is that the Minister has found her kinder gentler fairer more balanced side which translates to the fact that she is weak; she trumpeted around the country that she would get tough. We believe that the appropriate balance is to give one warning to the third party and if the offence happens again the court must take the car. On a second offence a court is required to take the vehicle in the same way as provided for in existing legislation that the Minister has preserved. If someone is the owner and offender the court may take his or her car on a first offence but must take his or her car on a second offence within 4 years. But this Minister given how tough she is has written into law that third-party owners will get a letter if someone takes their car and commits a first offence. That is how tough that Minister is. They will get a letter saying that Judith Collins says that someone has been very naughty in their cars. On the second offence they will get another warning letter that says that Judith Collins says someone has been very very naughty in their cars. Then on the third offence it is up to a judge. There are no mandatory provisions on a third offence in respect of cars owned by a third party that says as with an owner and offender that a judge must take the vehicle. That is what we proposed last night and the Minister would not accept it given how tough she is. 
I say that Minister has hoodwinked people. I ask whether the people in Kaiapoi in Blackett St and in Hamilton will think that this Minister is tough on boy racers when after a third offence of making people’s lives hell in the streets of New Zealand—after shaking in their boots when they got a letter saying “You’ve been naughty” signed off by Judith Collins Minister of Police and then a second offence saying “You’ve been very naughty” signed off by Judith Collins Minister of Police—on that third offence it is up to a judge. I wonder how tough the Minister of Police Judith Collins will be viewed by people in respect of that. 
On recycling I say that the Minister has provided no evidence apart from hearsay. She told me to go around some police stations. Well I have and I do; it would be good if she did. But the ones she turns up to are the ones she opens that the previous Government built and then claims the credit for. Well I hold up the evidence that was before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the New Zealand Police provided. Here it is in black and white. In this document there is no evidence provided by a professional excellent hard-working effective police force that talks about recycling in the numbers. It produces numbers in respect of changes in ownership—one in five people. It produces numbers of offences fines crashes fatalities tragedies and industries but there is not one figure in here in respect of recycling. Yet the Minister gets up and thinks that it is OK to say go and talk to the police. I do and I have for many years. Maybe there was a slight oversight. Maybe a line dropped off the presentation at the select committee. But I would have thought this Minister—smug though she is sort of the Cheshire cat of the Parliament—who is so humble and who cannot get the smile off her face would get up and say: “OK fair go. I’ve made a claim that there’s mass recycling all over the show. Here is the evidence Parliament.” But she said nothing. 
I say to that Minister that we support the bill and we support it for a couple of reasons. We support it because I believe we should show this Government the courtesy it showed me when we had a crack at this issue. I agree that there are some loophole changes. [ 
Interruption 
] I cannot even give these guys a compliment without Mr Quinn going troppo over there but that is OK. We know which room he should be in in the Parliament. The second reason is that the bill does close some loopholes around hardship and around third-party ownership. But the other reason we will let this go through is it will give us a very very important point a litmus test to judge and hold this Minister accountable. We believe this legislation is not tough enough and we put up a very simple Supplementary Order Paper. We said that we do not support crushing for two simple reasons. One is we support permanent confiscation—it should be mandatory. After the Minister told New Zealand that all the cars will be heading to the crusher she admitted and she even admitted it again today that about 10 cars a year—10 cars a year—will be crushed. I am sure the boy racers are shaking in their shiny shoes. I am sure they are terrified of Judith Collins pushing the button 10 times a year on the crusher. 
The other reason we do not support it is it makes no sense. 
Paul Quinn 
: You just said you do support it. Where’s this guy at? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: We do not support the crushing provision but we support the bill. If the member is going to go nuts I say to him that the reason we cannot vote against one clause in Part 1 is because we are voting on Part 1 in totality. He says he is a lawyer but he does not understand when we debate a bill part by part. So there are parts of Part 1 and Part 2 that we do support. But we only get one vote I say to Mr Quinn who is a silly silly member. The other reason we do not support crushing and we support permanent confiscation—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh the members on the opposite side of the Chamber are awake now; the lattes have kicked in. The other reason we support permanent confiscation is because we can dispose of a vehicle in a certain way for instance for parts whereby we can realise the asset value of that vehicle and use that asset value to pay the fines of the offender and not have the innocent pay the fines and the court costs through taxes. That will be the only result of what happens with crushing cars. It is 10 a year. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2 and the following amendment in her name to clause 28 be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 100TB(2) “100N(2)(d)” and substitute “100N(1)(d)”. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Amendment to Privacy Act 1993 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes the schedule. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 It was interesting to hear the Minister’s comments in respect of Labour’s position on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. She said we are being too tough. I find that a little ironic. I reflect back to the accompanying bill the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill which was passed last night where we had another example of a party talking tough but going easy. Like this bill’s companion measure and the promises and pledges to deal with the issue of noise decibel ratings that failed to materialise in it we have a similar issue here about how we are actually going to enforce the seizure and confiscation of boy racers’ cars. 
The comments from the Minister about how the bill needs to be framed to make sure that grandad does not lose his car are interesting because most of the cars are not owned by grandads; the boy racers do a swap procedure where one owns the other’s car and vice versa. The measures of this bill allowing three warnings before a car may—just may—be seized and crushed will hardly send the sort of message that the community is going to be frightened in its boots about. 
When we talked earlier about the issue of cars under the alternative proposal of Supplementary Order Paper 73 tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove and now defeated by the Committee the Minister suggested that if cars were to go to auction we could see a $20000 car being sold for $300. It was interesting to hear David Garrett comment on that. He was talking about an old dunger—I presume he was referring to a car rather than himself—and how he had bought a $2500 car for $1200. I think that is more the order of things. We tend to be able to buy cars at auction at considerably less than their value but certainly not at some sort of giveaway price in most cases. 
David Garrett 
: Mine had a reserve. Theirs will have no reserve. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Well if finance companies were likely to have a very very major interest in most of those cars going to auction under the proposal that Labour tabled does the member think that finance companies are going to let their interest in a motor vehicle disappear? 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s right. Now you’ve got it! You’ve finally worked it out Brendon! 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I ask Mr Quinn whether he can give me an example of where a finance company on any piece of asset in this country would allow its interest to be given away at some sort of fire-sale price. Not at all! There is no prospect of that whatsoever. 
The Minister then suggested that the police wanted the crushing mechanism because they said that it would deal with the concerns that they have. That is interesting because my clear understanding is that when this issue first came up at the start of this year the very clear call from the police in respect of how best to deal with the boy-racer issue was for the Government to introduce a cease and desist mechanism whereby the issue of where boy racers assemble and congregate could be dealt with. The police’s proposal was that after a first gathering of boy racers on a street corner at a set of traffic lights or wherever if the police saw behaviour that was going to lead to disorder they could issue a cease and desist order and the next time such an assembly took place the boy racers would be walloped. So if the Minister is saying that she wants to be tough and if the Minister is saying she is doing what the police asked could she comment about what happened to the cease and desist order idea? 
We have in its place a bill that says “three strikes and maybe—just maybe—you will be out” but that was not what was indicated. I have a press report from earlier in the year reporting that when the legislation was introduced to Parliament in May Judith Collins claimed: “every offence”—for street racing—“will bring them closer to the crusher.” Will they be closer to the crusher with every new offence? Well we have discovered that that is not the case. What we will see is a “three strikes” policy and maybe—just maybe—a person will be affected if the judge decides to be tough. That is why it was a shame that last night the Committee did not support the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove because as David Garrett has indicated I think we will be back in the Chamber quite soon looking at these issues again. 
It was interesting to note that Mr Garrett as a member of a party that supports the “three strikes” policy suggested that he would like it to be a “two strikes” policy. I say to the member that he had the opportunity last night to propose an amendment to amend Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper. He could have supported it but he did not. So effectively he is voting for something that he does not have that much belief in. How can he and his party do that? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Part 3 is actually about the Privacy Act but as the previous speaker Mr Burns has ranged wide and free I think we should correct a few of the statements he has made. What he is doing and his party has consistently done today and last evening is to repeat the errors that they made in Labour’s minority report to the House. I hate to disabuse them of this but frankly a substitute’s car—in other words a car that is owned by someone else—can actually be confiscated on the second offence after one warning. That is provided for in new section 128(2)(b) which is inserted by clause 6. Their comments show that yet again they have not read the provision. So whatever the Labour members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were doing they certainly were not listening when the officials from the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport were trying to tell them what the bill said. 
Mr Burns has made some comments about finance companies. He seems to think that they will miraculously turn up at auctions and buy back cars or stop them being sold. It is a good point except that under the legislation that the Government has inherited from the previous Government the finance companies had no idea what was happening to the car because nobody ever told them. What this legislation does by its written warning procedure is advise the finance company about what is happening. 
In picking up on Mr Burns’ comment about finance companies I believe that one of those written warnings delivered by a member of the New Zealand Police will make a very strong statement about the security of the asset. I believe that they will have it stated in their finance agreements if they do not already that if their asset is being used illegally then they will take action. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Make it one warning. Why make it three warnings? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member calls out and asks why we should give them three warnings. Well— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Two warnings. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
:—two warnings now he says. It is three warnings rather than two warnings. I think it is very important that the member understands that it will take only one letter to make the message very plain to these finance companies because as Mr Burns rightly says they do not want to lose their security. But at the moment they do not even know what is going on. They do not understand that the car is being confiscated or sold off. They do not understand what is going on because frankly nobody tells them. How are they supposed to suddenly know that that is happening unless we tell them? That is one of the very important provisions that we have in the bill. This is not about taking cars off people; it is not about any of that. It is about the behaviours and the people most likely to influence behaviour are the people who have the right to take the car. In most cases we will find that finance companies can do that if they know that their car is being used illegally. 
I commend this part to the Committee. This part has amendments to the Privacy Act but I think it is important that I correct some of the misstatements made both today and yesterday and actually for the last 6 or 7 months by the Labour Party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Carol Beaumont but before I do I just want to bring members back to Part 3. This part is very narrow and I ask members to concentrate on that part. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think there is quite a bit of precedent and it happened in Part 2 when the Minister was the first to initiate comments that ranged far wider than the part. The Minister brought other material into the debate and we must be able to address that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. I have allowed a pretty wide-ranging debate on Parts 1 and 2 and there has been a good exchange. But Part 3 has only two clauses. It is very narrow. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: She didn’t have to say that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Minister was responding to the previous speaker who had canvassed other areas and she did say that but she also identified that Part 3 was about privacy provisions. I am asking future speakers please to concentrate on the two clauses in Part 3. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill “Amendment to Privacy Act 1993”. Clause 29 states that Part 3 amends the Privacy Act. Clause 30 and the schedule amend schedule 5 of the Privacy Act which authorises Government agencies to access law enforcement information held by other specified Government agencies. The amendment serves the purpose of giving the Ministry of Justice access to police records relating to vehicles impounded for 28 days and access to personal information on the drivers and registered owners of these vehicles. Labour members support these provisions. As a number of us have been saying throughout this process we support a significant number of the provisions in this bill as part of a further strengthening of legal options around the issue of illegal street racing and boy racers. The reason we support it is that we understand the seriousness of the problem. Again to set the record straight I say that the previous Labour Government put in place very strong legislation which still sits on the statute book and is stronger than what applies in Australia for example. I acknowledge that work. The Minister has previously acknowledged that work and I recognise that fact. 
This is an attempt to close some loopholes and in that regard we fully support that work. That is not what this part of the bill is referring to however and I have taken on board the Chair’s comments. We are talking about amendments to the Privacy Act. We have no difficulty with these provisions at all but in relation to the comments made previously by the Minister I say that some elements of the select committee process worked a lot better than others. Certainly the submission process worked very well. I think that everybody got a great deal of benefit from the process both from the submissions of individuals affected by the issue of illegal street racing which was particularly profound in Christchurch and from the submissions made by various organisations such as the Automobile Association the New Zealand Police and the Police Association. 
In speaking to Part 3 I have to note that no submissions were made on this part. But I noticed that the select committee worked less well in some other areas particularly around the deliberation and consideration stage where quite complicated matters were being rushed through with the officials being put under unreasonable time constraints to produce documentation and deal with the questions being raised. I note that point. 
In concluding I say that Labour’s view is that we support much of this bill. Our sole purpose has been to ensure that where it needs to be tightened it should be. We say—and in fact members across the Chamber say—that we are serious about this issue. If we are serious about this issue and if we can toughen up on some of the provisions then we should. Thank you. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 The title of this bill is the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. Without labouring the point that has been made by others—and that is despite a lack of generosity from the Minister but that is what we have come to expect—I say that Labour members support the bill. As my colleague has said previously we support many of the clauses and the ideas contained in this bill. Why would we not? We have raised a number of issues especially in relation to the level of warnings and the level of powers that courts are given or are not given. The title of this bill could be perceived to be a bit of a misnomer because it could be the “Vehicle Confiscation (Maybe if a Court Thinks So) Bill” the “Discretionary Vehicle Confiscation the Minister has Given to the Court if One is a Third Party Bill” or the “After Two Warnings and Two Letters a Court Might Choose to Seize and Confiscate the Vehicle Permanently Bill”. I do not think that is what New Zealanders signed up for when they supported this legislation and they do support it. They signed up so that some balanced but tough legislation would be put in place. 
The issue has been canvassed in respect of finance companies in respect of parents and in respect of the vast majority of boy racers who are the ones who change the ownership to a third party—they flick the ownership into each other’s names. The Minister has chosen to give two written warnings and then to leave it up to a court. Maybe I would have bought the idea of the legislation having two written warnings and then saying to the court that it must act. I do not particularly agree with that but I would probably have had a bit more goodwill towards it. But in relation to the third party issue and the confiscation of vehicles when we are looking at the title of this bill we might call it the “One Letter Two Letters and Maybe a Court Might Do Something Bill”. We are saying to a third party: “We are going to extend so much goodwill to you that we will write to you once and say somebody has run amok then write to you again and say somebody has run amok.” I would have thought we would conclude that if it takes three occasions for the third party owner to sort out his or her own arrangements to stop a car going out of his or her control into the hands of somebody else then that person does not deserve to have that vehicle at all. The Minister said that we should give owners a warning and I agree with that; that is fair. 
If we are worried about dad and mum who might be in Sydney when Johnnie takes the car and goes nuts then fair enough a warning should be given. There are provisions in the legislation to protect people’s rights of course. We should give them a warning then let those parents sort it out. Then if on a second occasion they refuse to take responsibility for the control of their own vehicle and they let their same son or daughter run amok again I say that the courts should act and they should act deliberately as they do if a person is both the owner and the offender: the courts can act deliberately on a first offence and take the vehicle and it is mandatory that they act deliberately on a second offence and take the vehicle. I do not think that most people would buy the argument: “I didn’t quite know Johnnie had taken the car for a second time. I didn’t take any measures to sort him out and take the keys off him or whatever.” I think people would say: “Well you got a warning you didn’t control your son or daughter so it’s out.” 
But even putting that matter aside in respect of the title this bill is not about kids taking their parents’ car and going nuts in it. This as the police have told us before is about boy and girl racers who change the ownership of their respective cars as time and time again over months the Minister has quite rightly pointed out. They change the ownership arrangements of their own vehicles amongst themselves. In that case I do not think we should be giving them one “naughty” letter two “naughty” letters then saying to a judge: “It’s over to you judge. It’s up to you. We wash our hands of it.” I would have thought if the Minister’s intentions were pure that she would say: “All right things can go wrong. It is possible that the young person may not have known that their mate took the car and went crazy so let’s send them a short sharp shock.” as she terms it. But she is guaranteeing to Parliament that the behaviour will change absolutely once a person gets a letter hand-delivered apparently by a New Zealand police officer. 
Well that is great; it is another job that the New Zealand Police have to do. They will now be courier drivers. They will have to take the letters around personally rather than freeing up those same police staff to deal with serious crime. A squadron of them in a blue uniform will now probably be employed to hand-deliver letters to people. That is interesting is it not? What happened to back office front office and front line and to getting rid of bureaucracy? It is an interesting point. 
I would have thought there should be one letter that states that if it happens again there will be a consequence. As I say for a young person it may have been unintended; somebody else may have taken the young person’s car for a joyride. When the young person gets the letter that young person should say: “Hang on—I’m not letting this happen again.” and he or she should take control of the keys. The keys should stay in the pocket and should not be left around the kitchen table perhaps. But if it happens again the judge must take the car. I think that is a reasonable proposition. To be honest I have gone around and talked to a lot of parents and folks listened to what they have said and I have not had anybody who disagrees with me. 
People are shocked though when we explain to them the content of this legislation say that the Minister has differentiated between third party and owner-offender and tell them how she has actually weakened the bill. The Minister talks about a couple of warnings—“Let’s be fair.” she says. “Let’s not be Draconian. Let’s find some balance.” she says. Maybe this bill should be called the “Judith Collins (Fairness Balance and Non-Draconian Measures) Bill”. Of course that was not what Judith Collins was saying months ago when she was firing from the lip before officials got to her and said: “Hang on Minister; there are a couple of other things you should know about this. Before you go out and raise expectations we need to look at how this will work practically on the ground.” 
I hope these measures work because people have had a gutsful of this problem. What we have tried to do in this debate and what we are trying to do in respect of clause 1 the title debate is to point out to the Minister—and she has this permanent smile on her face has she not; this permanently humble smile— 
Paul Quinn 
: Because she’s happy! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well I wonder. I challenge the Minister to go around the country and I wonder whether she will have the same smile on her face if this legislation does not work. We have offered some suggestions some amendments and some assistance. Our good will is pure because we are backing this bill. As I have said before this will be the “Judith Collins (Accountability Measures) Bill”. The Minister in the chair Judith Collins is laughing and gesticulating in her humble way but this legislation will give us the opportunity to hold the Minister to account when this legislation does not work and when the boy racers thumb their noses not only at the Minister and not only at Parliament but at the police. 
It is interesting that we had the revelation by chance this morning that we will have uniformed front-line officers going around delivering letters because the Minister said— 
Carol Beaumont 
: There are fewer cars. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: With fewer cars the letters will be delivered on foot or via taxi. The Minister has said that behaviour will change when a letter arrives that is delivered by a member of the New Zealand Police force. Well that is interesting is it not? When the choice is to act on that delivery or a burglary the signal from the Minister will be to get around and deliver those letters because her reputation will be on the line. 
Again in the dying stages of this bill I go on record as saying that we will show the courtesy of supporting the bill because it will be a litmus test for this Minister. There is a huge gap in the rhetoric and in terms of what the Minister could have done. Maybe she did not think of accepting our amendment or maybe the officials did not recommend that action to her but if she had accepted our amendment I would have congratulated her on it because that would have shown a bipartisan approach. Who cares where the idea has come from? Let us see whether we can make the show work. I recall that in respect of my bill we had quite a few good ideas from a number of MPs around Parliament and in the select committee. I thought we should adopt them and we did adopt them. That is what I have said in relation to this bill but the Minister has chosen in her own inimitable and humble way to plough on ahead. 
I just note that this bill could well be the “Judith Collins Accountability Bill” because we will see in the next 12 months to 2 years exactly what the measures will do. Then I suspect as Mr Garrett has pointed out—and I welcome his support—that we may well be back here amending the legislation. The problem with that of course will be that that is another 2 years in which people from Mr Garrett’s patch and around the country will have had to put up with this legislation. It will be ironic if we return to this place and put through the amendment that this Minister has turned down. It will be ironic but it will also be very sad and tragic for those people who will have had to put up with it yet again for another year or two. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Sentencing (Vehicle Confiscation) Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings (Vehicle Seizure) Amendment Bill and the Privacy Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 70. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Sentencing (Vehicle Confiscation) Amendment Bill 
Summary Proceedings (Vehicle Seizure) Amendment Bill 
Privacy Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Vehicle Confiscation) Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings (Vehicle Seizure) Amendment Bill and the Privacy Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. We are one step closer to making our streets safer. We will strengthen the powers of the courts to order the confiscation of motor vehicles empower the courts to order the destruction of motor vehicles used by recidivist illegal street racers and toughen the provisions to seize motor vehicles to enforce the collection of unpaid fines. We will take the fun out of illegal street racing. We will make it as difficult as possible for illegal street racers to flout the law and disrupt people’s lives. This legislation along with the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Act will crack down on those who persist in racing their cars on public streets doing burnouts pouring diesel on the road and disturbing aggravating and endangering the general public. 
During the past stages of this legislation I have acknowledged those parties who are supporting this legislation. The members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee scrutinised the detail within the legislation making good legislation better and members of the public took the time to make a submission. I thank Parliamentary Counsel Office staff for consistently delivering high-quality legislative drafting in an efficient professional manner. I also thank the officials from the New Zealand Police the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Transport. 
This legislation has been labelled the crushing legislation because it introduces a new penalty for illegal street racing: vehicle destruction. The amendments to the Sentencing Act establish a new confiscation and destruction order which the court can impose as a penalty for repeat illegal street racing offences. 
This Government is focused on making an impact on crime. Just as the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act will hit gangs where it hurts by targeting their cash and assets this legislation will hit boy racers where it hurts by targeting their vehicles. We have learnt from past legislation that fines do not work. Infringement notices become badges of honour stashed in the glove box without a second thought. The car is the most prized possession of the illegal street racer. If a fraction of the time boy racers took grooming and modifying their cars was put into considering the harm they do to the community we would not have this problem. This Government has no hesitation in targeting those beloved vehicles in order for the message to be heard loud and clear that illegal street racing will not be tolerated. 
The amendments to the Summary Proceedings Act also target the vehicle. We know that illegal street racers sometimes use low-value cars to commit offences. These are cheap cars kept to be driven roughly and recklessly with little cost to the owner when they are damaged. In the past the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 provided that vehicles were seized just to recover fines. This has meant that low-value vehicles are sometimes used repeatedly and incur fines but are not seized enabling the vehicle to be continually used to commit traffic offences. The purpose of the new vehicle seizure provisions is to reduce traffic offending opportunities as well as to collect overdue fines. Low-value cars that have incurred fines will now also be seized. This will mean that those cars are no longer in the hands of offenders and are no longer able to be continually used to illegally race and disturb the peace. 
The groundwork for this legislation has closely scrutinised the existing loopholes that have been exploited by illegal street racers. One standout area is people who use the cars of others in order to avoid being caught and penalised. The amendments to the Sentencing Act authorise the confiscation of vehicles that an offender does not own or have an interest in but that a third party who has been warned about the consequences of the offender continuing to offend in his or her vehicle owns or has an interest in. This means that one can no longer borrow a mate’s car pull a couple of doughnuts on a public road and avoid the consequences. This also means that one cannot borrow a car that belongs to mum dad or nana for a few quick stunts when one’s own car is already impounded. Those cars are now able to be confiscated and potentially destroyed. This provision will hopefully make those in the community around illegal street racers more vigilant of their illicit activities. This legislation creates an environment that makes this type of offending as difficult as possible. 
I will now address the issue of the discretionary confiscation of vehicles that belong to a third party. The central objective of this legislation is to significantly reduce the harm and nuisance caused to communities by illegal street racers. This has been achieved by delivering a comprehensive package of measures that include local government - controlled sanctions measures to reduce noise measures to reduce cruising increased powers to inspect modified vehicles increased driver’s-licence demerit points and harsher penalties for illegal street racing offences. This Government has been very diligent to ensure that this legislation will impact upon illegal street racers and not on other members of the public. For this reason the courts will have the discretion to weigh up all the issues at hand and to make a fair and reasonable judgment when deciding whether to confiscate or to confiscate and destroy the vehicle of a third party. 
An arbitrary decision that all people who have had their vehicles used to commit illegal street racing offences must be liable for vehicle confiscation and destruction will not solve this problem. The real solution lies in the comprehensive package of measures that will work in unison to effectively target illegal street racing. These new tools will further empower the police to address local illegal street racing problems with local solutions applying well-informed operational responses that are backed up by strong laws. These tools will also empower courts to provide appropriate penalties for illegal street racers who continue to endanger their lives and the lives of others. 
I now move to a matter that was raised in the Committee stage by the Opposition around the delivery of warning letters. I made the comment that these letters could be delivered by the police. That is actually in the legislation and I am sorry that Opposition members have not bothered to read it. It is very clear that the letters can be delivered by the police by court staff or by people contracted to do so by the courts. It is very clear; it should not come as a surprise to Opposition members. If they had actually scrutinised the legislation then they would know it. 
In conclusion however I am proud to have responsibility for this legislation. It clearly responds to the demands of New Zealanders. I know this for a fact as I have received resounding support for this legislation as I have travelled around the country. In addition to this emails and letters have flooded in congratulating this Government on having the strength and commitment to deliver on its word. However we are a minority Government and we cannot pass this legislation without the support of other parties in the House. I particularly thank United Future the ACT Party the Maori Party and latterly the Labour Party which has now come on board. 
This vehicle confiscation and seizure legislation along with the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Act will provide a comprehensive suite of legislative changes specifically designed to stop illegal street racers in their tracks. I look forward to seeing the implementation of these laws and to seeing the streets of New Zealand become safer more peaceful and free from the chaos that is created by illegal street racing. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I wish the Minister of Police well on the aims she outlined at the conclusion of her speech. I hope they happen. I suspect every member of the House shares the same view. I hope the problem is cleaned up and that the legislation stops the problem in its tracks because I my colleagues—Ruth Dyson Lianne Dalziel and Brendon Burns—members from Hamilton and Auckland and everybody in fact suffer from this insidious sort of activity. 
We have said that we will support the legislation. We believe that there are some very good provisions in it such as the tightening up of the provisions on hardship and the closing of the loophole so that we can go after a third party. We disagree on how that provision is being proposed but I will get to that in a moment. We support the intent of this legislation as we supported the last bill the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. 
It is incumbent on Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to point out issues and we have some difficulty in the gap between the rhetoric and the actual implementation. Communities were told that this Government would get tough on this issue and I say: “Good on the Government.” because it should get tough on it. I had a crack at it as a backbencher. I did not have the Minister’s vast resources of departments when I drafted my bill on this issue as a backbencher. The advice I received was that we had covered the bases. There were some things that we had not thought of obviously because I do not have a monopoly on all knowledge on this issue unlike the Minister. I have some experience though. She has no generosity in acknowledging the fact that we had a crack at this; we did not have the official advice that she had. I applaud her for closing those third-party loopholes for the hardship provisions and for a number of other clauses that are contained in this bill. 
But here is the difficulty. The community was told that this Minister would get tough. The communities up and down the country were told that every car would be closer to the crusher. As I say these words will be etched on their memories. It was a very good line I thought and although the “Crusher Collins” line was a good nickname for about 3 days I do not think it will be a good nickname as we go forward and see the results of this legislation. Everybody was under the impression that these cars would be rolled up and crushed but then we got down to tintacks. These are not my words; these are the Minister’s own words on radio and in the newspaper. She was asked how many cars she thought would be crushed. She said that she expected 10 a year. In Christchurch we know that 1000 cars maraud around the show each Friday night. How will 10 cars a year incentivise a change in behaviour? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Not even a block’s worth. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is not even a block’s worth Ms Dyson says. After months of tough rhetoric today the Minister started talking about fairness balance and not wanting to be Draconian. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: She’s been told to sweeten up. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will not comment on that but here is the serious point. The impression the communities had was that the crusher would roll. The crusher has not rolled or rather it will roll to only 10 cars a year. Then the Minister said on radio that she was absolutely confident that the courts would enforce this provision. She is a lawyer and once was president of the Auckland District Law Society. She knows that no one can guarantee what judges will do. Their job is to interpret the law. 
The other difficulty we have is with the implementation of the warning provisions. The Minister said she would get tough. I ask those who may be listening and those in the communities whether it is tough that when a boy racer changes the ownership of his or her car and allow a boy-racing mate to use the car to run amok and terrorise a community the owner who is a boy racer gets a letter saying that somebody has been very naughty in that car. How tough is that? I wonder what the communities will say. 
On a second offence by the boy racer’s mate the owner will get a second letter—it may be signed by Judith Collins herself—with some naughty words on it to frighten the boy racer saying that somebody has been very very naughty in that car. Then there is a third offence within 4 years when the boy racer’s mate takes the car to run amok in another community and a third group of residents experience the nuisance or in some cases are terrorised by this sort of behaviour. We know there is violence attached to what happens here. We have seen that. 
On the third offence it will be discretionary for the judge whether to take any action. There is no mandatory requirement as there would be if the Minister preserved my existing legislative provisions. Under my provisions on a first offence if the owner of the car is also the offender the judge may take the car forever and on a second offence the judge must take it for ever. If the boy racer is the third party and has let his or her boy-racing mate run amok three times under this legislation it is then up to the judge. The judge might do nothing or might order that the car be crushed. That is optional. Maybe the judge will order that the car be taken permanently. That is optional. 
We simply put an amendment forward that said we should give the third party a letter that says that if his or her mate takes the car and runs amok again a court will take the car forever—permanently. Where it happens to be mum’s car or dad’s car—rare though that is as we know from the police—all the mums and dads that I have talked to have said they will deal with Johnny and give him the message real quick that he ain’t taking their car. The keys will go in the pocket not on the hook on the wall in the kitchen. If the Government wants to get tough and break the back of this problem we offer a suggestion. We believe this bill is weak and that this Minister has been weak. Her only counterargument is that we must have balance and we must have fairness. I could not believe what I was hearing to be honest. 
The other point we made on the legislation was that we adhered to the Police Association’s view around crushing. In its submission the Police Association said: “the car-crushing provisions are unfortunately ‘a sideshow that looks good … but [which] in reality will have very little effect’.” I agree with the Police Association because the Minister told us that cars would be heading to the crusher. I challenge any member of this House to say that the communities did not have the impression from this Minister that the cars would be lined up in droves. I challenge any member to say that the communities did not have that perception because they did. But the Minister’s own words condemn her proposition. She has said it will be 10 cars a year. In Christchurch as Mr David Carter knows and in Hamilton—the Hamilton member may be here somewhere; Hamilton has been through hell—hundreds of these vehicles are leering it up causing mayhem. There are hundreds damn near every night of the week. The Minister said 10 cars a year will be crushed. That proves that the Police Association’s point is right and that it will be “a sideshow that looks good”. Members can imagine what Judith Collins will say when the first car gets crushed and then when nine others are. I have met boy racers and I have been threatened by them. I have talked with them and they will not give a rat’s about 10 cars a year being crushed. 
The other reason we oppose crushing is a practical reason. Most of the boy racers as the Minister rightly points out have huge numbers of fines and court costs to pay and often the only asset they have is a souped-up wagon. They do not drive heaps; they are very proud of the wagons that they drive. Some have told me they have put $30000 or $40000 into them. That is great stuff if they are acting legally. Given that that is the only asset that many of them have and given that they owe fines and court costs the question is how we should deal with those fines and court costs. My belief is that we should maximise the asset value and dollar value of that asset the car in such a way as to utilise those funds so that the offender—I will not put words in Mr Garrett’s mouth but I suspect even he may agree with this—pays his or her own court costs and fines. If that does not happen and the wagon is crushed and is useless who ends up paying those court costs and fines? The taxpayer does. I do not think the innocent should have to cough up for the offender. If the car is cut up for parts what will they do then? We could maximise its value through selling parts. The issue of recycling has been trumpeted in this Chamber where a boy racer goes and buys the wagon back but even in the police’s own submission not one shred of analysis or evidence has been given to us that shows that boy racers are running around the back of Turners Auctions and buying the wagons back. Not one piece of evidence has been given to show that. The Minister’s only suggestion was to go and talk to the police and they would tell us. Well I have. Some time ago I even visited a police yard and had a look at all of the wagons that were impounded—some were very impressive I have to say. But no evidence at all has been put before this House by that Minister to show that this sort of mass recycling is going on. 
This issue is serious and I will tell members why it is serious. People are dying. The police told us there were 56 fatalities last year and a couple of hundred injuries. People are dying and people are losing friends. It is more serious than just the leer-up and the doughnut on the footy field lawn. It is mainly young people and they are dying on the roads. I am a rugby fanatic. If guys were playing rugby on State Highway 1 I would say to those fullas that I love the game but I would ask why they do not go and do it safely on the footy field at the club. I think this House has made that plea for many years: people should go and join a car club act legally and then come to MPs and councils and say that they have doubled the membership of the car club and they want us to provide them with more facilities. I would buy into that if they act legally first. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the third reading of the vehicle confiscation and seizure legislation. I think despite some of the things that have been said it has pretty widespread support across the House. The reason for that is that all of us as members of Parliament and members of the public have had experience of the types of illegal street racing behaviour that this bill and its companion bill the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill are designed to control. It has affected us all. We have certainly had constituents come and tell us about their experiences. I thank the submitters to the select committee once again for their candour their bravery and also for the clear way in which they articulated the manner in which it is affecting their communities. I think Mr Garrett talked earlier about freedom—the freedom to go and pursue those interests but without externalising the impacts of those activities on people who do not want to be involved in them. As the Minister mentioned this bill and its companion bill the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill which we passed last night take us one step closer to a situation where members of the public I think can go about their lives without the fear and intimidation that at present exists because of this behaviour. It is a really significant step on that journey and there is no doubt that it will improve the situation but I do not think the Ministers the officials members of Parliament or the public are under any illusions that it is a magic bullet that we have come to the end of that journey and that the problem is solved because clearly it is not. 
I will just touch on two policy areas that I think the Ministers are working on and that are a work in progress. The first is the matter of noise. Noise was discussed quite a bit in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It was certainly discussed in the Committee stage of the previous bill. I think noise is really the symptom of the underlying behaviour. It is not necessarily the cause of all the problems but it is a significant symptom. I am confident that some of the measures that are put in place with these two bills will reduce the impact of noise on the public but I do not think that the journey is over yet. 
The other area I will touch on is failure to stop. We have had serious representations by the police and the Police Association about failure to stop being the single most dangerous aspect of illegal street racing behaviour. That is where people are dying. I am pleased to see that an impoundment clause was added to the previous legislation. I put officials through quite stern examination of another suggestion around a mandatory 28-day licence suspension which could be added to section 128 of the Sentencing Act through this bill. It was not but I was very satisfied with the answers about why that was not possible and also encouraged by the fact that more policy work would be done in this area. 
There are other peripheral factors like alcohol in cars the issue of third-party insurance and the mass gathering and social disorder that comes with it. That is still a work in progress but I think we have taken a significant step forward. 
My last comment is addressed to the car enthusiasts themselves. We heard submissions from many law-abiding car-loving owners who said that they were simply going about their activities doing the things they love in a peaceful and legal manner. They said that they spent a lot of time and money on their vehicles and that they really enjoyed the opportunity to park up share their stories show off their cars in a legal way and do other activities. We heard from one submitter in Hamilton who suggested to us that 95 percent of car lovers are engaging in behaviour that is legal and OK and it is only a very small minority who drive illegally. Here is my message to the 95 percent: weed out the others. Get rid of them because they are bringing down the reputation of the 95 percent and they are creating a huge amount of public anxiety and fear. If the proportions are that then those law-abiding car lovers also have a responsibility to take control of their activities. I leave that as the challenge. I support this bill and I look forward to its passage. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will start by saying that I thought that was a very thoughtful contribution by Michael Woodhouse. I actually agree with most of it if not all of it. He much more realistically captured the status of the three bills that were divided from the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill whose third reading we are debating unlike the Minister Judith Collins who was flagging them as a solution to the boy-racer problem. Michael Woodhouse has correctly indicated that elements of these bills will be useful steps along the way but there are many areas that still require further work. I intend to cover those issues as well. 
I have stood in the House on several occasions to speak on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and its companion bill the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill to acknowledge those people who brought their stories to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I want to do that again. We were all profoundly affected by the presentations of those people who have to deal with this problem in their day-to-day lives particularly in the submissions made in Christchurch. I cannot express more strongly that I sympathise with those people for the impact that it has on their lives. 
I also think that there were very thoughtful submissions from a number of agencies trying to grapple with the problem. There are genuine car enthusiasts. There are a whole lot of associated issues around things like freedom of association. There are issues about balancing of rights. But the bottom line as everybody on that select committee recognised is that there is a need to address this issue and tackle the problem of those who are making other people’s lives a misery. Whether it is affecting them in terms of sleep deprivation their feeling of security and ability to go about their business damage to their property by people breaking glass or their business they are all significant impacts. There were 58 submissions on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and I particularly thank those people and the officials who worked with us in providing advice throughout the process. 
I will focus on a couple of scene-setting matters. I talked quite a bit about noise in the debate on those two bills and I will briefly mention that again but one of the other areas I flagged was the issue of road safety. I note that in the 4 years between 2004 and 2008 illegal street racing was implicated in 49 fatal crashes 160 serious injury crashes and 376 minor injury crashes and in 2008 there were 2431 convictions for illegal street racing. It is a significant problem and at its most extreme it is causing loss of life. It is not a trivial matter at all. 
The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill particularly looked at strengthening powers of the court to order confiscation but it went on to include the destruction of motor vehicles and that is where we have got into all the hype about “Crusher Collins” and all of that sort of carry-on. That is where I think we have gone off-track on this legislation. The bits around strengthening confiscation and dealing with loopholes like the third party provisions are really useful additions to the statute that we already have on the statute book. They will assist the police and others in making sure that we deal with this issue. The issue of destruction of motor vehicles is actually just a red herring. I think it has been beefed up by members opposite as really getting tough. Labour has supported these bills. We have tried to amend the legislation to toughen up the confiscation provisions because getting those cars off the road—the confiscation of those cars—is as serious as destruction. Our view is that the courts are not very likely to go down the destruction track. A lot of the submitters thought that the destruction provision was just ridiculous and that it was not where we should be focusing our attention. The bill also strengthens provisions around the enforcement of the collection of unpaid fines and reparation. Again I say that we strongly support that. There are too many people who have been able to use loopholes to get out of taking responsibility for their actions in that regard. 
We have said all the way through that we will support measures to crack down on illegal street racing. It is an issue that Labour has consistently engaged with and has tried to deal with over a number of years. In the course of this debate we put up a proposition to toughen the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. Unfortunately despite our requests of the Government to support that amendment it was not taken up. Essentially Supplementary Order Paper 73 aimed to reinstate the original intention of the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003 whereby after two street racing offences within 4 years an offender’s vehicle must be permanently confiscated. It sought to apply that same provision to the substitute for the offender. Mr Cosgrove talked about it in detail so I will not go into that Supplementary Order Paper but it maintained the safeguards and appeal rights that were in the bill. Basically we wanted to ensure that the bill was toughened up with regard to confiscation on a second offence. We have said all the way through that we do not agree with crushing cars. It is a waste and we think it a distraction from the real issues. We put up that amendment but unfortunately it was not accepted by the Government. 
The other thing I would like talk about in some detail is the provision around a substitute for the offender. As I mentioned we are strongly supportive of this provision. It closes a loophole where those who are engaged in illegal street racing have effectively transferred ownership backwards and forwards between themselves their parents their friends or whatever. This seeks to address what has been identified as a real problem and we support it. A provision to be added to the Sentencing Act by clause 5 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill basically means that a person can become a substitute for the offender. There are protections so that for example the court cannot order confiscation of a vehicle owned by a substitute if the substitute could not have reasonably known that the offender would commit an offence or if the substitute took all reasonable steps to prevent the commissioning of an offence. That is important. It is important that we do not get so Draconian that we take away people’s rights. There was consideration around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in that regard. It was vetted by Crown Law and it found that this provision was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That was particularly so because there are no criminal penalties associated with this provision. I think that the substitute for the offender provision was an important change and it is one we are strongly supportive of. 
The other area I want to go back to is where I started around the real issues here. Throughout this debate I have consistently said that noise is a real issue. I concur with what Michael Woodhouse said in relation to the issue of noise. The other issues are road safety and antisocial behaviour. When we boiled down the implications of what people were saying to us those were the things that were impacting on their lives. Those are the things that we need to be addressing if we are serious about dealing with the issue of illegal street racing. 
In our report on this bill we Labour members raised our concern that cuts to police resources will impact negatively on the ability to effectively deal with the problems arising from illegal street racing. The police’s role in this is absolutely crucial not only in an enforcement sense but also in a community safety and community policing sense. Mr Woodhouse talked about some of the people who might for the purposes of this debate be characterised as the good boy-racers or the people who like to use their vehicles in certain ways and show off in their vehicles and everything else in a way that is not disadvantaging anybody else. Community policing is really important in having those relationships and in trying to foster a voice for those people. We talked to some of those people in Christchurch to make sure that police responses take account of information that those people will be hearing about some of the people we might characterise as the bad boy racers. Again I say that police resourcing is important in terms of both enforcement and the community policing side of things. We are worried about the current budget cuts including the loss of police vehicles and the implications that that will have on effective policing. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Firstly I congratulate the previous speaker Carol Beaumont who brought back the focus on to the other measures that the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill provides for which are contained in clause 15 “Sale of confiscated motor vehicles” and the disposition of the proceeds thereof. We heard an awful lot of excited rhetoric from Mr Cosgrove about the crushing provisions which I will come to myself as well. I am very pleased that Ms Beaumont pointed out that the remedy that is most likely to be applied is confiscation and sale of the vehicle either in whole or in part and of course that is sensible. The sale process has appeal for the reasons that many members have spoken of but there are also problems if the vehicle is sold as a whole because of the auction process that members on this side of the House are well familiar with if Mr Burns is not. 
I turn to the points made about crushing. The first point that needs to be emphasised is that this is very much a last resort; it is not the first. It involves the concept of deterrence and it is a very ancient concept. I think the French put it most elegantly—pour encourager les autres—but it goes back to Greek and Roman times. It basically says that someone shoots a deserter to discourage others to pick one unpleasant example. Or in this context to crush one car to discourage the 500 or 1000 others who are subject to it. 
Unlike Mr Cosgrove I do not believe that all criminals are stupid; I believe that most criminals are rational. We have all used the term boy racers even though it is somewhat benign. Boy racing is a rational offence. A person intending to go down Moorhouse Avenue or do endless circuits through Hagley Park needs to decide he or she is going to do it then go and fill up the car call or text the other clowns go to the appointed spot and carry out the activity. That is a series of rational steps made by that person or persons. It is not a murder committed in the heat of the moment and it is not a drugged assault or another kind of assault committed in the heat of the moment. It is a rational considered offence. 
Evidence shows that deterrence very much works in that area. It is one of the reasons why violent crime has decreased 60 percent in California since 1994 when the “three strikes” law was introduced. Contrary to popular belief it is not just because of incapacitation. A study cited in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill showed a 22 percent reduction in crime due to deterrence. 
I ask members to imagine in the context of this bill the impact of that first crushing. Let us say that the Minister or Mr Cosgrove for that matter are right and there are only 10 crushings a year. Mr Cosgrove has said and he appears to have plenty of knowledge of this field that a lot of those vehicles are worth 30 grand. Well 30 grand is a lot of money to me; I think the best of my two cars is worth about $5500. Imagine the impact that crushing a $30000 car will have if that is someone’s only asset. Hopefully some sensible judge and there are a good many of them will pick as a first example one of the cars that Mr Cosgrove referred to—a nice shiny thing. I do not know what the hoons think that would be—a Subaru Impreza or something hotted up lowered and given a nice paint job. Imagine the impact of crushing that car on the rest of the boy racers. It might not work; it might not deter everybody. It might take two crushings or five but I warrant that this will have an effect when crushing is reached eventually; it will have an effect. 
I could cite a very unpleasant case in South Auckland concerning deterrence but I will not for reasons of taste. The fact is that when it comes to rational offending which requires intention deliberation and steps deterrence has been shown to work and I believe it will work in this case. We are happy to support this bill but as I said earlier and I will repeat if it does not work we will be happy to support any amendment that closes any loophole that someone in my profession manages to find in the coming months or years. Thank you. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is opposed to the vehicle confiscation and seizure legislation. We think this legislation along with some other bills the Government is introducing goes in the wrong direction of thinking that the answer to criminal behaviour is just to extend the penalties and get tougher and tougher and tougher. That response is only filling up our jails—overfilling our jails—and now we are talking about double-bunking and all the rest of it. There was a reaction to that approach by the Chief Justice some weeks back. More recently I saw a very insightful column by Colin James a well-respected commentator who was worried that we are going in the direction of more penalties longer sentences etc. 
David Garrett 
: You’re a criminal sympathiser. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: There is an interjection that I am a criminal sympathiser. The legal fraternity particularly a lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington has made the point that the prison rate in countries like Sweden that have taken a different course is much lower than the prison rate in New Zealand. So we are increasing the rate of crime. That is the people who are on this law and order offensive are the pro-criminal ones because they are creating more criminals. They are reducing the possibility of rehabilitation; prisons are by and large schools for crime. If members are anti-crime they should be against this legislation. 
The report on the bill from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee says that it offended against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of the provisions for confiscation destruction and seizure. This idea of a penalty of crushing an object in this case a car is not one that the Greens support. We do not support physically destroying material such as the cars which could have another use. There may be cases for forced confiscation and the like but surely the vehicle itself should remain to be of use to somebody if not the offender. So this whole idea of crushing cars seems to be offensive to common sense. We are very much against that. It is surely offensive to any ecological approach of recycling material and continuing objects in circulation and in use. 
We also disagree with the Labour minority report which said that the judges should not have discretion on whether there should be confiscation or destruction—crushing of a vehicle. We think the judges should have discretion because it is very complicated. In fact the whole issue is intensely complicated and the more the Government goes down this law and order track the more complicated it becomes in terms of who has ownership rights and might reuse the vehicle who it might be onsold to and all the rest of it. It is getting into a total tangle. The more we go in the direction of extreme measures like destruction the more tangle we get into and probably the more appeals court cases and cost to the Government and the taxpayer. So in general we are against this bill and will be voting accordingly. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker kia ora tatou i tenei ata. Before I start my speech I say that I have sympathy for Mr Locke’s comments in respect of wasting of cars especially if someone is struggling to get one. I understand where he is coming from. But if the general intent is to make a point around this whole issue of not boy racers per se but certainly the issues of safety then the Maori Party is compelled to go with this legislation. Albeit hearing that I would not mind some of those cars—drop off a muffler here or there or a few of the add-ons just to make the look more impressive as some might say. But be that as it may that is another issue. 
Hon John Carter 
: You’d be too scared to drive it! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: No I would have a go. Today as we have heard the legislation has been divided and there are three bills before the House right now in the third reading stage. It is a remarkable coincidence that these three bills feature the impact of boy-racer traffic offending and that they are in fact in front of the House at this time when accident compensation is very much on the national agenda. As stated in earlier stages the Maori Party is well aware that Maori are overrepresented in nearly every injury statistic but particularly from car accidents. In a study published by the Ngai Tahu Maori health research centre and the injury prevention research unit at the University of Otago a key finding was that youth was an important risk factor with two-thirds of Maori casualties aged between 15 and 34 years of age. 
The study “Motor vehicle traffic crashes involving Maori” published in the  
New 
Zealand Medical Journal 
 points out that the majority of crashes involving Maori have occurred on two-way sealed roads that were either in a city or on the outskirts of a city. So enter the boy-racer phenomenon. 
These bills accompany the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill and make three significant amendments to the current law. The bills amend the Sentencing Act the Summary Proceedings Act and the Privacy Act in order to reduce boy-racer traffic offending. The legislation in particular strengthens the powers of the courts to order the confiscation of cars and to give them the powers to order the destruction of cars used by persistent street racing offenders. It strengthens provisions to seize cars in order to enforce protection of unpaid fines and reparation. I can understand some of the reactions that have been highlighted about this course of legislation which are that it appears overly heavy. But a number of circumstances convince me of the importance of this legislation. 
The first is that the court must not order the destruction of a vehicle if it will result in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person and that might be the little out that Mr Locke was looking for. But more important I bring us back to the importance of road-traffic crashes as a health issue for young Maori males. Professor Mason Durie has commented that the effect of injury to rangatahi—young people—is accentuated by the loss of the benefits that can flow from competent healthy skilled whanau members. In real terms this is the loss of the whanau asset—the promise of a future generation if one wants to put it that way. 
More than any other issue examining the phenomenon of boy racing reminds us of the vital need to develop strategies for prevention of road traffic injuries amongst Maori. We must allocate priority to rehabilitation and support services for Maori injured as a result of motor vehicle crashes. This is where the craze for fast racing and souped-up cars takes on a far more serious dimension. We are not talking about a bit of harmless fun and the boys out having a bit of a good time. We are talking about events that in the end result in death or long-term disability resulting from injuries. We are talking about the traumatic loss suffered by whanau when individuals suffer the consequences of road crashes. We are thinking about the real cost of care imposed on carers and whanau. 
The research I cited earlier showed that head injuries were incurred by around 35 percent of Maori casualties admitted to hospital followed by fractures of the lower limb the neck and the trunk. I was interested in the views of the YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki group which was that the bills together represent a regime of significantly more deterrence penalties and enforcement provisions particularly in respect of illegal street racing and that the boy-racer subculture is the primary target of enforcement. 
Another interesting submission was the one from the Candor Trust Campaign Against Drugs on Roads. Its position was that New Zealand road toll statistics tell us that noise is the key boy-racer issue and not road traffic for the most part. Noise is an issue but that issue does not kill people and there is the difference. 
I come back to the problem we face as a Parliament. There are public safety issues including the death and injury of young people that definitely need to be addressed. We in the Maori Party are particularly concerned about the significant burden to the health of young Maori created by death and injury due to motor vehicle crashes. We admit that our support for this bill is in the total and absolute hope that anything we can do to prevent illegal street racing will help to maintain public health and safety. 
We also acknowledge there are many issues left unanswered. There are many concerns and questions left unresolved. For instance we know that alongside being young and male a high proportion some 70 percent of Maori casualties were from areas with high levels of deprivation—that is decile 7 to 10. Such a finding highlights the need to further explore the association between the social and economic determinants of health in relation to injury and motor vehicle traffic crashes. Is it to do with the condition of the car the quality of life the health or the educational circumstances of the driver? These are some of the key questions we need to consider. 
The police reports describe a particular profile of a boy-racer. Typically boy racers are male aged between 16 and 28 years of age and employed in the middle class. They lack criminal histories but have usually racked up some fines for driving offences. If we have such specific demographic details one wonders whether we should in fact be targeting the driver and not the car—again to take up Mr Locke’s point. 
Then there is the fact of the activities associated with the boy-racer subculture. Again boy racers are typically associated with firstly alcohol consumption; secondly with stunt driving including burnouts doughnuts and drag racing; thirdly they are usually associated with wilful and unconscious damage of public and private property; and fourthly they are associated with networks brought together by word of mouth cellphones and car horns as alluded to by my ACT colleague. Is the combined impact of each of those deeds in fact the worse evil? That again is a question we should pose. Rather should we be putting our energy into a comprehensive campaign on road safety and targeting all of our energy into addressing the drivers who are happy not to wear seatbelts but to speed to drink and drive and to take risks? Or maybe we are targeting things too late. Perhaps we should instead be promoting best practice from the moment our babies are in car seats. These are the questions that I hope having been through the debate we might address in the future should as Mr Cosgrove alluded to this legislation come back to bite us in the bum later on. 
My colleague Rahui Katene MP for Te Tai Tonga has talked to me about the submission from Te Puawaitanga ki Otautahi Trust. In its petition to the Safer Journeys 2020 strategy it focused its efforts on the current use of child restraints. According to the trust’s sources approximately 16 tamariki per year die as a result of motor vehicle accidents and another 275 are hospitalised. Even after extensive campaigns to address those issues one or two cars out of 10 still have tamariki travelling unsecured and only one in five have car seats that are fitted properly. 
I have taken us on a rather rapid gallop across the whole range of the issues strategies and interventions in the broader area of road safety because I believe we need to be innovative as we look into this issue and across all areas of public health and safety concerns if we really want to look at better outcomes in terms of public safety. Ultimately I guess the real success of the legislation we are voting for today will be in the immediate outcomes we can measure in mortality statistics and hospitalisation statistics and in rehabilitation data. But it is in the interests of health and well-being and the well-being of our whanau in particular that we of the Maori Party will be voting in support of this bill in its third reading today. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the third readings of the vehicle confiscation and seizure legislation the Government’s response to illegal street racing. I congratulate Judith Collins on her crusade against this activity; the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett; the officials who did a lot of work and assisted the committee; and of course the submitters. 
This legislation gives greater powers to the police courts and local authorities to tackle illegal street racers. Along with its companion bill—the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Bill which has now passed its third reading—it will send a strong message that illegal street racing is unacceptable and that mob-like hoon-like behaviour will not be tolerated under any circumstances. The public is sick of being terrorised pedestrians and residents are sick of being menaced by this menacing-type behaviour and it will not be tolerated. 
We heard in the select committee that businesses in Christchurch were being affected. Their clients had disturbed sleep residents had disturbed sleep and this year Southern Cross Hospital had to move patients from the front of the building to the back of the building. There is the problem of petrol and diesel being poured on the roads. There is the chewing up of grass verges scattering of rubbish broken glass and fences being destroyed—basically property damage. Those idiots have done enough. They are a danger to themselves and to the public. There have been senseless deaths as a result of illegal street racers. By and large it affects innocent bystanders and young people. There is a tragic unnecessary loss of human life. 
The public are living in fear of reprisals. We heard yesterday of one submitter in Christchurch whose local MP had to submit on the submitter’s behalf because that submitter was so concerned about reprisals. There is concern of vigilante action by the public. Together the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Bill will send a powerful message that the public do not have to live in fear or take matters into their own hands. 
This legislation will allow local authorities to create by-laws and prevent predatory cruising behaviour. In Part 1 there is a new power for the court to order the confiscation and destruction of an offender’s car if that offender is convicted of a third illegal street racing offence within 4 years. That power extends to vehicles owned by a third party; for instance if a car is owned by a parent relative or friend such an owner will be given a written warning that his or her vehicle has been used illegally. We heard about finance companies that previously would not even have known that that activity was happening. I am sure that as a result of a warning letter companies will change their contracts and will take this very seriously. I commend this bill to the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 It is good to be able to speak as we enter the final stages—the home straight if you like—of this legislation. It deserves the House’s attention. It is interesting to note that we did not have from members opposite any Christchurch MPs take part in debate on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill or its companion measure the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill as we went through the Committee of the whole House. I think it is important that we have that sort of representation because Christchurch and certainly my electorate of Christchurch Central has perhaps been the electorate most plagued most focused on and most covered by the media in respect of the boy-racer issue. That is why it is important that I affirm clearly that Labour is strongly in support of this legislation; I think we are hearing that stated time and time again. We have some concerns and questions about the way the legislation deals with the issue of confiscation and crushing and that is why we proposed an amendment in an attempt to make it stronger. 
When I think of the reason we support this legislation I guess it brings me back to people like the moteliers on Bealey Avenue in my electorate. I visited them late last year and saw the damage that was caused by the boy-racer fraternity: letterboxes vandalised neon signs vandalised excreta left in doorways broken glass littering the pavements and that is before— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Was it the National caucus? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: No it was the motels in Bealey Avenue. I looked at the damage that is inflicted every weekend and that is why this legislation is important. That is why Labour is supporting it. Those moteliers deserve to know that Parliament and we as MPs can respond. That is why it is important to say that this legislation is another step in the journey. It will not be some kind of silver cube. It will not provide an ultimate answer in my belief because we will need the ongoing support of the police for instance. We will also need to look at the Law Commission’s report and the proposals emerging for changes in the alcohol laws because alcohol is very significant contributory factor to the problems that we face with boy racers. Not only are they a plague in their cars but also they are a plague where their cars park with the alcohol that is consumed the litter that is left and the glass that is left littering pavements. Many people are affected by that litter. Cyclists for instance are plagued by punctures across Christchurch because of the detritus that is left behind by the boy-racer fraternity. 
I make it very clear to the House in these third readings that Labour is in strong support of this legislation. We would have liked to see an amendment to toughen it up but obviously it is part of an ongoing journey to deal with the problem of boy racers. We have seen time and time again the behaviour of some of those boy racers and Christchurch tends to attract the most focus. We saw in Rotorua in just the last few weeks that a girl racer tried to bring together a show of solidarity in a supposedly peaceful fashion but it got out of hand. That is the problem. There is not a coherent body; it is a collection of random individuals linked by cellphones and behaviour. There is no one coordinated group. We are not dealing with the Mongrel Mob Black Power the Devil’s Henchmen or whatever; we are dealing with a random group of individuals. Yet the damage they wreak can be quite profound. When we look at the attack on the security woman in her car on the perimeter of the Christchurch International Airport in late January or the cowardly and despicable attack on a police officer trying to do his duty in the midst of a mob of boy racers running riot we see that this legislation is important. 
Of course it builds upon the legislation that the last Government passed. Harry Duynhoven was the architect of changes that came through in late 2007 and they in turn had built upon the changes brought by the legislation introduced by my friend and colleague Clayton Cosgrove. So the legislation was introduced in two forms in late 2007. I have to say that I saw some gaps in what was introduced in 2007. That got the support of Christchurch colleagues and amendments were introduced in early 2008 with new regulations that gave police more powers to take cars off the road to deal with noisy exhausts and to modify noisy cars back to a maximum of 90 decibels. So members should not kid themselves about these issues but be very very clear that the legislation is part of a continuum and more changes may be needed. 
I state very clearly that it is one thing for us to pass a bill but we must ensure that the police have the resources to deal with the ongoing issues. I have some nervousness when I see $21 million being squeezed from the police budget when I see community officers being pressed back into service and not doing the community rounds that they are supposed to do and when the police car fleet is reduced. Police resourcing is thin at the best of times and the police need every effort to be made and support to be given. When we consider that in the last calendar year 1500 offence notices were issued by police in Canterbury against boy racers—about 10 times the number issued in Auckland—it gives us an indication of the scale of the issue police are facing in my dear city of Christchurch. 
We are really seeing the tightening of the tourniquet with this legislation but I have to pose the question of how much we as parliamentarians can actually achieve in this respect. Some of these measures simply say very explicitly to judges that they must get a little tougher. Of course they have had the capacity to seize and confiscate cars on the first offence but the indications are that even though there have been tens of thousands of occasions when that might have happened only about 2 percent of the opportunities have been taken up by the courts. So I hope that in a sense the judiciary is able to take a little more notice of what Parliament is trying to express on behalf of a frustrated aggrieved and sometimes frightened constituency: that we as a nation have had a gutsful of the behaviour of boy racers. We as a Parliament in large part—certainly the two major parties with others—agree that we need to continue to toughen up the legislation but Parliament can achieve only so much on behalf of constituents. We need the police to be properly resourced and we need the judiciary to take full note of the concerns that we as parliamentarians are expressing not just on our own behalf but on behalf of the constituents whom we represent. 
If we want to see an idea of the scale of the issue we look at Christchurch. I know that members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee visited Christchurch and I thank them for that. I know they were quite affected by some of the stories of constituents whose lives are being ruined by the behaviours that go on most weekend nights in Christchurch and in other cities. If any member wants to experience that it can be very easily organised to go to a city like Christchurch probably Hamilton or maybe parts of Wellington and Auckland late on a Friday or Saturday night. They will get an idea of what we are dealing with. 
Just for a moment I will talk about the building up of expectations. I think this legislation will help deal with these issues and that is important but we have to acknowledge that there is a high probability that we will be back in the Chamber looking at these issues in the future. That is rather disturbing. The reason I say that is that in the winter of last year I started getting feedback from citizens community groups and residents associations that the problem seemed to be abating in my electorate. I was pleased about that and thought that perhaps the legislative changes that had been introduced in February may be making a real difference. It turned out that when summer came the problem came back with a vengeance and I think what caused the drop-off in boy-racer behaviour last winter was simply that petrol went to $2.20 a litre. It perhaps took more of them off the roads than the combination of legislative measures. So it was a bit of a false dawn in some respects. 
Obviously the measures in this legislation and its companion bill will have some impact. Those changes are very very welcome but let us not get our expectations too far up. We are missing some things in this legislation. The Supplementary Order Paper tabled by Labour could have made it tougher—that is a “two strikes and you’re out” policy rather than “three strikes and you may be out”. Also in the companion bill there is a complete absence of any measure by the Government to deal with the issue of noise which is probably as big an issue as the behaviour of boy racers: the constant roar of cars with basically unfiltered exhausts. Maybe—I will be charitable—the Government is keeping that issue in reserve to come back to at some future time. We will wait to see that but certainly there is no evidence of that at this point. 
In summary I believe that we as a Parliament have dealt with this issue. We are passing this legislation and that is important. I believe that we may unfortunately have to be back here on the issue in the not too distant future. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I did not agree with what Keith Locke had to say earlier and I make that very clear but— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Where is that tie from? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —everyone on the other side is wearing a yellow tie—what I at least liked about what Keith Locke said was that he had the courage of his convictions and that he said he would be voting against this bill. He may be wrong but at least he has the courage of his convictions. I contrast that with what we read by Patrick Gower a political reporter in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning about Labour’s position on the bill: “The Labour Party which has prevaricated and criticised the boy-racer legislation will support both bills and the other four law and order bills as well.” How confused is that? It is interesting that when we look at that we see that Labour gets just a paragraph in a very long story. I would say that that paragraph is in fact about 4.6 percent of the story and that says something about the polls. 
But I say seriously in relation to the legislation that we have a serious problem. No one is saying that it will fix all the problems and make everything better but it is a good start. We have said it before and I will say it again: it is a tool in the tool box for the police and the justice system. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh what a cliché. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: But it is true. When we put this legislation with the series of bills the Government is putting forward there is a significant law and order agenda there that is making the streets safer slowly but surely. 
I just say as well that this is a serious problem certainly in Christchurch and we have heard from Brendan Burns about some of the problems there. But it is a problem even in Tauranga although it is not at the level we have heard about in Christchurch and seen on television. I did a survey in my electorate and I was very interested to know what people thought about boy racers. I was very specific about the question because I wanted to know whether people believed that it was a problem specifically in Tauranga rather than out and about. So my question was specific. Of the nearly 6000 people—that is right: 6000 people—who responded to the survey 59 percent were very concerned about boy racers in their areas. So this is a problem and we are addressing it. The legislation will not solve everything but it will send a message of deterrence to boy racers and illegal street racers that we are watching them and that in worst-case scenarios their cars will be crushed. I commend the legislation to the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the third readings of the vehicle confiscation and seizure legislation. As Labour has repeatedly said we are supporting this bill. We have reservations about it that I will go into a little bit more shortly but I want to reflect on some of the considerations of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Before I do that I acknowledge the work of the select committee and particularly the officials. Whether or not we like it the decision-making process on the select committee was not perfect. In fact it was far from perfect. The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill was rushed through and there was a change of report-back date at the last minute. I think that made it very difficult for the officials who were required to come back with their report far earlier than they should have been made to. It also made it difficult for the Labour members with regard to taking the issues to our caucus and considering them properly. It was not a great process. However we have put that behind us and here we are. 
I observe that this legislation was supposed to be the king hit on boy racers but I fear that the public have been fed a whole lot of big talk and bragging by this Government. The reality is that this legislation will not make a huge difference to the problem of illegal street racing. I am really sorry about that. I am sorry for the 58 people who made submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am sorry for the 30 submitters who made the effort to come along to the select committee to be heard. I am sorry for the residents in the communities who came to the select committee and talked about the way that this problem is affecting them and said that it is having a real impact on their well-being. I am especially sorry for those communities that are expecting a miracle to occur when this legislation is passed because they have been led to believe that this legislation will mean that peace will reign once more in their neighbourhoods. Well it will not. 
I am also very disappointed that Minister Judith Collins failed to accept the Labour Party’s offer of assistance through Clayton Cosgrove’s Supplementary Order Paper 73. We were trying to be helpful to the Government to toughen up the legislation so that it would work and would make a difference. It is very interesting that the Police Association for example said that this legislation was a sideshow a waste of time and it ignored the real issues. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did they really? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The Police Association said that. It had some other suggestions that were very good and I will talk about that a little more. Minister Judith Collins has talked tough. It was interesting that in the Committee stage this morning she started to say that the legislation is not really about being tough and crushing vehicles but about changing behaviour. It is not a silver bullet. It will not fix the problem 
Hon Annette King 
: It was few months ago. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It was a few months ago when we heard her in the media and when she got her nickname. It is not what the Government has been saying up and down the country. It is not what it has been saying over many years. 
In fact I think this has been a hard lesson not only for Minister Judith Collins but also for some other members; for example Nicky Wagner— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: “Warg-ner”. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: —Nicky “Warg-ner”—with her petition and the National members who campaigned in Christchurch in the 2005 and 2008 election campaigns on this issue. Those members got people to believe that there was a simple solution to this problem. They had people believe that not enough had been done and that they would fix it. It is very disappointing as my colleague Brendon Burns observed this morning that we have had no National MP from Christchurch participating in either the Committee stage or the third reading of this legislation. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We’ve had Simon Bridges from Auckland. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Yes that is right. I want to know where those members’ contributions have been in the final stages of this debate. I ask what Nicky Wagner has to say about this. I ask what she has to say about the noise which was the real issue that she campaigned on. We have heard about that issue from many of our colleagues from our side of the Chamber. That seemed to be the No. 1 issue affecting the submitters who came along to the select committee. It has been left to Labour to run the arguments to ask the questions and to try to make this legislation work. As I said it is very disappointing that our offer has not been taken up. 
One of the things that is worth recording is that of the 17 submitters who commented on vehicle confiscation and destruction seven were opposed to that aspect of the legislation. Two of those submitters are big organisations. One was the Police Association as I have mentioned and the other one was the New Zealand Automobile Association. It said that it did not favour crushing vehicles. It said that it was a Draconian measure motivated by revenge although it acknowledged that the number of vehicles likely to be crushed under the legislation will be low. The Minister owned up to that this morning too and said that that would be the case. The Automobile Association did a survey of its members in March 2009 in which 65 percent of its members supported permanent vehicle confiscation for repeat offenders but only 11 percent supported the crushing of cars. It is quite interesting to hear that. Despite all the hoopla made by this Government about crushing cars and all the rest of it the public have shown that they have quite a lot of common sense when it comes to this issue. They want the cars off the road. They think that permanent confiscation is enough. They think that car destruction is a waste of taxpayers’ money and that it has been talked up by a Minister who wants to look tough. 
One of the other interesting things that was discussed in the select committee was the role of the police. I completely support my colleagues who said that it is the Government’s job to ensure that with regard to this legislation and its companion bill that we passed yesterday the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill the police must have enough resources to implement the changes. In the Committee stage I asked for some reassurance from the Minister that that would be the case and I got no reply. The police told us that they have recently undertaken measures led by the assistant commissioner of operations to ensure that the operational response to illegal street racing is nationwide and consistent that the police are fully utilising existing legislation and that a clear measurement of illegal street racing activity is made in each district. That demonstrated to me that the police considered that the powers they already have are sufficient and that it was more of an issue of resources as they said in their submission to us. 
Some people in this debate and in the debate on the previous bill mentioned the success in Manukau of Operation Sniper as a mechanism for prosecuting boy racers and working within existing laws. Just to outline that a little judges in Manukau are working within the provisions already available to them prior to this legislation becoming law and are handing out much harsher penalties for illegal street racing than courts elsewhere. Two 17-year-olds were recently disqualified from driving for a year and fined $1000 as well as being ordered to pay $130 in court costs for racing their cars in Papatoetoe. Their cars were registered to their fathers for insurance purposes and they were impounded for 28 days and it cost each youth $400 to recover them. This came about because the case was reported by a concerned motorist and the police are encouraging other motorists to report similar behaviour. The police say that about a third of the 60 complaints made each month to Operation Sniper provide enough identification such as car registration for the police to follow up and prosecute. Most cases have resulted in convictions with the driver being disqualified for at least 6 months fined up to $4500 and the car being impounded. The police also reported that illegal street racing has been scaled back considerably since Operation Sniper started. 
That report and what the police told us demonstrate that the laws we already have in place can work with the will of the Government and with sufficient resources for the police and without the grandstanding that we have seen around this legislation. We admit that there are a couple of loopholes. That is why we are supporting the legislation and will not stand in its way. But having said that I repeat that we regret the fact that the Government did not accept Labour’s offer of assistance to make this legislation work as it was intended to do. What we had in place around confiscation was perfectly adequate as is demonstrated by Operation Sniper in Manukau. A couple of loopholes just needed to be closed and there needed to be some investigation into why the courts were not confiscating vehicles permanently in the way that they are able to do under the existing legislation. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand and speak in support of this legislation. I congratulate the Hon Judith Collins on taking this legislation through the steps that it needs to take. Right now throughout our country there are thousands perhaps tens of thousands of teenage boys particularly who have posters on their walls of hot shiny cars with slick tyres big exhaust pipes and very very powerful engines. In fact the engines that these cars have these days are probably far more powerful than the engines that racing car drivers had in their cars 20 or 30 years ago. These inexperienced drivers are driving their vehicles much to their pleasure but much to the danger of other people around them. I think that this legislation is legislation of great responsibility to society to those people in different communities who are plagued by not only the tremendous volume of sound but also the danger that exists outside their front doors. 
Members will be aware that vehicles these days have incredible power. It is easy for people just to turn on the gas to take these vehicles to incredible speed very very quickly and to lose control. No doubt there are people in this House who have done precisely that over the years. I am sure that has never been the occurrence when you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker ride your motorcycle through the country as you are a tremendously law-abiding citizen. But I am sure that other people will not be as law-abiding as you are. 
It is also important to note that this legislation takes account of some serious offences and tragic fatalities that have taken place over these last years. I am sure that the parents and family members of those who have died because of illegal street racing will this day have an increased sense of closure in their grief. They will see that this legislation will help to prevent other young people from dying and other families from suffering the tragedy they have suffered. Today we remember Scott Finn who died in Mount Maunganui; we remember Laureen Helen Reilly an elderly woman; we remember Ratu Victor Vikash a 23-year-old; we remember two girls both aged 16 who passed away in Christchurch at that party; and we remember pedestrian Amy Edward-Minton killed on a crossing in Cambridge Terrace Wellington. We remember these people. We remember Billy Wall and other people who have lost their lives because of illegal street racing. We know that their family members today will have a sense of closure because of this legislation we are passing. 
I think it is sensible good legislation and I commend it to the House. I congratulate our Minister the Hon Judith Collins on bringing the legislation to the House. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing (Vehicle Confiscation) Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings (Vehicle Seizure) Amendment Bill and the Privacy Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bills read a third time. 
Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The National Government is committed to ensuring that older New Zealanders have more freedom in their retirement and I understand that this bill is supported right across the House. The purpose of the bill is to make amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to make it easier for superannuitants and veterans pensioners to live or travel overseas. 
At the moment there are a variety of ways in which New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension can be paid overseas depending on where a superannuitant or a veterans pensioner intends to go for how long and for what purpose. Superannuitants and veterans pensioners leaving New Zealand temporarily can receive full payment for up to 26 weeks and are not affected by the amendments in the bill. 
There are currently three methods for paying superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to leave New Zealand to reside in another country. First there is a provision for payment under the reciprocal social security agreements with other countries. These allow superannuitants and veterans pensioners to receive up to the full rate of payment depending on how long they have resided in New Zealand. We have agreements with Australia Canada Greece the Netherlands Jersey Guernsey Denmark Ireland and the United Kingdom. Second there are special provisions for people heading off to live in most Pacific countries that also allow them to receive up to the full rate of payment depending on how long they too have lived in New Zealand. 
Finally there are provisions for people moving to all other countries. These are known as the general portability provisions. Superannuitants and veterans pensioners who leave New Zealand to live in one of these countries are currently paid a flat rate of 50 percent of the gross rate of the pension that would be payable in New Zealand except that there is no additional payment for a non-qualified spouse or partner or a living alone payment. The amendments in the bill relate solely to the general portability provisions and will not affect New Zealand’s social security agreements or the special provisions for Pacific countries. 
This bill is necessary because the general portability provisions are preventing many of our superannuitants and veterans pensioners from moving to a country of their choice or travelling overseas. Two main issues will be addressed by this bill. The flat rate of 50 percent provides insufficient income to allow a reasonable standard of living in many countries. Therefore it is unrealistic for many pensioners to consider retiring to another country. The general portability provisions restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to reside in one country and then move to another country to live because payment overseas is linked to residence in one particular country. This also means that superannuitants and veterans pensioners who want to head off on the OE of their golden years cannot continue to receive payment. 
Consequently the bill will make two changes— 
Grant Robertson 
: When’s the member going to go? 
Chris Hipkins 
: His retirement OE. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Of course it affects the likes of myself and I might say that it will not be long before it will affect the members opposite who interject. The key change is a new payment rate. Instead of the current flat 50 percent of the domestic rate the superannuitant or veterans pensioner will be able to receive up to the full rate of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension depending on how long he or she lived in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65. There continues to be no entitlement to any additional payment for a non-qualified spouse or partner or to a living alone payment. 
The second change is that the bill will free up the rules restricting the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around once they get overseas. The bill will allow payment of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions to superannuitants and veterans pensioners who want to live in more than one country with which New Zealand has no social security agreement whether they remain in the country they first move to reside in or move to reside in another country. In addition the bill also allows for the payment of superannuation and veterans pensions to those who leave New Zealand to travel in or between any countries for more than 26 weeks but to not live outside New Zealand. 
The new provisions represent a modernisation of the payment overseas policy that has been in place since 1990. The rate was originally set at 50 percent partly because the superannuation surcharge was not applied to payment overseas. Now the surcharge has gone and therefore it has no relevance to the amount of pension we pay overseas. Forcing older people to remain in one country or preventing their ability to travel serves no particular purpose and it is not in tune with what today’s retirees want to do. It is not the philosophy of this National Government to do so either. Actually I doubt whether it is the philosophy of this Parliament. 
The bill had its first reading on 31 May 2009. It was then referred to the Social Services Committee which reported back to the House on 18 September 2009. The select committee received 99 written submissions on the bill with the majority in support of it. The committee received many submissions that did not primarily address the subject matter of the bill but focused on the direct deduction policy set out in section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964. That policy is not within the scope of the bill. 
Chris Hipkins 
: The audience is giving up. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Well it will affect them in due course; it will be a little time before they take a direct interest in it nevertheless. 
The select committee has made some technical changes and one substantive change. This amendment will ensure that if someone is out of the country for a while but is still counted as being present for the purposes of fulfilling the residential qualifications for superannuation then he or she will be counted as residing in New Zealand for the purpose of the proportional payment formula. Examples of this would include those who are outside New Zealand for special medical treatment or medical training those who are serving on a New Zealand - registered ship or serving in the armed forces those who are undertaking Volunteer Service Abroad work or missionary work and those who are employed in New Zealand embassies overseas. 
Some submitters asked that people be allowed to apply for New Zealand superannuation while residing overseas. The select committee noted that allowing applications from overseas would change the parameters and costs of the bill’s proposal significantly. Therefore it recommended no change in this regard. 
The select committee noted—and this is quite an important point—that the Income Tax Act 2007 does not differentiate between the tax treatment of people living overseas and people who are travelling. As a result payments made to overseas residents and those who are travelling would be exempt from New Zealand tax under the general portability provisions in the bill. However although overseas residents are subject to taxation in their country of residence Kiwis travelling overseas would not be subject to any tax liability. For this reason the committee considered that the Income Tax Act 2007 should be amended in order to remove the tax exemption for people who are travelling. Such an amendment would require a substantive amendment to the Income Tax Act 2007 which has not been amended substantially by this bill as originally introduced. The committee was therefore prevented by Standing Order 299 from recommending such an amendment without the leave of the House. It instead suggested that the Government give consideration to this issue in depth if a review of the relevant legislation is undertaken. 
I agree with the committee’s view that the New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension paid to travellers should not be exempt from income tax. The Government will therefore be seeking to make amendments to the Income Tax Act 2007 to ensure that New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions paid to travellers is subject to income tax in the same way that those payments are taxed while they reside in New Zealand. 
Another theme raised by submitters was the concern that current recipients of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions paid overseas under the general portability provisions would be disadvantaged by the proposed savings provisions. I can assure the House that no superannuitants or veterans pensioners will receive less under the proposals in the bill than they are receiving currently. In fact many will receive more. 
The introduction of the bill to this House is very timely. Our society is becoming increasingly diverse and Kiwis are travelling and living in other countries more often. It should also be noted that the attitude towards older people in this country is changing and needs to continue to change because the contribution of us baby boomers will be far greater than has previously been anticipated. 
In conclusion I reiterate that this bill is part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that older New Zealanders are free to decide how they spend their retirement. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I commend the Minister for Senior Citizens John Carter for reading that speech so beautifully. It came straight from the Social Services Committee’s report back to this House but I think it is important that we get that on the record of the House so I thank the Minister for that. 
There does not need to be an extended debate on this bill. The reason is that the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill was a Labour bill introduced to this House in September 2008 by the Hon Ruth Dyson. The only thing that has changed in respect of this bill with the change of Government is the name of the Minister on the cover of the bill. It is one of those moments when we can say that there is general agreement across this Parliament on the changes that have been made to this bill. I commend the Minister for not trying to put a lot of flannel around his speech and take credit for a bill that started under one Government and will be finished under another. Unfortunately the speech from the Minister for Social Development and Employment when she last spoke on the bill was all about the wonderful achievements of National in this respect. I found that to be just a little dishonest in that this bill was started under Labour as I said and will be finished by National. 
Is it not good that in this Parliament we have agreement on a bill that will benefit those who are retiring? You know I look at Mr Carter and he is obviously looking into the horizon—many years ahead—and thinking that maybe one day he would like to take his pension and head off to the Caribbean or wherever he wishes to go. For many people this is an important bill and an important change that is being made. We agree on this bill and hopefully we will stick to the key issues. I think the key issues have been set out pretty clearly by the Minister. 
Those issues go to the fact that under the legislation that has been in place since 1990 there was the provision of a flat rate of 50 percent of the domestic rate of the pension where a person left New Zealand with the intention to reside in a country with which New Zealand had no agreement relating to the reciprocity of social security monetary benefits. That was the formula that was used. That flat rate led older New Zealanders to defer retiring overseas because obviously that would be insufficient income to allow them a reasonable standard of living in retirement in another country. The payment is also currently linked to residents in one particular overseas country which means that superannuitants or veterans pensioners cannot travel to or between multiple countries and continue to receive their pension. 
From the passage of this bill which I assume will be around November this year qualifying superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel between any overseas country and retain their entitlements will be allowed to do so. As the Minister set out this bill allows people to make decisions about where they wish to reside. We can look at the formula and see that it is very fair. The formula that is being put in place is not the 50 percent flat rate any more; people will receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension overseas based on a formula of 1/540th of the full rate of each month of residence in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65. It might sound rather complicated but it is able to be worked out relatively easily. People will know what they are then able to take if they retire in another country. 
Submissions were made to the select committee that we did not consider because they really were outside the scope of the bill. Some submitted that when they arrived in New Zealand and became a citizen of New Zealand they should be able to receive the full pension as soon as they retired. That was as I said outside the scope of the bill. There are issues around fairness when it comes to people who have paid for superannuation through their taxes over many many years and would receive a particular formula if they went overseas and then a person who arrived in New Zealand and had been here only a short time would retire and get the full pension having the same rights. That was not something that the select committee dwelled on. 
The bill was sent to the Social Services Committee on 31 March this year. It received 99 submissions and we heard 13 of them. We did not hear more because many of the submissions did not relate to the bill itself at all. They raised an issue in respect of section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964 and that relates to the direct deduction of an overseas pension from New Zealand superannuation. This has been a longstanding issue and I see the Minister John Carter nodding: he has no doubt had representation particularly from people of Dutch descent who have come to New Zealand with a Dutch pension and wanted to retain that pension alongside their New Zealand superannuation. We as a Government saw that as unfinished business and in fact the previous Minister for Social Development and Employment Ruth Dyson had done a considerable amount of work on that. I think the challenge now for the new Government is to look at that issue and to proceed with it. It will not go away because many New Zealanders feel that this is unfairness and a disincentive. When they have saved in another country in a private pension scheme for example or in a pension scheme that they could have in New Zealand it is a disincentive and they are not able to have it or that they can have it but it affects their New Zealand superannuation. I say to the Minister and his colleagues that the challenge is to look at that issue. 
We made very few changes to the bill itself and I think the Minister has set out pretty clearly what they are. In fact one of the changes we made was as he said for people who are outside New Zealand for special purposes—those who have gone to get medical treatment are serving on a New Zealand - registered ship are in the armed forces are working for Volunteer Service Abroad or doing missionary work or perhaps are employed in embassies overseas—their time outside New Zealand would be counted as residence for the purpose of the formula that I have just set out. 
Some people are engaged in charity work overseas but are not part of Volunteer Service Abroad; there may be some other organisations that are not covered here. We did not put them in the legislation but we said that should the opportunity arise it would be valuable for the Government to consider this issue further in the future. That was one of the changes that we made. 
One submission that I think was pretty important was from the New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association around the veterans pension. I know that there is a lot of concern by veterans that they have been counted with New Zealand superannuation in terms of this formula and in terms of the portability of their pension overseas. The case they put to the select committee is that they receive a veterans pension based not on their age but on the disability they received in their service for New Zealand. They may receive their veterans pension at 45 not 65 and in their view if they wish to travel and live overseas in another country they ought to be able to take their veterans pension with them and it should not be linked to New Zealand superannuation but based on the fact that they are entitled to it because of their disability. 
We could not address that issue at select committee but I believe it needs to be addressed and I know that the previous Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Rick Barker has been responsible for the rewrite of the Veterans’ Affairs Act. He first of all started the work with the Law Commission which hopefully will lead to a rewrite of the Act itself and I hope that this issue is addressed in relation to that. The Returned and Services’ Association obviously a very significant group made a very compelling case but we could not address it at the select committee itself. A number of other issues were raised and I think that they were really unable to be addressed by the committee either because it was an income tax issue or it was an issue that would have made the bill unfair for other New Zealanders. We looked very carefully at the non-qualifying spouse—how he or she could be included—but we did not want to make this bill unfair for other New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker Annette King said this bill will have support across the House. Although she started by saying she did not want to get political she had a crack at the Minister for Social Development and Employment for taking more credit for the bill than she should. But putting that aside I think we need to acknowledge the previous Minister— 
Grant Robertson 
: You agree then. Do you agree that she did? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I will get to that. We should acknowledge the previous Minister Ruth Dyson for her work but the bill having been introduced languished for several months. I think the fact that this bill has been brought before the House for its second reading in amongst the plethora of legislation that this hard-working Government is putting through is a testament to the very hard-working Minister for Senior Citizens and the high priority that this Government places on that very important section of our community. 
I was not a member of the Social Services Committee but I thank those members for their work and I also thank the officials for their work on what is such sensible legislation. It also I think reflects the fact that our society is changing. We are much more mobile we are fluid and thanks to the baby boomers we are increasingly getting older on average but we are fitter and more mobile. 
As some members know my mother passed away about 3 weeks ago and I take this opportunity to thank members of the House for their messages of condolence through that time. In the last few years of her life she was very active and she travelled. Had my father still been alive I am quite sure they would have taken advantage of the opportunity to spend quite some time away in the countries they discovered in their later years. Their friends are still doing that. I expect that this legislation will come as a real boost to them in being able to travel more fluidly through other countries whereas previously they were not able to and also to earn a more generous rate of superannuation up from the current flat rate of 50 percent. So I congratulate both the previous and present Ministers and the select committee and I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 Although I could support the principles that lie behind the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill one can describe the bill as having a number of faulty details. In fact I would go so far as to say I have grave doubts about the fairness and equity of this bill and the way it treats different New Zealanders. 
It treats different New Zealanders in a number of ways. The bill creates a number of secondary effects that have not been taken into account and in large part aspects of the bill have been driven by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a de facto form of foreign aid. That I think is to be regretted. 
Maybe I can illustrate the point that I want to make with a graph. Members may not be able to see it but there are three different areas— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Well we can’t see it if you don’t hold it up. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I will hold it up in a moment when I get to the point I am illustrating. 
Firstly there are New Zealanders who wish to retire to places with which we already have an international agreement. Up to today this group of people theoretically have actually been advantaged. This bill does nothing for that group. They remain where they are. In fact many New Zealanders who go to Australia for example—because that is where their children have gone to live and work—having worked here for 47 years might find themselves in the position of actually getting zero because they have to comply with the Australian rules and the Australian rules mean that they are means-tested. 
This graph plots the number of years worked against the percentage of New Zealand superannuation one would receive. If I look at the graph I see that if I go to Australia or any of the countries that we currently have an agreement with I could get zero or I could be anywhere between zero and this red line which represents superannuation in non-Pacific countries. If I go to any other country apart from the 22 Pacific Island countries I will be on the red line. On the other hand if I go to live in one of the 22 Pacific Island countries—it does not matter whether I am a Pacific Islander; I could be an American who has been here for 10 or 20 years—I will be on the blue line which beyond the 10-year mark is higher than the red line. The gap between the red line and the blue line is the advantage—the extra I would get. So if I am an American who has come here to live for 10 or 20 years as long as I say that I will retire in one of the Pacific Islands I can go on to that top line of the graph. 
I will tell members about one of the unintended consequences of the bill. Pacific Island people who can come to New Zealand for 10 or 20 years would be absolutely mad not to do just that. The return for the 10 or 20 years is huge. One of the unintended consequences of this bill is that we are saying to Pacific Island people that in their best working years they should come to New Zealand. It will get Pacific Island people and others to come here for 10 or 20 years in order to get the benefits of this pension. In their best working years they will not be contributing in the Islands; they will be contributing elsewhere. To me that is preferential treatment. 
The fact is that it was driven as I understand it by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a de facto form of foreign aid. It seems odd to use a policy instrument as blunt as superannuation as a mechanism to deliver aid to the Pacific Islands. Cash handouts to particular demographic groups of society could hardly be considered to be an effective aid programme. It may be that that is what we intend to do. It may be that we are happy for someone to come from a foreign country let us say America spend 10 or 20 years here and then be able to retire on in some cases a 100 percent pension provided the place of residence is in one of the 22 Pacific Islands. It seems to me to be odd that New Zealanders who have lived here for 65 years worked for 47 of those years and gone to live in Australia get nothing because they have an income beyond $39000 but others who come here and spend as little as 10 years here can get 50 percent of the pension. 
I do not think this bill has been carefully thought out. It will create anomalies. More particularly I believe it will have some secondary effects that will not be helpful to the Pacific Islands. I know the intention was that it would be helpful so that Pacific Islanders in particular could return so that the Islands would benefit. But the fact is that this bill will say to people that if they come here for 10 years they will get a substantial pension and that if they stay for 20 years they will get an even bigger pension. We are saying to Pacific Islanders that if they come here they will get a pension of 5 percent per year provided they do the minimum 10 years. As for New Zealanders they can work for 47 or 45 years and get 2.25 percent per year but if they go to Australia or one of those countries that we have an arrangement with it may well be that they get nothing. Personally I do not think there is much fairness in that. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 That was an extraordinary speech from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas who criticised both the Government and the Labour Party and described the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill as being preferential and as some sort of back-door deal to allow people from Pacific countries to come to New Zealand in order to get a pension. That speech came from a member of Parliament who not only earns $100000-plus in his job—and I am sure he earns that money—but also is one of the few members of this House who are still entitled to receive the gold-plated parliamentary superannuation scheme as well as his national superannuation entitlement. He comes to this House to criticise what is quite a small amendment but one that will allow people who have earned their entitlement to New Zealand superannuation to then retire in countries of their choice without being disadvantaged. I think the country will be gobsmacked by the cheek of that speech. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not really want to interrupt the member but she should not make the sorts of accusations that she is making. In fact since I came back into Parliament I have no longer drawn parliamentary superannuation. I think the member knows that but for her to say that is incorrect. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not strictly a point of order. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Minister John Carter who spoke earlier in the debate talked about his support and National’s support for this legislation and about how he was looking forward to his retirement time and to being able perhaps to take advantage of this amendment to the superannuation legislation as we all will be able to do when we retire. The Hon John Carter who will be entitled to receive New Zealand superannuation in just under 6 years’ time may well have spoken with confidence about that but I personally do not share that confidence. The reason why I do not share that confidence is that even though in this particular instance the Government is supporting legislation that will benefit hard-working New Zealanders who have earned superannuation it has also in this very same year gutted the fund that gives New Zealanders confidence in their future entitlement to New Zealand superannuation at all. 
This Government has committed New Zealand to a decade of deferred payment to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. That fund gave all of us who were in our 30s 40s or 50s confidence that we could look forward to a retirement age of 65 and know that we would be able to receive superannuation at its current level. The gutting of that fund means that New Zealanders like the Hon John Carter when he retires at the age of 65 on 8 May 2015 will no longer be able to have the confidence that he will receive that superannuation. 
Not only was that a very bad move for superannuitants but also it was very bad in terms of basic financial management. I am not sure how the Hon Bill English managed to convince the entire National caucus to support the gutting of the scheme. When Treasury did its analysis it said that by 2031 when the withdrawals from the Superannuation Fund will be completed the fund will be short by $35 billion. That is how much money Bill English has taken out of the fund and that is how much money we will be short of when we try to ensure that superannuitants in the future will be able to receive superannuation at the current level. Treasury also said—again I say this is Treasury information—that Bill English’s plan gutted the Superannuation Fund by 50 percent and that we will never be able to catch up that money. If we have the decade of deferrals of payments into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund we will never catch up. 
I am not even sure whether National wants to catch up on those payments. John Key has said publicly to the media that as soon as New Zealand is in surplus again the Government will start to contribute to the Superannuation Fund but at the very same time his deputy Bill English said on the public record that there would have to be trade-offs in the future if we were to return to investing in our future superannuation which is what the Superannuation Fund is about. He said there would have to be trade-offs between a resumption of contributions to the Superannuation Fund tax cuts and spending. We all know where Bill English’s choice lies. He has always gone for tax cuts now particularly for those who are very high-income earners at the expense of investing in future superannuation payments. People who are now in their 40s and 50s and even in their early 60s hard-working New Zealanders who are paying their taxes and paying their way in our society have not received a tax cut from Bill English or the National Government because the tax cuts programme went as soon as the Government could get away with it. All the tax cuts went to the highest-income earners. Now people know that they will not have the confidence to look forward at 65 years of age to receiving superannuation in the future. 
Although the National members come to this House and say they support this bill which was introduced under the previous Labour Government those words have very little meaning to people who know that New Zealanders might be able to retire overseas and be better off under this legislation but that we will not actually receive superannuation at the level that it is currently paid at. So this Government gives with one hand and takes away much more with the other. 
That is not the only area where National has taken something away from older people. Day after day we have heard concerns being raised by my colleague Maryan Street and a total denial from the Minister for Tertiary Education Anne Tolley about the damage that is being done in our communities by the 80 percent gutting of the Adult and Community Education fund. A lot of older New Zealanders will be very badly affected by that. People who are at home on their own who have worked hard all their lives and who get to 65 now have some time. They might be able to learn something they have always wanted to learn. They might be very lonely so they might want to go to a night class or a class during the day to develop some friendships. Or they might just want to get out of their house. Anne Tolley said they can just pay for adult and community education themselves. Unfortunately our schools throughout the country and our community centres which have been running these night classes and other classes during the day have said they cannot afford to run them any more because Anne Tolley has gutted the fund that has made those services available to thousands and thousands of particularly older New Zealanders for many years. Again I say the Government is supporting this legislation but taking away the opportunity for older New Zealanders to go to night classes. 
The Minister for ACC who I hope will be in the House later on this afternoon to try to explain yet again his position on accident compensation has made one of the most savage cuts to older people that any of us can imagine. It is to take away the funding for a programme that is not only good but also highly regarded internationally a programme that has been well researched and proven to be successful. That is the falls prevention programme. Up and down the country older people have been learning how to strengthen their muscles and how to have better balance so that they can reduce the risk of falling injuring themselves breaking hips and putting huge costs on to not just our health system but also themselves and their families personally. That programme is designed specifically to help older people to reduce the risk of falling and being injured. It has been gutted; it is gone. There is no more money. Once again I say that although the National Government says it supports this legislation introduced by a Labour-led Government it is taking away yet another thing from older people. 
Of course we have also heard particularly from my Canterbury colleagues Jim Anderton Lianne Dalziel Clayton Cosgrove and Brendon Burns about the savage cuts in home support for older people. For many people a couple of hours of home support at very low rates of pay and at very low cost to the taxpayer is the difference between that person being able to stay safely and well in his or her own home and having to move into a rest home. It provides people with a genuine choice about where they want to live and it provides them with the opportunity to stay in their home often right up until the time that they die. Now we are seeing further cuts in the health system and front-line services being cut for some of the most vulnerable people in our community: older New Zealanders who have worked hard and contributed by raising their families or by being in a paid job. They are people who deserve to be respected and valued rather than to be at the cutting edge of health cuts. 
I support this bill and urge its progress. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will continue to support the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill through all stages in the House today. We agree with the previous Labour Government which introduced this legislation in the first place and with National which followed through with it that people on superannuation and the veterans pension should be able to continue to receive their entitlements while travelling or living overseas even in countries with which we have no reciprocal social security arrangements. Up until now people could not receive their full pension in that situation and that has had an ongoing negative impact on many older New Zealanders. 
During the consideration of the bill by the Social Services Committee members heard a number of submissions supporting the bill from the perspective of the yachting fraternity. Clearly a considerable number of our older citizens use retirement as an opportunity to take to the ocean wave. For those people the current law and regulations make such cruising highly problematic as they have to return home every 6 months to retain any eligibility at all for the pension. Those citizens are delighted with the freedom to travel that this new law will provide. Of course it is not just those roaming the high seas who will benefit from this bill but all our older people who want the freedom to choose the country they live in while still receiving full entitlement to superannuation. In an age when so many people here are still migrants themselves and would like the chance to spend time in their country of origin and also at a time when many of us have children living overseas the ability to spend considerable periods with family elsewhere is particularly precious. 
One improvement we made at the select committee that was endorsed by the Green Party was to make it clear that people who are outside of New Zealand for special medical treatment or training who serve in the armed forces or our embassy service abroad who work on a New Zealand - owned ship or who are undertaking VSA work or missionary work should have that time counted as New Zealand residence when it comes to working out the formula to calculate the proportion of superannuation they are paid while overseas once they turn 65. However I continue to have a concern that Kiwis who have worked overseas in either a paid or a volunteer capacity for non-governmental organisations other than Volunteer Service Abroad or religious bodies will not be covered by the same provision. I think it is a glaring inequity as working for Oxfam or Save the Children should not be seen in a different light from working for a religious mission or VSA. We were told that to extend the provision to other not-for-profit organisations would create inconsistencies that would be beyond the scope of the bill to deal with but I hope the Government will look at how to address the anomaly as soon as is practicable. 
On a rather more significant issue a number of submitters raised the same matter that I talked about in my first reading speech on this bill: the vexed question of the impact of the dollar-for-dollar deduction against New Zealand superannuation payments imposed in regard to private contributions made to Government-administered overseas pension schemes. The matter has come before the Social Services Committee over and over again in the 10 years that I have been a member of Parliament. People are deeply upset by the fundamental inequity of missing out on the benefits of private pension funds in other countries—such as the United Kingdom Canada and others—that they contributed to often for a major part of their working lives. Although it is true that this issue is outside the scope of this bill heartfelt opposition to the direct deduction policy of section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964 will not go away in a hurry. 
I am aware that when in Opposition some National members spoke encouragingly to superannuitants in that situation about changes that they might make should they be part of a Government. I urge National to have the strength and foresight to grasp this admittedly thorny issue and make a determined effort to deal with it in a fair and equitable way rather than leaving it to one side as being too difficult or problematic as has happened up until now. It is good to see one group of superannuitants and people on the veterans pension being treated with more fairness by the bill before us today but I am very sure that a section 70 problem will linger until and unless a Government of whatever hue is willing to address this underpinning injustice that impacts on so many of our citizens. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a short call on the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the work the former Government did in preparing this bill so that it could be in the House today. The bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to make it easier for older New Zealanders to travel or live overseas. It updates the payment overseas policy that has been in place since 1990. 
We live in a mobile world. New Zealanders are living longer and in generally better health. With over half a million predominantly younger New Zealanders living overseas and with air travel being so affordable it is only understandable and expected that older New Zealanders will want to travel to visit family and relatives or to participate in tourist activities. This Government is committed to ensuring that older New Zealanders whatever country they live in are able to live in dignity and have the freedom to move around. Older New Zealanders have contributed to our country and they have invested in this country. We need to make it easier for older New Zealanders to travel and move between countries. This bill does exactly that. Instead of the current flat rate of payment older New Zealanders will be able to receive up to 100 percent depending on the number of years they have resided in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. In doing so I acknowledge the previous Labour Government which put this bill on the Order Paper and I acknowledge that the Government is moving forward with this bill. That is a very good thing. I note that I would have been delighted to see this bill progress in the first 100 days of action rather than some other bills—for example the bill pertaining to the cutting of KiwiSaver and those sorts of things. Nevertheless it is before the House now and that is really good. 
We know that this bill will work in the interest of superannuitants—and veterans whom I will talk about later—who have contributed all their working life to New Zealand and then in their retirement years want to take advantage of those years and travel. Under the old scheme they were disadvantaged and in fact penalised for taking up that opportunity. This bill is very good for supporting superannuitants and enabling them—certainly not in their twilight years; in what some would call a very exciting time of their life—to be in the position having worked to travel to take advantage of the savings they may have been able to make and to have other opportunities. I think that security in receiving and being able to receive superannuation at that time will make a tremendous difference to the quality of their life and indeed provide for them exactly what they are entitled to and that is New Zealand superannuation. 
The bill is also important—and the Hon Annette King and the Hon Ruth Dyson spoke on this matter—in terms of our veterans who have given so much in service to this country. It has been acknowledged that they may not be 65 years old; they may be at a stage of their lives where a whole lot of opportunities open up overseas. It is great that they are able to receive their pension—indeed it is vital that they do—when they are in a position to take advantage of the opportunities to travel or to work overseas. 
I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill. I think it will have wide-ranging support and so it should. I cannot go past mentioning that along with this bill we see advantages for superannuitants in terms of the travel policy that was introduced under Labour. I hope that that policy is available to all New Zealanders. It perhaps does not enhance the ability to travel overseas but it enhances the ability to travel within communities and within cities which is absolutely vital to the quality of life of superannuitants in New Zealand. 
I have tremendous pride in commending this bill to the House. I also cannot go past talking about superannuation and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Part of making superannuation available to superannuitants when they travel is ensuring that we have a superannuation fund. The deferral of payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in the last Budget is of great concern to me. On one hand we are saying it is absolutely essential—and we all agree with this—that superannuation is available is extended and is another investment in our hard-working superannuitants and veterans who have contributed so much. We are saying that we are enhancing their payments yet we are deferring the payments into the Superannuation Fund which will jeopardise the ability to provide that superannuation. 
Darien Fenton 
: Ridiculous! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is indeed ridiculous. The whole fund is not at risk but certainly the ability to continue providing superannuation at those levels for superannuitants and veterans travelling will be much harder. We know that that was a very silly move of the Government. 
We see that New Zealanders are worried and concerned about the security of their pensions and we see that this legislation will put more pressure on that security. It gives even more reason why the Government should accept that it made a mistake. There is nothing wrong with admitting that it made a mistake. Indeed there are so many instances—whether it is about the adult and community education funding cuts whether it is about the cuts to young people with disabilities; there is a myriad of things—where we see that if the Government fronted up and said that it got something wrong and asked how it could fix it then we would be more than willing to work with the Government on it. I urge the Government in supporting and putting forward this bill—it was not in the 100 days of action but it is none the less happening now—to look at the funding for superannuation. I urge the Government to look at those payments to the Superannuation Fund and say that it did not get it right so it should look at it. It should not defer those payments; it should keep the Superannuation Fund healthy so that it can provide for all of its commitments for our superannuitants and our veterans not just now but for decades and for generations to come. 
I could not take a call on this bill without mentioning this matter and urging the Government in this respect. A number of members opposite look quite interested in what I am saying and look quite positive. I ask my colleague the Hon Annette King whether she thinks that. I acknowledge that they are and I think I see some heads nodding. There have been some very valid and very constructive arguments from this side of the House; there always are. I think the member is right that very careful consideration is being given. 
In summary I say again that Labour is right behind the bill—in fact we were at the forefront of it—and we support it. We would love the Government to put an amendment up— 
Hon Member 
: You had 9 years to do this—9 years! 
Hon Annette King 
: It doesn’t matter how long we had; we did it. You had 9 years to do it when you were in Government last time but you didn’t do it! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly. To ensure that this happens and this security is provided for superannuitants and veterans now and for decades and generations to come I urge the Government to take another look at the Superannuation Fund and to reinstate those payments because then we have security for people in retirement for the future. I think that is very important. Thank you very much. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. There are a number of reasons why I do so. One that has been stated is that we have become a nation in an international world not a parochial island nation at the bottom of the South Pacific. New Zealand now has people with family members right across the world. In fact the Deputy Speaker I know and I both currently have family overseas. Although both he and I are a long way—many many years—away from being eligible for superannuation the time may come where we may want to be part of Government superannuation payments and visit our family overseas and we should be able to do that. 
As I understand it the bill fixes up a number of issues in regard to that. Three main issues are probably worth mentioning here. The current flat rate of a 50 percent payment provides insufficient income for people to function sensibly or have a reasonable standard of living if they are visiting family overseas for a prolonged period of time. Other people travel from country to country because they have more than one family member and those family members are in different places. The current rules restrict them to being able to receive that 50 percent payment only if they have a place of residence in one nation. Obviously that is very restrictive to some people and they have to keep returning to a certain destination to be eligible for that. This bill fixes up that problem. 
I know a constituent of mine who has family overseas. She herself comes from a very humble background but her family have travelled overseas and prospered. They are happy for mum to come and live with them for prolonged periods. One family member is in the United States and the other is in the UK. Members can clearly see how this legislation would have an impact on her and how the proposed amendments will help her in that regard. Payments overseas are presently linked to residence overseas but this bill fixes that. Those are two things that I personally know of that this bill will help. 
I thank the officials and those who were involved in the process of getting the bill to this point. It is good when we have a Parliament that is as united as this one appears to be on this particular legislation and I know that a lot of senior citizens out there at the moment are very pleased to see this path that the House is going down today. 
The third issue of concern is that the rules currently restrict the ability of an older person to be on the go all the time. Some people go overseas and they get into a permanent state of travel as it were; they travel from country to country. A member mentioned the late taking-up of travel by yacht—childhood dreams being realised in people’s 60s and 70s. Of course such people do not have any permanent place of residence. They are of no fixed abode as it were. They are restricted by the current rules but this legislation will allow them to have access to superannuation payments as well. 
National supports the bill; we think it is a good idea. I look forward to its passage through the House. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I will take a short call; there are some points I want to make. This Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill was tabled by a Labour Government and it was good to hear the Hon Ruth Dyson speaking earlier. This bill will give some certainty and it is interesting that we are using urgency to pass it through all its stages. That is a really good use of urgency because it will give some certainty to a lot of elderly New Zealanders. I congratulate Paula Bennett the sole member of the executive here in the Chamber. I think it would have been good if she had led the debate but John Carter did a very good job as the Minister for Senior Citizens. He got up quite enthusiastically. 
This bill will give a lot of certainty to some people mainly to those who draw superannuation but also to veterans. Of course many other New Zealanders may not have the same certainty. What will happen to New Zealand superannuation? I heard a rumour this morning that in the long term the Government—if it ever gets re-elected; I do not suppose it will be so we should not worry about it—will raise the age of superannuation to 67 or even 68. If I were a young person in my 50s I would be really worried because that could happen. I think that people need to be aware that today we are giving certainty to one group but we are not giving complete certainty. What will happen to New Zealand superannuation in the future? That is the real question that will be bothering people who have their ears close to their transistor radio or as John Banks used to say to their crystal set. They will be wondering what is happening long term to their superannuation. We have seen National not support the Cullen fund and that must be a warning sign. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: No vision. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Absolutely no vision! If National does not support the Cullen fund and money is not going into it what will happen to those people relative to others? Of course relative to others for those on superannuation whether they get it in one of the 22 Pacific Island countries or in New Zealand things will not be too rosy in the future. When Ruth Dyson tabled this bill there was not the uncertainty there is now. What will happen for those people? Yes it will be great for those who want to live in a Pacific Island country in their retirement. In my electorate Manurewa we have a large Pacific Island community and they will welcome this bill being passed because it will give them choices. It will give them the opportunity to go back home to one of the Islands if they want and enjoy their retirement there. I imagine that that is probably true of people who live in colder parts of New Zealand rather than in the warmer parts that I represent. 
But in the end people ought to be very very suspicious of what will happen with the superannuation scheme in total. I think people will get worried about that when they start to get mixed messages from the Government. John Key said that if anything happened to the scheme he would resign. Bill English might like that. He might think that is quite a good idea. Maybe that is why they have differing opinions on it; I do not know. In the end I think this bill will put current superannuation entitlements into an area that people will not be sure about. 
I am very pleased that Parliament is joining together to pass this bill. It is a small step but it is a very good use of urgency to get the bill through all stages today. I think that is something people will welcome. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 The Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill has only two parts to it so it is a pretty simple straightforward sort of bill. The first part deals with amendments to New Zealand superannuation and the second part deals with the veterans pension. Part 1 deals with the substance of the changes that have been made to New Zealand superannuation. It sets out the new formula and it sets out the new conditions that relate to superannuation and the ability for New Zealanders to choose to go and live in another country and take their superannuation with them. 
The bill has received a lot of support. Although submissions were made for further amendments to this part it was not possible for the Social Services Committee to make those changes. But I tell the Minister that I was pleased with the work that her department did in providing to us very logical reasons why we could not alter this bill at this stage but officials set out that there was the ability either under the Income Tax Act or in other work that could be done by her department to address some of those issues raised. 
Many people made submissions on this part of the bill that had nothing to do with the bill so we did not hear their submissions. But some did manage to slip in their desire for a change to be made to section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964 which relates as the Minister knows to the direct deduction of an overseas pension. I know that that is not part of the bill but I put on the table that it was a serious issue raised. I think it would be good if we could have a response about whether the Government is considering addressing this issue which has been seen by many as unfinished business. 
The first changes that were made to enable people to take a pension overseas were made by the fourth Labour Government in April 1990 and that is when the 50 percent formula was first set up. The 50 percent formula has meant that people did not have enough of their pension to be able to live in another country. We are changing that now to enable people to be able to live when they go overseas. 
I think that the changes that have been made in this bill are fair. I listened to Sir Roger Douglas in his contribution and I think that he probably has the wrong end of the stick. This legislation was not proposed to be put in place either by a Labour Government or by a National Government to give some advantage to Pacific people who come here to work so they can get a better pension. It has been a genuine attempt to try to improve the amount of money based on a fair formula for people to be able to take that money and go to another country. The formula is one that I think a lot of work has gone into. I know as part of the previous Government that we looked very hard at how we could have a fair formula that we could use in this legislation. As it works out I believe that what we have come up with in the select committee which the Minister and the National Government have agreed to enables fairness to take place between New Zealanders who have worked for 40 years and paid taxes all that time and those who have been here for a lesser time in terms of that formula. 
In terms of issues raised I wonder whether the Minister could give an indication as to whether she intends to look at some of the issues around the non-qualifying spouse. I will talk later about the veterans pension when that comes up; issues were raised about that. 
Overall we totally support this legislation. Very few changes were made at the select committee. I believe that the changes made in this part of the legislation have enhanced it and made it better and the Labour Opposition totally supports it. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to War Pensions Act 1954 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 As I said this part deals with amendments to the War Pensions Act 1954. This was an area where the members of the Social Services Committee probably wished that we could make some changes to the bill but that was not possible. 
The change that was asked for by the RSA related to the fact that New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension are linked in terms of the portability provision that we are making. The argument that the RSA put to us is that people are entitled to receive superannuation at a certain age—65 years in New Zealand—and people receive a veterans pension based on a disability that relates to an injury that the recipients had sustained while in the service of their country. People may be eligible for a veterans pension before the age of 65 years. They may be eligible for it at age 45 for example. The RSA argued to us that people on veterans pensions should be able to take their veterans pension to another country where they wished to live because they were entitled to it by virtue of the criteria that enabled them to have it. It asked why portability had to be linked to an entitlement to New Zealand superannuation. 
The RSA made a very strong case. I am aware that a review of the War Pensions Act is taking place. It was started under Rick Barker the Law Commission has done a lot of work on it and I suspect hopefully that there will be a rewrite of and a relook at what is provided to our war veterans. I ask the Minister whether she and the Government are considering making changes for war veterans going forward that would line up with what we heard at the select committee with regard to that submission from the RSA. I think it was a fair request and war veterans do feel quite aggrieved by the fact that they are linked to New Zealand superannuation when their pension is nothing to do with age but all to do with having a disability. This part of the bill also puts in place the same conditions for war veterans as for New Zealand superannuitants so the portability arrangements are the same for them. 
That is the only question that I have. I tell the Minister that the RSA raised a serious issue with us. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to clarify a couple of points that I think need to be clarified in this debate and certainly in this Committee stage. First of all the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pensions Overseas) Amendment Bill does not change the position for our Pacific peoples. That position was set in 1999; this bill does not make changes to it. The honourable member who spoke earlier in the second reading debate might like to take note of that: there are no major changes for the Pacific. They have had this position before; they will continue to have it under this bill. There are no drastic changes. I actually think we should acknowledge and note the contribution that Pacific people make to New Zealand when they come here to work whether for 10 years 20 years or longer which we see in the children of the Pacific peoples who moved here. They should have that recognition. I know that view is shared by most members in this Chamber. I am not here to make points on that or on anything else. 
I would like to correct Mr Hawkins on something he said earlier. He said Labour introduced this bill. The first reading of this bill was in March 2009 so it was introduced to the House by the National Government. There had been a long time to do something— 
Hon Member 
: It was tabled in September 2008. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: But the first reading was certainly under this Government. We picked it up. 
The amendments we are making to this bill in the Committee stage are technical. There are words that need to be corrected and that we think need a bit more clarification. This Government did not have to think too hard about acknowledging the ability of those who are older our “supers” to take their superannuation overseas. Giving people choice—recognising the freedom of where they spend their money and what they do with their own money—struck a chord with us and was certainly in line with our thinking. 
I make clear though that some of the reciprocal agreements we have with Australia that have come up in this bill are clear: in any country no one wants someone who is not a local of that country to be better off than the locals. When New Zealanders move to Australia for example even if they are in their senior years they should not be financially better off as far as the scheme that they are getting under a reciprocal agreement goes. It is as simple as that. We certainly have the same arrangements in New Zealand. That is what is causing problems if you like in section 74J as substituted in clause 14 and it is causing a very staunch debate for some. That section is relevant to this Committee stage because the provision directly affects the amount of money that people are getting in their hands. This is what the bill is about. 
I wanted only to clarify a few things. I am certainly looking forward to the third reading. We do not want to hold up the passage of this bill through the House. It is going through under urgency and it has the support of the Committee. I am happy to address any other concerns. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 The RSA has been concerned for a long time that people were not able to receive their payments overseas. That was based on the injuries that occurred to them. It is very important therefore that they should not have to wait if they were injured and qualified when they were 45 years old until they turn 65 to be able to draw their entitlement. I also again mention that all the preparatory work done on this Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill was done by Ruth Dyson when she was Minister. I think that is very important. I also say how pleased I am that this bill is going through under urgency. What disappoints me is that only one Minister has risen during the Committee stage thus far and had anything to say about the bill. I would have thought that the Minister of Defence the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs and the Minister for Senior Citizens would have risen in the Committee stage and had something to say. But as there is only one Minister here that is not likely to happen. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper76. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill 
War Pensions Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. It is with pleasure that I see the third reading of these bills going through. The bills fulfil the National Government’s commitment to ensure that older New Zealanders have more freedom to decide where they live or travel in their retirement. The bills will achieve that aim by making amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions can be paid overseas depending on where a superannuitant or veterans pensioner intends to go for how long and for what purpose. New Zealand has reciprocal social security agreements with other countries including Australia Canada Greece the Netherlands Jersey Denmark Ireland and the UK. Special provisions also allow payments to people heading off to live in most Pacific countries. Outside of those countries there are payment provisions called “general portability”. The amendments in the legislation relate solely to the general portability provisions and will not affect New Zealand social security agreements or the provisions for Pacific countries. 
Today’s retirees are different: they have worked longer and they are more active than ever before. After a lifetime of working and dutifully paying taxes they want more out of their golden years than just sitting in a rocking chair waiting for  
Coronation Street 
 to start. If they travel they do not necessarily want to be stuck on a package tour through Europe—21 countries in 30 days—in a bus just to have to get back in time to pick up their pension. Today’s retirees are not content to be regaled with the adventure tales of their grandchildren. They want their own stories; they want their own OE. 
The general portability provisions have prevented many superannuitants and veterans pensioners from moving to the country of their choice or travelling for a long time overseas. The bills will change that situation. The key change is a new payment rate. Instead of receiving the current flat 50 percent of the domestic rate a superannuitant or veterans pensioner will be able to receive up to the full rate of a New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension depending on how long the person has resided in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65 years. I must agree with the Hon Annette King who said how much discussion went into what the formula should be. Much work has been done on that and it has been carefully thought out in the name of fairness. There continues to be no entitlement to any additional payment for a non-qualified spouse or partner or for a living alone payment. 
The second change is that the legislation will free up the rules restricting the ability for those on superannuation and the veterans pension to move around once they go overseas. The legislation will allow for the payment of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension to those who wish to reside in more than one country with which New Zealand has no social security agreement whether they remain in the country they first move to or whether they move to other countries once they are overseas. It also allows for the payment of superannuation and the veterans pension to those on superannuation and the veterans pension who leave New Zealand to travel to or in another country or between any two countries for more than 26 weeks but who do not reside as such outside New Zealand. 
In conclusion I reiterate that this legislation is part of this Government’s commitment to ensuring that older New Zealanders are free to decide where they wish to reside or to travel in their retirement. This legislation also acknowledges that New Zealand is part of a global community and that our older people are most certainly a part of that global community. It also ensures that our retirees come from many countries and regions of the world and have the freedom to travel around. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 This legislation fulfils Parliament’s commitment to older New Zealanders. It was supported by all parties with the exception of the ACT Party during the Committee stage. However I note that ACT did not vote against the legislation at the Committee stage nor did it propose any amendments. Although I respect the arguments that Sir Roger Douglas put forward and appreciate the charts that he showed members—which unfortunately other people probably could not see—I think that he has the wrong end of the stick in relation to this legislation. 
I do not believe that it was the previous Labour Government’s intention when we tabled the original bill the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill in the House in September 2008 nor the intention of the current National Government to set up a system that would advantage Pacific Island people in coming into New Zealand to get a job so that they could get a better pension. I think that argument does not take account of a number of issues the main one being that in order for Pacific Island people to come into New Zealand to get a job they have to go through the immigration hoops to begin with. The idea that the door is open for people from the Pacific to walk in and work here in order to get a pension to take back to the Islands misses out quite a few important steps mainly that anybody who comes into this country must meet the immigration criteria that are in place. 
This legislation was put into the House and it is supported by all parties except for ACT because we wanted to make things easier and better for our older New Zealanders. They will be able to take their pension with them if they go to live in another country of their choice. People have been able since April 1999 to take 50 percent of their pension with them. Unfortunately that amount is not enough for people to live on in most other countries. It was a real restriction on people who felt that they had paid their taxes all their lives and had made their contribution. They had worked hard and they had money that they thought was their entitlement. Superannuation is not a benefit; it is a pension in their eyes. They felt that they could not take a sufficient proportion of it with them to perhaps enable them to reside in another country where their family is now living. 
This legislation uses a formula which I think is a fair one to take account of the years that people have worked and resided in this country. I think that it is a fair formula which now enables people to do some of the things that Minister Paula Bennett outlined in her speech. She was correct when she said that for New Zealanders today the age of 65 is really like what age 55 was like previously. People are much more active today. They want to travel and many of them have children who now live overseas. That is part of the global economy in which we live. Our children get jobs in other countries they marry people from other countries and they take up residence in other countries. One of the things that people want to do when they get older is to share time with their families and to live near them. This legislation will enable that to happen for many New Zealanders and I think that change is to be welcomed. 
At the Social Services Committee people generally supported the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. They did raise a number of issues that were outside the scope of the bill but also they raised some issues that were within the scope of the bill but on which we could not make the changes that they wanted without making the system unfair for other New Zealanders. One such issue that comes to mind is that of the non-qualifying spouse. The argument that was put to us related to the situation that occurs when a couple heads off overseas and the man is already receiving New Zealand superannuation and even if the woman is only a few months off turning 65 years she cannot apply for superannuation while she is overseas. We were asked why the non-qualifying spouse should not be able to apply for superannuation from the country he or she is now residing in and in which country the couple say they will now permanently reside. I know that Chester Borrows would agree that on the surface that sounded like a very fair thing to provide for until the officials started to unpick the whole scenario. If an advantage was given to one non-qualifying spouse a whole lot of disadvantage would then open up for a whole lot of other people. We would have got ourselves into a right old pickle if we had agreed with one group that had made a submission about that issue and had supported such a change. 
The Minister did not answer some questions that were asked during the Committee stage. They were serious questions on the issue of section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964. People submitted on that section. We did not hear their submissions. Submitters did not care about the fact that they were not meant to submit on that section of the Act. They wanted their submissions to be heard and John Carter said during his speech that the issue they raised was something that he had heard about for many many years. People want to be able to have their overseas pension that they earned in another country as part of their income here in New Zealand. As I said in the Committee stage we believed that was unfinished business in terms of the changes that need to be made. I asked the Minister whether the Government was considering making such a change or doing work on such a change but the Minister did not address that matter. 
I also asked the Minister during the Committee stage whether the Government was considering making the changes proposed by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association. The association made a very compelling submission to the select committee around the veterans’ entitlement and the portability issue. The association did not believe that portability should be linked to age; it said that it ought to be linked to the fact that people were receiving the veterans pension because of their disability. I gather that the association has felt strongly about this issue for a long time. I did ask the Minister whether the Government was considering making such a change and in terms of the review was looking at such a change being made. We could not make it; it was not possible for us to do that. We were given good reasons as to why we could not include that change in this legislation but I did ask the Minister whether the Government was considering making it. I think the association would really like to know whether this matter is on the Government’s work agenda because I have no doubt that the issue will not go away. 
There was little debate on this legislation. There did not need to be a lot of debate on it because there was agreement across the House. There was little dispute and little rancour. There was some grandstanding about whose legislation it was but let us put the issues on the table. The Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill was tabled by Ruth Dyson in September 2008. One speaker from the Government side said the previous Labour Government waited too long before doing anything about it. I have a very clear memory that from around 22 September onwards we were rather busy. An election was held in I think early November. There were not many people in this House who were busy debating anything but former Ministers had done work in the area of updating and improving portability over a long period of time. We had been doing that going right back to 1990 and as the Minister said going back to the changes made in 1999 around the entitlements for people who are living in the Pacific. It was ongoing work and as I have pointed out there is still more to be done. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Points of Order 
Tabling of Documents—Description of Documents 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a specific issue in respect of the leave that was sought to table documents in question time yesterday. Yesterday the House granted leave for the tabling of a statement by the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water Senator Penny Wong containing a summary of the changes put forward by the Liberal Opposition and a critique by the Labor Government of the changes. My issue is that the document that was tabled was no more than a very short Sky News web page that did not contain any of the information that the House granted leave to be tabled. I seek your advice on firstly the status of a document that has been tabled and put on the record of the House but which is not what the House granted leave to table; and secondly the actions that are available to the House in respect of the member who was given leave to table the document that was not tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for raising a serious point of order. I think the best thing I can do is to undertake to investigate the matter. Obviously I do not know the facts of the matter without investigating it. I will investigate the matter and come back to the honourable member and from that point on he can decide whether he is satisfied with what I find from the investigation. I accept that it is a serious and important matter that where the House gives leave for the tabling of a specific document that document is what is tabled. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just on that point could I ask that in your ruling you also consider the consequences in situations where documents are tabled as official documents by Ministers. There have been occasions—I can provide you with examples for your deliberation—where the document was a blank sheet of paper for instance with simply bullet points on it and no reference to a department or a Government agency and where it could be seen as perhaps speech notes or whatever. What is the status of such a document if it is characterised as an official document? I ask that you make that issue a part of your deliberations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Obviously in order to investigate a particular issue I will need to be given a particular case to investigate. If the honourable member wishes to provide an example of where that has happened I am happy to investigate that situation too. 
Questions to Ministers 
Recession—Government Actions for Economic Growth 
1. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What have been the Government’s priorities to ensure New Zealand comes out of recession and achieves sustainable medium to long term growth? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Our priorities through the recession have been to keep the economy ticking over and to protect the vulnerable. At the same time we have set out a long-term plan to lift New Zealand’s economic performance. In the last year we have delivered on the Government’s election commitments removed the sharpest edges of recession clawed back rising debt to manageable levels and stabilised New Zealand’s credit rating. 
Craig Foss 
: What specific measures has the Government taken to achieve its priorities? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There has been a wide range of measures but I will reflect on just some of them: securing the stability of the financial system; supporting thousands of jobs through a number of initiatives including Youth Opportunities the Job Support Scheme and ReStart; delivering a billion dollars of tax cuts; a large insulation fund; a programme to invest $7.5 billion in infrastructure; and an extensive programme of deregulation of business. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can that Minister claim that the New Zealand economy will be better off when the Government’s response to the recession of cancelling superannuation fund contributions and providing billions of dollars of subsidies to polluters has been to steal from our children? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The only plans I have heard for stealing from our children are extravagant promises from Labour to borrow $6 billion more. 
Craig Foss 
: What fiscal issues did the Government inherit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The first and most obvious one for the Government was when we discovered that over the next 3 years there would be a billion-dollar shortfall in accident compensation funding and that the Government would have to pay a billion dollars into the non-earners account to fill the gap. We also inherited Government spending growing at 50 percent over the past 5 years which means that we now have to borrow $250 million a week to fill the gap. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How does that compare with the zero net debt and gross debt at half the level that his Government inherited from Labour—compared with what we inherited from the previous National Government—and with the $30 billion - odd of funds that our children will have to find for superannuation added to the $30 billion to fund the climate liabilities that Gerry Brownlee wants to give to polluters? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member may not realise that if we borrow more money now that means our children will have to repay it and if we borrow money to put into the Superannuation Fund our children will have to repay the borrowings. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does he agree with Dr Susan St John that the intended in-work tax credit reduces poverty selectively and punishes families in a recession and how will those children who have been consigned to live in severe and significant hardship be supported out of poverty? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I understand that Dr Susan St John has a strong view about the in-work tax credit and that it has been a matter of some litigation between the Crown and the Child Poverty Action Group. We are following with interest both the debate about its effectiveness and the legal proceedings. 
Rahui Katene 
: What is the Government doing to respond to the outcomes from the hui held 2 weeks ago at Manurewa Marae to end child poverty in Aotearoa? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Our first step has been that in the midst of a sharp recession the Government has maintained all entitlements in order to ensure that people have a sense of security and to ensure that our most vulnerable are not those who are punished first by an economic shock. 
Accident Compensation—Opening Scheme to Competition 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: When he is reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 as saying that National had already looked into introducing competition in the ACC work account in some detail what work has the Government actually done in considering who would benefit from it? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 National in Opposition undertook some work to explore the opportunities for choice in the work account. That work was not completed which is why our policy said we would investigate introducing competition to the work account. In Government as the Minister for ACC has said we have not undertaken any serious analysis because of the shambles we inherited in respect of accident compensation as a result of the hopeless management of it by the previous Labour Government. I can confirm that in recent days though Treasury officials have been asked for an initial précis of the advantages and disadvantages of contestability in respect of the work account. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why does he support privatisation of the work account when all of the evidence is that the big winner would be the big Australian insurance companies and the losers would be ordinary New Zealanders who would pay more and get less? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not support privatisation. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am intrigued by the idea of more competition in the work account. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the summary he has given was not the experience when competition was introduced in 1998. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: In light of that answer does he not accept the arguments made by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Employers and Manufacturers Association that the experience was loss leading by companies to get market share followed by a big increase in levies; and does he not accept that where the system he is recommending already runs in Australia employers are paying twice the level of levies that employers in this country are? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: For a start off it may have eluded the member but there has been a massive increase in accident compensation levies in recent times when there has been no competition. Secondly it would be worth doing some serious work on this issue but I can tell the member that if he chose to read the initial report I have had from Treasury which was delivered to my office at lunchtime he would see in it an argument that there may be some advantages to competition. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has invited me to read a paper. I therefore invite him to table it so that I can. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that it is an official—[ 
Interruption 
] A point of order was raised and it will be dealt with in silence I say to both front benches. I take it that it is an official document from Treasury; it therefore must be tabled—that is if the Prime Minister was quoting from it. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am more than happy to have it tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is fine. 
Document laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will workers and employers be paying higher levies or facing cutbacks in accident compensation coverage or both to fund the hundreds of millions of dollars of profits that the Australian insurance companies will be making if he introduces the scheme that National introduced last time? Maybe Bill English will give him the answer. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not going to get into hypothetical situations; let us talk about the real world. In the real world New Zealanders are being asked to pay much higher levies because of the mismanagement of the previous Labour Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the form of privatisation that the Prime Minister is advocating benefit New Zealand and Kiwi workers when the in-depth report by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that it will raise administrative costs by 10 percent which will mean a lower proportion of levies actually going into coverage into prevention and into rehabilitation; how could that possibly help? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think some serious work in this area is required not making up things as we go along. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table the PricewaterhouseCoopers inquiry—some 477 pages I think—which will give the Prime Minister the answers I have talked about that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Bradford 
: Has he discussed with the Maori Party the potential impact of full or partial re-privatisation of the work account on Maori especially given that tangata whenua are disproportionately represented among low-paid and vulnerable workers; if so does he think that their support for the Government’s accident compensation changes will continue? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not sure whether their support will continue. I guess it will depend on what the final shape of the bill looks like after it has been through a select committee process. In terms of discussions I have had very very brief discussions with Maori Party members at our annual monthly meeting. They indicated some interest in looking at that area and we supported them in that interest. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement made by Tariana Turia on Sunday’s  
Q 
+ 
A  
programme that “costs in ACC will go up exorbitantly” if the work account is privatised and has she explained to him why having taken such a strong stand 3 days ago she suddenly flip-flopped on that issue? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I would agree with her if the work account were privatised but introducing competition is a vastly different issue. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statement that National has looked at privatising the work account or “making it available for competition” as he prefers to put it in some detail and is now actively considering it when Nick Smith assured the House a week ago that his stocktake would not include investigating competition in the work account; and why has National’s handling of this issue been such a shambles? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Quite clearly it was National’s policy to look at introducing competition. That is what we campaigned on and that is what we are proceeding to follow. 
Health Care—Policy 
3. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better sooner and more convenient health care? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Despite inheriting a lot of problems I can say that we have today announced a major shake-up in the administrative side of the public health service. It is estimated that these changes will save up to $700 million over the next 5 years and will reduce the number of administrative staff by up to 500 over time. All the resources that are freed up will be reinvested into front-line health services. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What are the major changes to the administrative core of the public health system that he has announced? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The announcement covers a comprehensive range of decisions flowing from the ministerial review group’s 170 recommendations. We are establishing a National Health Board as a unit within the Ministry of Health. It will provide a stronger unified and more focused approach to managing and supervising the funding of our 21 district health boards. The board will unify the planning and delivery of information technology of the workforce and of capital which are currently spread across a myriad of agencies and district health boards and lift performance in this area. We are also devolving funding of up to $2.5 billion currently managed by the Ministry of Health to district health boards where that would be appropriate. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How much of his projected savings in health will be reversed by the current and projected cost-shifting from the accident compensation scheme to the health service? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am unable to give the member a specific answer to that because on the issue of the cost shift what is important is that we have resources available in the public health service to treat patients. This administrative shake-up is all about how we can stop reinventing the wheel in the 21 district health boards and get greater consolidation of back-office functions harness the power of bulk purchasing and put up to $700 million over the next 5 years into patient services. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What other plans does he have to move away from 21 district health boards taking 21 different approaches to back-office functions? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We are creating a shared services establishment board to consolidate back-office functions such as payroll information technology human resources and purchasing. We do not need 21 district health boards to reinvent the wheel on back-office functions such as those. We do not need 21 district health boards to have computer systems that cannot even talk to each other. As I have made very clear to the House these savings will be significant for the public health service. They are equivalent to delivering 16000 heart bypasses or building two new city hospitals. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will he guarantee that his health restructuring and two new health agencies will help Mr Jim Chalmers whose issue of the cuts to his home help services I raised in the House last week to get his home help services back? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What it is about is freeing up back-office resources for the very purpose of providing improved front-line services. I can tell the member that the chair of Canterbury District Health Board Mr Alister James assures me that there will be more funding available for home help services in Christchurch. 
Accident Compensation—Child Sexual Abuse Victims 
4. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What protocols and procedures if any are in place within ACC for children who have been sexually abused? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has protocols and procedures in place to refer cases to the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. It has a dedicated child specialist in the Sensitive Claims Unit and the corporation endeavours to ensure that it has access to expert clinicians with the required specialist skills to deal with those who have suffered from child sex abuse. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is he aware that since July 2009 his instructions to ACC have led to well over 420 sexual abuse cases being held up—an increase of over 500 percent—as ACC waits for the new assessment tool to come into effect and that 24 counsellors in his own electorate say they will stop doing accident compensation counselling because the changes will actually harm their clients; and how many counsellors around New Zealand will be available to do accident compensation work? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There are many questions within the member’s supplementary question. I will answer just a couple of those. Firstly I have given absolutely no instructions to ACC except to say that this is a very sensitive area in which I have no expectations of savings and that decisions need to be made based on what is in people’s best clinical interests. Secondly I met with 18 of those counsellors in my own area at the weekend and had a very constructive meeting with them. 
Hon Annette King 
: If he believes politicians should listen to clinicians when it comes to assessment of sexual abuse claims for accident compensation as he states why does he not take his own advice and listen to the New Zealand Psychological Society and the New Zealand Association of Child and Adolescent Psychotherapists who have written to him saying that ACC has misinterpreted the Massey guidelines to justify reduced treatment and the new assessment tool is clinically unsound and not best clinical practice? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point I make is that the law in this area was passed in 2001 by the members opposite and that it makes it absolutely plain that for people to be eligible for accident compensation they need to have suffered a mental injury. The second point I will make is that the decisions made by ACC have been led by a group of very skilled clinicians including psychiatrists and psychologists and in my view the group is making decisions that are in the best interests of those who have suffered abuse. 
Hon Annette King 
: When he said last week there had been no change to clinical guidelines to date for the counselling of people who had been sexually abused why did he not tell the public that the new assessment tool which starts being used next week is the reason many cases have been deferred and declined including the case of the two little boys in Taranaki who were injured and sexually abused and had their counselling stopped by ACC; and can he not see that the veracity of his statements is causing concern and confusion to very vulnerable people? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In respect of the individual case that the member has raised the decisions in that case were made by a clinical psychologist. I as Minister will not override decisions made by clinicians. As I pointed out earlier in the week as a consequence of representations from the MP for New Plymouth counselling is being provided for that child quite appropriately through Child Youth and Family. 
Youth Employment—Youth Opportunities Package 
5. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How is the Government’s Youth Opportunities programme making a difference in New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yesterday I visited Te Mahurehure Marae for the national Women’s Refuge conference. I saw firsthand the difference that Community Max is making. When I commented on how nice the food was I was invited into the kitchen where I met four young people who had prepared the meal. They were part of our Community Max programme they were excited to have a job and they were absolutely thrilled with the difference it is making in their lives. 
Tim Macindoe 
: How many opportunities have these programmes created for young New Zealanders to date? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Over 1777 Job Ops positions have been created so far and 1085 Community Max positions involving 1475 New Zealand employers and 227 community groups and the numbers are growing by the day. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Does she agree that more needs to be done to significantly reduce youth unemployment when since she announced the scheme an additional 3000 young people are now on the unemployment benefit alone or is it a case of one step forward three steps back? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I would say two steps forward because as members have just heard we are seeing that over 2000 more young people would be on the unemployment benefit if it were not for the programmes that this Government has put in place. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What further examples can the Minister give of where the Government’s Community Max and Job Ops initiatives are making a difference? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: People are coming up with such great and innovative ideas themselves. Actually just last week the member Rahui Katene and I were discussing some of these ideas and how we could get them out to further iwi. We have put together a set of examples of Community Max programmes for Maori and I certainly offer it to any members of this House who would like to take those examples to the iwi and the community groups in their electorates and share those ideas so that we can get more people on these programmes. 
Accident Compensation—Impact on Health Budget 
6. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What representations if any did he receive from the Minister of Health in regard to any increased costs to the health budget as a result of ACC changes? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The Minister of Health and I have had several meetings and discussions about the implications of the Government’s accident compensation reforms. It is acknowledged that there will be some cost to health from the changes to the scheme in areas such as hearing self-inflicted injuries and in respect of disentitling criminals. Generally the level of support from health for sickness is less generous than that provided from accident compensation for accidents. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How will the current cost-shifting from accident compensation to health improve the return-to-work rates for the 5019 people who have been added to the health surgery waiting list by the accident compensation scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point I make is that the accident compensation scheme has provided a higher level of elective surgery this year than it did last year. I also point out that the current Minister of Health has overseen a record increase in the number of New Zealanders who are getting operations under our public health system on which he should be congratulated. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Has the Minister seen any examples of poor public policy decisions over health services that have given rise to financial problems for the accident compensation scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. A decision in 2004 to provide free physiotherapy went against the advice of officials and the submissions from the New Zealand Society of Physiotherapists. It was estimated to cost $9 million and actually cost over $100 million per year. The member that was responsible for that decision was Ruth Dyson. I note that David Parker has said it was a mistake; I am looking forward to Ruth Dyson apologising to the levy payers that are now having to pay for her mistake. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How will the cost-shifting from accident compensation to health help improve health services when district health boards have had $60 million cut by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) from their elective surgery budget? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Again I make the point that more people are being funded for elective surgery through the accident compensation scheme this year than last year. What is more the increase in the number of operations that are being provided by the Minister of Health through our public health service is higher than at any time. It is a huge increase on which he and this Government should be congratulated. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why did he do nothing when Treasury expressed grave concerns about the massive unfunded cost-shifting from accident compensation to health in his bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Quite the opposite. Costs in accident compensation have been growing at five times the rate of inflation for the last 5 years—five times the rate of inflation. The consistent advice I have had from Treasury is that reform is required if the accident compensation scheme is to be affordable and sustainable for the long haul. 
Street Racing—Deterrents 
7. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has the Government made in tackling illegal street racing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that the House unanimously agreed last night to the passage of the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill. Although legislation alone is never the whole answer this bill in conjunction with the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill which is now divided into three separate bills will introduce a number of measures to tackle illegal street racing and close loopholes in the existing law. These measures include giving councils powers to prohibit cruising on key roads; increasing police powers for dealing with illegally modified noisy vehicles; and promoting the greater use of demerit points and vehicle impoundment in order to deter offenders. The new legislation will send a clear message that New Zealanders will not tolerate dangerous and antisocial behaviour on their roads. 
Allan Peachey 
: What other actions has the Government taken to curb this problem? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In addition to passing this legislation my colleague the Hon Judith Collins has worked with the police on ensuring that the most effective operational strategies are used nationwide. Also the National Land Transport Programme is to provide the New Zealand Police with an extra $121 million over the next 3 years for road policing and the Government is currently working through the feedback from consultation on the next road safety strategy. I am sure that many New Zealanders who have been intimidated or have had their businesses or home life disrupted by illegal street racers will welcome all of these developments. 
Accident Compensation—Opening Scheme to Competition 
8. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he agree with the Employers and Manufacturers Association which says employers are wary about any move to reintroduce an open competitive market for ACC because the last time there was a private market for ACC it turned into a “bunfight” between insurers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 There is a range of views amongst employers in business. I note for instance that Business New Zealand takes a different view and favours competition. The member also selectively quotes the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) statement. It proposes competition in workplace accident treatment and rehabilitation it criticises unfunded extensions to the scheme by the previous Government and it supports the reform proposals in the Government’s bill. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree with PricewaterhouseCoopers which says that New Zealanders at present pay less and get more and why does he think it is clever to privatise parts of the accident compensation scheme so that New Zealanders pay more and get less? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point I make in response is that when making comparisons with Australia members need to be quite careful. For instance if someone has an accident in a motor vehicle in Australia it is considered to be a work accident. In New Zealand it is managed in a different account. I further point out to the member that PricewaterhouseCoopers is the very organisation that he has been constantly criticising for the actuary assessments of the liabilities of the scheme. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Does the Minister agree with the strong statement by the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) about the importance of reintroducing experience rating to the scheme to provide stronger incentives for workplaces? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I do. I was interested that Labour members opposite are very supportive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) and they make very plain their strong support for experience rating to be introduced. I hope Labour will take the advice of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) and support the Government’s bill so that we can have stronger incentives for safe workplaces. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree with the Maori Party that Maori are overrepresented in primary industry where work is often casual seasonal or part-time and therefore that proposed changes will disproportionately affect Maori workers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have had very constructive discussions with the Maori Party about a number of provisions including that but I think there is broad agreement that it does not make sense for a person receiving accident compensation to be receiving more income per year than they were in work. That was never what Sir Owen Woodhouse proposed yet that is what the changes— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: That’s nonsense! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says that it is not true. Let me explain it very simply. If a person receives 80 percent of his or her earnings for the last 4 weeks for ever and works only for 3 months of the year we have created an incentive for that person to stay on the scheme which I accept is consistent with Labour’s overall philosophy of keeping people dependent on the State. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Does he stand by comments made to me in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on 2 July that “it is not intended that that stocktake group will do investigation into introducing competition into the work account because quite frankly it’s not a priority. It’s not the area where the scheme needs attention.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The terms of reference for the stocktake that have been approved by Cabinet do not include at this stage competition on the work account. Just as members opposite would know when one is a minority Government there are agreements that are reached with support parties and priorities change. 
John Boscawen 
: Has he had representations from any insurance companies indicating that they look forward to the introduction of a competitive model that will offer choice and allow the development of innovative ways of reducing injuries and managing claims? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have had only a couple of discussions and I think a letter or two from members of the insurance industry. Some have advocated the position that the member has raised. I have also had a position from some insurance companies that have noted that with the state of the global financial markets there is some resistance to it at this time simply because of not having the strength in their balance sheets to make the investment to enter into a competitive market. 
Tax Working Group—Membership 
9. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he have any concerns regarding the membership of the Tax Working Group? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No I do not. The members of the Tax Working Group were appointed by Victoria University and where they have need for a wider range of expertise they invite people in including experts on poverty and economists who may have views that do not correspond with those of the group. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he have any concerns about PricewaterhouseCoopers’ chairman John Shewan being on the Tax Working Group in light of Mr Shewan’s advice to Westpac to use tax reduction measures that the High Court subsequently found to be unlawful and that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not. As I said Victoria University appointed a group of acknowledged tax experts and regardless of who their clients are their advice to the Government will stand or fall on its merits. 
Stuart Nash 
: Why did the Government lend its support to the formation of the Tax Working Group when the Minister appears to have ruled out the vast majority of its recommended options as presented to date? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In fact we have made it clear throughout the year that we have ruled out almost nothing. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he concerned that according to the Auckland High Court Mr John Shewan advised Westpac to use tax reduction measures in order to pay a tax rate of only 6.5 percent instead of the corporate rate of 30 percent and that those tax reduction measures were subsequently found to be unlawful tax avoidance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not intend to make comment on the case in any way that might compromise the Crown’s position. As I said before from the Government’s point of view the advice of the Tax Working Group will stand or fall on its merits regardless of who offered that advice. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How does he think the recommendations from the Tax Working Group will look in the eyes of ordinary New Zealanders if for example the Tax Working Group suggests increasing GST for ordinary New Zealanders when one of the experts on the group has been advising overseas banks on how to avoid tax to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the public will judge the outcome of this exercise by the wisdom of the Government’s decisions. The Government will have a look at the advice it will decide whether there is a strong enough case for change and any case for change will have to balance equity with positive economic effect. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: So far as he knows are any other members of his Tax Working Group involved in court cases involving tax avoidance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Not to my knowledge. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Effective Amendments 
10. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he stand by his statement that the changes to the emissions trading scheme make the scheme “workable and affordable”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes. The bill makes 34 technical changes to fix faults in the previous Government’s legislation including issues like tree weeds to make it more workable. The bill halves the price increases for electricity and petrol during the transitional phase which makes the scheme more affordable for families and businesses— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Face your kids and tell them they’re going to pay! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh Mr Cunliffe is in favour of higher power bills and higher petrol bills; why does he not tell the public that? 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen the analysis from Dr Christina Hood who manages climate change issues for the Kapiti Coast District Council that shows that his changes to the emission trading scheme represent a Government subsidy of $105 billion to polluters by 2050 and how does he reconcile this with his claims that his changes to the emissions trading scheme make it more affordable? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do not take my climate change advice from the Porirua City Council; I take it from sources that are far more reliable. But if the member wants to argue that there are tens of billions of dollars of subsidies under the modified scheme he must put his hand up and say that there are tens of billions of dollars of subsidies under the previous Labour Government scheme. 
Jonathan Young 
: What advice has the Minister received from officials on the workability of the timetable for implementing the existing legislation by 1 January if the legislation is not amended? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was advised that even if the new Government had pushed the go button on the very day that we took office the time frames for implementing the existing legislation could not be achieved. The stationary energy and 
industrial processes regulations come into effect on 1 January 2010. It simply would not have been possible to develop allocation plans by that date with the consultative processes that were added in during the late stages of the bill. That is why it is important that Parliament pass amendments so that we do not have the mess that was left to us by the previous Government with its emissions trading scheme. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon David Cunliffe and the Hon Gerry Brownlee will cease their exchange. I have called Charles Chauvel for a supplementary question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen comments made by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that the provisions of the emissions trading scheme amendment legislation are incompatible with achieving a 50 percent by 2050 pollution reduction target and will allow carbon credits to be freely allocated for ever; and are these examples of how he thinks the changes he is making to the scheme will make it workable? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The interesting feature is that in aligning the New Zealand emissions trading scheme quite closely with that of Australia all the criticisms that the member makes of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme are criticisms that he could make of the Australian Labor Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I think the key fault in the analysis is that those parties are not considering the fact that the phase-out rate under the legislation is reviewed every 5 years. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How does the Minister respond to comments from the Business Roundtable that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research - Infometrics modelling is not a satisfactory basis for analysing the complex effect of climate change policies and to comments from Treasury that the regulatory impact analysis on his emissions trading scheme changes “do not provide an adequate basis for informed decision making” and what do these statements say about his claim that his changes will make the scheme workable and affordable? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I could list over a dozen bills that the previous Government passed with exactly the same note in respect of— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a very straightforward question. This is the first bill about which Treasury has made this sort of criticism in its regulatory impact statement. I simply ask that rather than talking about other legislation he address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. If I recollect the member’s question correctly though I believe that he started with “How does the Minister respond” to certain statements. With a question like that how the Minister responds is not something the Speaker can have a lot of control over. If the member wants a more precise answer he needs to ask a more precise question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research - Infometrics report is a very fair analysis and it provides a good framework for a balanced climate change policy. The last point I would make is that what the Government is doing with the emissions trading scheme is exactly what National members said when they campaigned at the last election. We are simply delivering on our election promises. 
Jonathan Young 
: What further example can the Minister provide of making the Climate Change Response Act more workable by addressing errors in the existing legislation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Companies such as Olex New Zealand in New Plymouth which produces cable during a nitrogen cure process are captured under the existing legislation and face considerable costs from 1 January next year. No other competitor internationally is facing this cost and it was an error by the previous Government to include its activities in the emissions trading scheme. Quite frankly that error is putting jobs at risk. The process does not generate greenhouse gas emissions; that is why it should not be included. That is one of the reasons members of this House should support the bill which fixes that mistake. 
David Garrett 
: Has any other country included pre-1990 forests in an emissions trading scheme and does Australia plan to include pre-1990 forests in any such scheme it may implement? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Two points. The first is that we are the first country in the world to include forestry in an emissions trading scheme because unlike most developed countries forestry actually has a very significant impact on New Zealand. The second point is that in respect of Australia there is a complete ban on any deforestation of pre-1990 forests. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 11. [ 
Interruption 
] My apologies. 
Metiria Turei 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Does the Minister support the international 350 campaign to return climate-changing gases to a concentration of below 350 parts per million in the atmosphere— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could not hear the member’s question because there was so much shouting and barracking going on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that it was difficult to hear the member’s question and I apologise for not calling her immediately. I invite her to start her question again. 
Metiria Turei 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Does the Minister support the international 350 campaign to return climate-changing gases to a concentration of below 350 parts per million in the atmosphere; if so how will his changes to the emissions trading scheme help to achieve that goal? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I commend the 350 campaign organisers on their efforts both in New Zealand and internationally to raise the profile of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. I do not believe that the 350 parts per million target is realistic. The target that the New Zealand Government has adopted is a limit of a 2 degree temperature rise and for carbon dioxide equivalent gases in the atmosphere a concentration not exceeding 450 parts per million. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table pages 1 and 5 of the submission of the climate change issues manager of the Kapiti Coast District Council to the Finance and Expenditure Committee which state that the changes to the emissions trading scheme represent a $105 billion subsidy from the Government to polluters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those pages from that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I noted that Mr Cunliffe objected to my statement that the Government was committed to a 450 parts per million target— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave of the House to table a Cabinet minute from the previous Government where it agreed to 450 parts per million as New Zealand’s negotiating position on climate change. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that leave is being sought to table a Cabinet minute? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When one is misrepresented it is always difficult to know whether to object before or after the question is put but of course I asked the Minister the question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and there will not be interjection. I cannot allow the member to debate this. I do apologise to him; I should have stopped the Minister earlier. He should have come straight to his point of order rather than introducing debating matter and I can see that he acknowledges that he did not quite follow the correct procedure. I invite members to leave it at that considering that the main purpose was the seeking of leave to table a document which leave was refused by the House. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table page 8 of the submission of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to the Finance and Expenditure Committee which states that carbon credits will be freely allocated for ever and that the changes to the emissions trading scheme are incompatible with the Government’s target of 50 percent— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that page from that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table page 1 of the submission from the Business Roundtable which states that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research - Infometrics modelling is not a satisfactory basis for analysing the complex effect of climate change policies; and also page 12 of the explanatory note of the amendment bill which states that Treasury does not believe that the regulatory impact statement provides “an adequate basis for informed decision making”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two pages from those two documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table page 16 of the Cabinet paper from the Minister for Climate Change Issues entitled  
Moderated Emissions Trading Scheme—proposed amendments to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 
 which states that proposed policy settings for intensity-based allocation indicate a cumulative increase in Government debt of around 6 to 8 percent of GDP by 2050. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to assist members I point out that all the submissions regarding the emissions trading scheme are on the parliamentary website under “Committee documents”. 
Prisoners—Employment Training Skills 
11. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What recent announcements has she made on employment training skills for prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Recently I launched the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 2009-2012. This strategy will ensure that more prisoners leave prison with essential work skills and habits. Research shows that prisoners who find work after their release are less likely to reoffend. 
Melissa Lee 
: How will the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 2009-2012 assist prisoners to be more employable? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The strategy details the plan to boost the number of prisoners learning industry-based skills by 1000 by 2011. That was an election promise and it will assist prisoners to leave prison with better skills than when they entered. There is also a much stronger focus on education and skills development in the strategy and it targets offenders who are serving sentences of 6 months who currently have fewer opportunities to access the training and employment opportunities provided by the Department of Corrections. 
Accident Compensation—Counselling 
12. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by his statement last Thursday that “In respect of the member’s claims that people in Wellington are making decisions about such counselling I assure the member that those decisions are being made by properly qualified psychiatrists and others who have the clinical skills to make them”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes I do. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has registered health professionals including psychiatrists and clinical psychologists and that includes a wide range of health disciplines including counsellors psychotherapists and psychologists who are on contracted peer review. All those clinicians are supported by the clinical directorate at the ACC. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Is it still the case that the victims of sexual abuse are suffering from extensive delays in having their claims processed by the ACC and how is this clinically acceptable? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The system by which people make claims is that they receive four counselling sessions without any questions being asked. The counsellor then lodges an application with the ACC. It is reviewed by proper clinical specialists and decisions are made from there. I think that the major difficulty and where this issue has caused controversy is that the legislation requires that in order for a person’s ACC claim to be valid he or she has to meet the provision passed into law in 2001 by the previous Government that requires a mental injury to have been sustained. 
Lynne Pillay 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think that the Minister has addressed the question. The question was quite specific. It was about the extensive delays that victims of sexual assault are suffering at the moment. He has not addressed that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think in fairness to the Minister that the way that the Minister answered the question was by giving a very full answer explaining how the process worked. In doing so I believe that he was actually disputing the assertion that the member made. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is the Minister ignoring clinical advice that the guidelines that his Government is introducing next week are not clinical best practice and may potentially harm those who need counselling? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Far from ignoring clinical advice the new guidelines for treatment arise from a study that was done at Massey University and they have been approved by the clinical directorate of the ACC. I have no intention of overriding the ACC’s clinicians in making decisions about what is appropriate for these very sensitive claims. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Will the Minister instruct the ACC to reconsider imposing these guidelines which have been described as clinically unsafe by the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists the Association of Counsellors the Christian Counsellors Association and the Association of Social Workers or are the clinical skills of those people irrelevant? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think that at the core of this issue is a professional tension between counsellors psychotherapists and psychologists and psychiatrists. If we read the Massey University study we see that the changes that the ACC has made in this area are strongly supported by the research done at Massey University by some of the most highly skilled clinicians in this area. 
Questions to Members 
Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill—Submissions 
1. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: How many submissions were received by the committee on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 As at this afternoon 374 submissions had been received. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did he as the chair of the committee initially ask the clerk of the committee to invite only 27 submitters to attend and give evidence to the committee? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Pursuant to the committee’s instructions I asked the clerk to get the process of hearing submissions under way after our meeting which finished I think at about 7 p.m. on Wednesday of last week. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Did Labour members of the committee make the suggestion to him that no submissions be held as was suggested to me by Mr Charles Chauvel in discussions on an amendment bill when Labour and National were— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Member 
: That’s terrible. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s what they suggested. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s what Charles said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith that he must stop interjecting when I am on my feet. I also apologise because the Minister has caught me unawares as normally only one supplementary question is allowed in questions to members. What is more the supplementary question that the Minister was seeking to ask was not strictly within the Standing Orders. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table an email exchange between the chairperson and me containing the initial suggestion for hearing only 30 submitters and the response. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill—Submissions 
2. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: When did the committee begin hearing oral submissions on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The committee began hearing evidence on the bill on Thursday 15 October 2009 at around 4 p.m. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did he ask as chair of the committee for the clerk to plan for a total of only 5 hours of evidence from submitters over the course of 1 day on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: On that Thursday there were about 5 hours available to the committee to hear evidence so that is what was asked. Of course there were other days available. 
Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill—Submissions 
3. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: What respectively are the most and the least amounts of notice given to a submitter for an invitation to appear before the committee on 15 October to speak to their submission on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The first submitters offered hearing times on 15 October 2009 were contacted on the evening of 14 October 2009 straight after the meeting at which the committee made its decision as a whole committee to hear from submitters. Submitters heard on the 15th were also contacted that morning and in the afternoon for bookings that evening. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Did he during public submissions to the committee receive any complaints from submitters giving evidence about the short notice of their invitation to appear and give evidence before the committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that the chair of the committee is responsible for what submitters to the committee might say. He has no responsibility for that whatsoever. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just wanted to make sure that you heard my question. I asked the member whether as chair of the committee during the public submissions he received complaints from submitters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the member’s question very clearly. It is not in order to ask the chair of the committee that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. May I understand the reasons for that ruling? I had a look at— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I am very happy to explain to him that the chair of the committee is not in any way responsible for what those making submissions at the committee might say be it about the time of the warning they have been given in terms of when they might make their submission or the contents of their submission. The chair has no responsibility whatsoever and he cannot be questioned on that. 
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill 
War Pensions Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 In conclusion I say that the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill now divided into the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill has been accepted and supported by all parties in this Parliament except the ACT Party which during the Committee stage made it clear that it would oppose it. I am delighted that this legislation will go through. It was started by Labour in Government and has been completed by the National Government. It will be widely welcomed by older New Zealanders who look forward to being able to travel and to live overseas taking with them a large proportion of their New Zealand superannuation which is something that they worked for for many years and they believe is their entitlement. It is not a benefit; it is a pension and they are delighted that with the passage of this legislation they can make choices about where they go to live and how they can now spend that money. Under the old criteria they could have only 50 percent of their pension. This legislation is supported by this House; I am pleased to see it being passed today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is—[ 
Interruption 
] Is the member seeking a call? 
Chester Borrows 
: Yes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I just say that it is very impolite for conversations to be going on while members are speaking. I know that the member here had only a minute and a bit left but it was very difficult to hear. If members want to speak they should move out into the lobbies. I do not know whether the member was calling or not because there are people standing in front of him. If any member wants the call he or she needs to stand up and seek it. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I am pleased those are the ones we are on and that everything is on target and I thank the Minister. 
It is important to note that these are changes that have been wanted for some time and that they have received wide support from across the House. There was goodwill on both sides of the table around the select committee process. We received substantial help from the officials who were present and they guided us through the process. As the previous speaker has said this legislation was initiated under the previous Government and it has continued under this Government. It deals equitably with those hard-working New Zealanders who have spent years contributing to our society paying their taxes in anticipation that in their elder years they would receive superannuation. We do want those people to travel around the world. We certainly want them to come back but it is good for their health and the health of our nation that they travel around the world not only to visit their family but also to drink in all that this world has to offer and to come back and add to the rich tapestry that is the wonderful country in which we live. This bill enables them to be able to do that and to reap the benefits of their long years of hard work working towards a better New Zealand as we all are. I endorse this legislation and commend it to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in support of this legislation. Just to recap the purpose this legislation amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. The whole intent is to make it easier for superannuitants and veterans to receive their superannuation or pension if they travel or in many instances work overseas. 
The provisions for these payments have been in place since 1 April 1990 but they provided only for a flat rate of 50 percent of the domestic rate of the payment at the time these people left New Zealand. Effectively New Zealand superannuitants and recipients of the veterans pension who travelled overseas received only 50 percent. In many instances that flat rate deterred retired people and veterans from travelling for any length of time overseas because it was just not possible for them to access the superannuation that they were entitled to because they had reached the age of 65 and were superannuitants or had served New Zealand and were on the veterans pension. It was a very unfair situation and one might say quite punitive. 
I am really pleased as is everyone in the House that from 2 November this will no longer be the case. Those people who travel overseas will not lose 50 percent of their pension; they will receive all of the pension that they are entitled to. I think that will be a major benefit to people who have reached retirement age or who have served New Zealand and have served it well. 
Along with my colleagues I am very happy to speak in support of this bill but at the risk of being just a little negative I will repeat what I said in an earlier speech in the House. I am concerned about how this measure will be funded. This increased benefit for recipients of superannuation and veterans benefits in New Zealand is something that all members in this Parliament support and that is a very very good thing but its funding is also very important. 
That is why it is very important to put money aside into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which we can call the Cullen fund to continue to fund New Zealand superannuation at the level that it should be funded. In the National Government’s Budget Labour members were very very concerned to see the deferral of payments into the fund. What does that mean? It means that the Superannuation Fund account is not receiving the money it currently needs to have. It means with the best will in the world that although we are now extending people’s rights with regard to superannuation which we have all acknowledged is good we now have a big question mark about the funding which is not good. We must ask how we will sustain the funding into the Superannuation Fund for generations to come as we continue I would hope to enhance these payments. 
I feel strongly about this and I urge the Government to reconsider the deferral of the Superannuation Fund payments to enable the fund to grow so that all these obligations can be met and will not cost future generations of New Zealanders in terms of their access and their rights to superannuation. I think that is important and I urge the Government to consider doing this. 
I know that after the Budget was released Treasury showed that Bill English’s plan to gut the Superannuation Fund by 50 percent meant that it would never be able to catch up. It means that in the future a Government—it would certainly not happen under a Labour Government but it could happen under more conservative Governments—could use that as an argument for attacking the rate of superannuation and the rights that are part of the superannuation package. 
Members opposite might say that is rubbish and that it is simply not the case. I would say to those members— 
Chester Borrows 
: We’d say: “How would you pay for it?”. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Who said that? 
Chester Borrows 
: How would you pay for it in these conditions? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: We are not bringing the Deputy Speaker into the question are we Mr Deputy Speaker? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No we are not. 
Chester Borrows 
: How would Labour pay for it in these economic times? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Labour would pay for it but the member has just asked where Labour would get the money from. Labour would continue— 
Chester Borrows 
: That is the question; you’ve got it in one. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes because Government members are now asking quite openly where we would get the money from to maintain superannuation at its current level. What does that bring into question? Well it makes me ask what this Government’s agenda is. I ask what this Government’s agenda is when Government members are sitting on the other side of the House asking that. 
Chester Borrows is sitting on the other side of the House and saying that National has cut the contributions to the Superannuation Fund but if we want to maintain superannuation at its current level he is asking Labour members where they would get the money from. I find that pretty abhorrent. I have a lot of respect for Chester Borrows. I think that he is a good select committee chair. But I think he has quite unwittingly exposed the National Government’s agenda for superannuation in this country. He has asked where Labour would get the money from to maintain superannuation at the current levels. Is that correct? Is that the question the member is asking? 
Chester Borrows 
: The question is where would Labour get the money from to maintain the contributions to the super fund. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I find that quite reprehensible. It is an appalling statement to make. It is putting pensioners and future generations at risk. I must say to Mr Borrows that I am very very disappointed to hear that. You are the last member I would have expected that sort of statement from. I will find it very difficult in the select committee tomorrow to treat you with respect. I am really quite concerned about this. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I mean to treat the member with respect. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: “Borrow” by name borrow by nature. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is “Borrow” by name and borrow by nature. I say to Mr Deputy Speaker that I have never had any trouble whatsoever treating you with respect and I will continue to do so. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Coming back to the matter in hand I am pleased that this bill is before Parliament. As I have said before this would have been a good bill to rush through in the 100 days of action rather than the one slashing KiwiSaver rates. But it is here now and I am supporting it. But the question I ask the Government is if these levels of payments are to be maintained then how will we continue to keep making those contributions to the Superannuation Fund? Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa i tenei ahiahi.  
As we consider this bill today crowds will be heading to Mangahanea Marae in Ruatoria to bid their farewells to the renowned educator and mentor Mate Huatahi Kaiwai as mentioned by the Hon Parekura Horomia yesterday. This kuia of 94 years of age was the proud mother of nine children and Mate was also kuia to 31 mokopuna and 33 great-mokopuna. She was awarded Te Whetu o Te Tau by Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori the Maori Language Commission a couple of years ago for her lifelong contribution to the retention and preservation of Maori language. 
But there was another distinctive characteristic of Mate and that was the fact that she was the daughter of Ta Apirana Turupa Ngata Ngati Porou leader politician esteemed scholar devout land reformer and writer. His wide-ranging scholarship resulted in a unique publication of a collection of waiata  
Nga Moteatea 
; the journal  
Te Wananga 
; the revision of the Maori Bible; and a survey called  
The Maori People Today: A General Survey 
. But his legacy was also important in encouraging his people to develop and farm their land while also preserving their culture and maintaining their unique identity—all aspects that his daughter clung to until her dying days. 
I draw attention to the inspiration of that kuia in this brief contribution to the debate because she represents in aspects just how treasured our pakeke are and as a consequence should lead us to seek to improve the income levels and support for them in whatever form we can. It is because of our aroha our love for kuia such as Mate that the Maori Party has previously supported legislation to amend the income and asset-testing regime for elderly people requiring indefinite long-term residential care. We supported the initiative of the SuperGold card and more recently we have extended the eligibility for the single living alone rate to previously excluded categories of superannuitants and veterans. In many ways these votes have all paved the way for the decision to have this collection of bills which have now been split off and are before the House right now. 
But there is another special characteristic to the legacy of Nanny Mate. As the daughter of Sir Apirana Ngata I think she represents a unique connection to our past. To all intents and purposes she sits at the cusp of another era a gateway to Te Ao Maori of days gone by. Our cultural framework establishes the expectation that it is the role and the responsibility of the middle and younger generations to properly care for our elders. For the Maori Party whanau ora is integral to the proper care and respect for older people—for older people to feel included loved secure supported and involved in community life. 
As part of such an expectation we therefore support the opportunity provided by this raft of legislation to allow superannuitants and veterans pensioners to travel or retire overseas and still have the ability to receive New Zealand superannuation and pension payments. Such an expectation includes provisions for countries with which New Zealand does not have agreements relating to reciprocity of social security payments. This legislation also amends the current flat rate payment of 50 percent of the benefit when a person leaves New Zealand with an abatement scheme that entitles those who have lived longer in New Zealand to receive a greater superannuation or pension payment. These are all practical tangible measures to help make life just a little easier for our older ones. They are also consistent with the Maori Party policy position which has promoted the need to raise the rate of superannuation and veterans pensions. 
We believe that superannuation should be set at a level that provides for an equitable standard of living pays for all of the essentials and allows the continued participation of older people in community life. As a consequence of this view the Maori Party advocates an increase in superannuation income. Price increases in essentials such as basic food items petrol and electricity lend urgency to the need to increase superannuation levels. A 6-monthly inflationary adjustment is also necessary to maintain living standards. 
But there is another aspect to the income differential not addressed in this legislation that we believe warrants further examination and that is the capacity to lower the age of entitlement to New Zealand superannuation to 60 years for groups whose life expectancy is lower than average. The average mortality age for Maori is around 10 years earlier than it is for non-Maori. We believe that a lower entitlement age will allow for a more equitable uptake of New Zealand superannuation for all citizens. Of the 65-plus population in New Zealand in Aotearoa 5.3 percent are Maori so we are aware of the scale of the income difference we are dealing with. 
We will therefore support this bill in that it will enable superannuitants and veteran’s pensioners who wish to travel to or live in any country or travel between any countries to retain their benefit entitlement. We support it also in that it amends the benefit entitlement of superannuitants and veterans pensioners living overseas. With these two provisos firmly in place we are happy to state our collective support for this reading of the bill. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I want to say how pleased I am that most parties will vote for this legislation at its third reading. I will reflect as the previous speaker did on something that happened yesterday. One of my former constituents Harold Clark celebrated his 107th birthday. Unfortunately he had to celebrate it not overseas living where he might have wanted to but in Middlemore Hospital because he had had a fall. I acknowledge Harold Clark and what he has done. 
The people who will benefit from this legislation will I think be listening very carefully today. It is not often that people in this Parliament get up and talk about their support for a bill. Everyone across the House seems to be in favour of this legislation although I must say to Sir Roger that I could not see the graph he had earlier. I suppose that made it a wee bit difficult. Perhaps that is a pity. 
In my electorate I have numbers of people coming to my electorate office. We are averaging over 82 people per day who are walking in off the street. Amongst them are people who are coming to see us about superannuation. I can tell members that some of these people visit because they have Dutch pensions and they think the Government over here is unfair to them. They feel cheated. These bills do not address that. This legislation deals with people who have grown up in New Zealand worked hard and I suppose have been the strugglers. Then their families leave home go overseas to live and they would like to join them. What has been holding them back? I say it has been money that has been holding them back but this legislation which was introduced by Ruth Dyson last year gives people that opportunity. 
We heard the previous speaker talk about the SuperGold card but those people will not be able to use the SuperGold card when they shift overseas. It will not be able to be transported overseas. But these people will perhaps be able to spend their retirement close to their families and seeing their grandkids. I always thought the way people talked about their grandkids all the time was unusual. All of a sudden one’s son produces a grandson and one changes one’s mind. If my son went overseas to live that is where I would want to live because I would want to see my grandkid. For many people this legislation means that they can now make choices. I think that is why this is really important. It is all about choices. People can stay in New Zealand and collect their national superannuation or they will be able to live overseas. I think that is very important. 
You know people do get very concerned about national superannuation. They come to the electorate office and they ask all sorts of questions. They want to know what will happen. Of course that is a real worry for some people. I think one of the big problems many people have is that they listen to talkback radio. On talkback radio rumours run around like nobody’s business and listeners get the wrong end of the stick. A lot of people think that with the Cullen fund under siege from the National Government they may not be able to afford to live a modest but reasonable life in the future. 
New Zealanders are worried about the security of their pensions. I think that is a very important point for MPs across the floor to dwell on for a second. If people work all their days in New Zealand there is an expectation that they will get national superannuation and be able to live on it. If people go overseas to live they will want to take their pension with them. I think people are now very suspicious. What is the National Government’s real intention towards superannuation? That is why they come to my electorate office. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Sounds like one of those rumours you want to spread George. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Jonathan Coleman can smile. I do get quite a few people coming to see me about him and his immigration policies and decisions. But the ones I have real sympathy for are the elderly. 
Paul Quinn 
: We don’t have conspiracy theories over here. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I tell members that for the last 9 years conspiracy theories were running rampant and all the people were ringing up talkback radio and listening to what they had to say. 
The ordinary elderly people who come to the electorate office to talk about superannuation are really worried. They take a very very simple interest in this issue. They look at it from their own point of view. Jonathan Coleman may be laughing and carrying on but he is the guy who has a poor memory. He is the guy with amnesia. He cannot remember what he tells journalists. He cannot remember what he tells his own colleagues. That happens when someone gets old too I say to Dr Coleman. People get amnesia and they get things muddled up. In the electorate office in Manurewa we help those people; we actually help them. [ 
Interruption 
] That member does not know what he— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am having difficulty hearing the member. Interjections should be rare reasonable and witty and I put the stress on “witty”. I have not heard any of those. Cross-exchanges are getting a bit out of hand. I ask members to keep the noise down. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I think it is really important that there is some respect for the elderly speaking from my own point of view. From calls across the floor I think people should be a wee bit more respectful. I say to Dr Coleman that as one gets closer and closer to 65 one starts to think more seriously about superannuation. I spend quite a bit of time thinking about life after Parliament in about 8 years’ time. In about 8 or 9 years’ time I think I may be one of those people who has to make a decision on whether I pack up and leave New Zealand and take my pension with me or stay in New Zealand. Then I think that there will be a Labour Government within about 2 years so I think I will stay here because it will be another benevolent Labour Government. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: You didn’t like the last one very much George; I don’t think you’ll like the next one. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well I think that in the end many people will look to this legislation as providing opportunities for them. It will make sure people have the choices they rightly deserve. I think all parties can join in supporting this legislation. I listened to Sue Bradford when she spoke earlier today. I think that we will miss Sue Bradford from this place because she understands ordinary people and what a small amount of money can do for them in their retirement. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 This legislation sets up three regimes for people who wish to retire overseas; how much one gets depends on which country one happens to retire in. If one retires to a country with which we currently have a reciprocal arrangement then the amount of superannuation one will get depends not only on the formula that is in the bill but on the rules that are laid down in that agreement. If one elects to go to Australia one might get anywhere from zero to 100 percent depending on one’s other income. One could work in New Zealand for 47 years decide to retire in Australia and get zero. The reason for this is that we have a reciprocal arrangement with Australia that is means-tested. The same applies if one goes to Canada the UK or any of the eight countries with which we have a reciprocal arrangement—the Netherlands is another one. On the other hand if one goes to any other country outside those eight and outside the 22 Pacific Island countries then one will get a pension anywhere from 50 to 100 percent. It is not means-tested. 
So if one goes to Australia one gets zero to 100 percent—the reason one might get zero is because of the means testing—but if one goes to any other country putting aside the 22 Pacific Island countries one will get somewhere between 50 and 100 percent so one is substantially better off. It depends on the number of years that one has worked. To get the full 100 percent one has to work in New Zealand for 45 years. On the other hand if you elect to go to one of the 22 Pacific Island countries you will get 50 percent after 10 years 75 percent after 15 years and 100 percent after 20 years. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: I am; I apologise. The superannuitant will get 50 percent after 10 years 75 percent after 15 years and 100 percent after 20 years. In fact this policy was as I understand it promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and it is a de facto foreign aid policy. I do not believe it is a particularly satisfactory one. 
In this legislation we have an issue of fairness. Is it fair that a New Zealander who has worked here for 45 years and who goes to Australia to live could well get zero pension? On the other hand someone who goes to a country other than one of the eight countries that we have reciprocal arrangements with and the Pacific Islands is treated more generously—after 20 years if one goes to Australia one will get somewhere between zero and 45 percent. One will get zero if one has too much income but the maximum one gets after 20 years in New Zealand would be 45 percent. If one goes to another country putting aside the 22 Pacific Island countries one will get 45 percent. So in Australia it is zero percent to 45 percent; in other countries it is 45 percent with no means testing. If one goes to one of the 22 Pacific Island countries one will get 100 percent with no means testing. 
We are saying to New Zealanders who have lived here for 65 years and who have worked in the workforce for 47 years or possibly longer that if they happen to choose to go to one of the eight countries with which we have a reciprocal agreement after 20 years they will get somewhere between nought and 45 percent and they will get 100 percent only if they have worked the whole 45 years. If they go to one of these other countries they can get up to 100 percent—it will depend on the number of years—but on the other hand if they go to one of the 22 Pacific Island countries they will get 100 percent after 20 years. 
I will be interested in how National and Labour actually explain to New Zealanders who have worked here 45 or 47 years why after 45 years’ work they get zero pension if they have other income more than $39000 whereas if they had chosen to go to another country or a Pacific Island nation they would get 100 percent. In fact if they chose to go to a Pacific Island nation they would get 100 percent after 20 years. I do not believe that that de facto foreign aid policy is a good policy. If we want to pass that money on we should do it directly rather than in this de facto way. There is an element of fairness and I think a lot of New Zealanders in Australia are going to be asking politicians in this Chamber to explain why they get zero or a reduced benefit when compared with people from other countries. A good principle might lie behind this legislation but I tell members that the way it has been implemented is anything but fair. I think a lot of New Zealanders in England Canada Australia the Netherlands and other countries will find this anything but fair. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 The member for Manurewa and the deputy leader of the Labour Party noted that this legislation’s introduction was supported by almost all parties in this House. I agree with Ms King’s comment that a pension is not a benefit; it is an entitlement earned by hard-working older New Zealanders who have contributed fulsomely to our country over a lifetime. I hope that we will always be internationally recognised as a country that values and respects our senior citizens and guarantees through our pension system dignity for all in their retirement. 
The overriding purpose of this legislation is to create a more flexible regime that reflects New Zealanders’ nomadic inclinations giving our older citizens greater freedom to travel in their retirement without facing a heavy financial penalty. The key change is a new more generous maximum payment. Instead of the current flat rate of payment older New Zealanders will be able to receive up to 100 percent depending on the number of years they have resided in New Zealand. The legislation also frees up the rules that restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around once they get overseas. It also allows payments to people who wish to reside in countries with which New Zealand has no social security arrangements whether they remain in such countries or begin travelling. 
These provisions modernise an overseas payment policy that has been in place for nearly two decades and that is clearly outdated. The current system causes distress for many New Zealanders and prevents some from embarking on the overseas travel that in many instances they had planned for and looked forward to throughout their years of employment. At a time when they deserve to be rewarded for their valuable contributions many have instead had to modify or cancel those plans upon realising that the current flat rate of 50 percent would provide insufficient income to allow a reasonable standard of living in many countries or because existing rules restrict their ability to move to more than one country because payment is linked to residence in one particular country only. 
Forcing older people to remain in one country or preventing their ability to travel to a variety of countries is punitive and has no basis in sound policy. Because of our geographic isolation New Zealanders travel long distances whenever they leave our shores. Limiting their pension entitlements when they do so cannot be justified and I am delighted that this legislation removes that unfairness. This is a good measure. I thank the officials who have worked on it and all who submitted on it and I commend it to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is a rare moment in our Parliament unfortunately when National agrees with Labour and supports our legislation. I am delighted to hear the contributions of that member and his colleagues supporting the progress of this legislation. 
In my earlier contribution to this debate I raised concerns though about the confidence with which younger members of our society can look forward to their retirement because the National Government has gutted the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The benefits of this legislation—which will make it easier for superannuitants and people who are in receipt of a veterans pension to travel or retire overseas—will be lost on people who because of Bill English’s gutting of the Superannuation Fund will not have enough money to travel overseas let along to retire on it. It is not credible for this Government to say that it values older New Zealanders that it wants to keep the level of superannuation at the level it currently is in order to keep the level of entitlement at the same rate and that it wants to ensure that people can receive that entitlement when they are 65 years old while at the same time it is taking away the very fund that will allow that to happen in the future. It will not affect the superannuitants of this year or of next year but it will affect the superannuation entitlement of members like the Hon John Carter who made a contribution earlier in this debate. It is very frustrating to hear what I consider to be conflicting points of view from the National Government when it says that it supports this legislation because it will make it easier for superannuitants to travel or to retire overseas but at the same time says to people in their 40s and 50s: “But we are not going to have you retire with that level of income because you”—Not you Mr Speaker; you are much younger than that. I apologise for referring to you as being in your 40s or 50s. You have a long way to go before you reach that level of age. But those of that age will not be able to receive the level of superannuation that would allow them to retire in confidence. 
My colleague and friend the Hon Annette King asked the Minister the Hon Paula Bennett during the Committee stage of this debate one simple question. Tragically the Minister was not able to answer it. She took a call but she totally ignored the question. It was a very serious issue which was raised by people who in New Zealand deserve just about more respect than anyone. They are the people who have risked their lives literally and their well-being by going overseas and serving in a war on our behalf. Those war veterans made submissions to the select committee during the process of this legislation and they expressed some frustration which it is my understanding was shared by every member of the select committee with the fact that at the moment the war pension is directly linked to superannuation when it is actually quite a different entitlement. The war pension is granted to a person who has served our country on our behalf and who has some sort of impairment as a result of his or her engagement. That person might receive that entitlement at a much younger age than a person on superannuation. This is all directly referred to in Part 2 of the original bill and fortunately at the moment a very extensive review of the War Pensions Act is being undertaken by the Law Commission. 
I know that the Minister of Justice is right on top of that issue. He has a very strong personal interest in the war pensions situation. I hope that he is able to advise his colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment to turn her attention to this issue because she did not even acknowledge that a question had been asked and she did not acknowledge the many submissions that were made to the select committee about why the current link is made when there is such a different threshold for entitlement between the two pensions. Changes are clearly needed in this area. The select committee looked at the matter and on the advice it received and accepted it decided that it was outside the scope of this particular amendment. The committee could not make that amendment progress but I am certain that Labour would welcome any such amendment that was brought to the House as a result of the Law Commission review. So I hope that the Hon Simon Power can get his colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment up to speed on this issue because she clearly missed the boat when it came to what I think were very critical submissions to the committee. 
The other issue that was raised earlier in debate—and I was delighted to see the Hon John Carter give a clear commitment to progressing work on this issue—was the huge frustration felt by a number of people who originally lived and worked in another country but have since moved to New Zealand to retire and now receive New Zealand superannuation. They feel a huge frustration that they lose their entire overseas superannuation when they get the entire New Zealand superannuation. They are not expecting to get two lots of superannuation in full but they would like to get the percentage of their overseas superannuation they earned while they were overseas whether it was in Switzerland Holland or Canada and they would like to get the percentage of New Zealand superannuation they earned while they were here. I frankly do not think that that is too big an ask. 
We made some good work on that issue. It never got to the top of our list in terms of Budget priorities but we had a very strong commitment from the Minister for Senior Citizens the Hon John Carter earlier in this debate to progress that issue. Again that would be an initiative that would be welcomed by New Zealanders. Some people who had lived overseas might be disadvantaged; I think therefore that it would be fair to consider giving people the choice. We would not want people to be financially disadvantaged by the fact that their overseas pension is worth considerably less than the value of the New Zealand pension and actually compared with many countries we are quite generous. But compared with other countries we are not. So some people are financially disadvantaged and the Crown is advantaged by their giving over all their overseas superannuation to the Crown and receiving just the level of New Zealand superannuation. So I hope that the issue outlined in section 70 of the social security legislation will be addressed by the National Government. I will be asking questions of the Minister for Senior Citizens the Hon John Carter on a regular basis because he has given the House a commitment to making progress on that matter. I think that would be very warmly welcomed not just by members of the House but by those New Zealand superannuitants I referred to earlier who currently have to miss out on their fair share. 
This has been a very worthwhile debate with the exception of the contribution from the ACT member who has misunderstood despite having it very clearly outlined to him that people do not come to New Zealand from the Pacific Islands on a whim. They come here only if they meet the requirements of New Zealand’s immigration policy. They have to meet those standards. They do not decide to come to New Zealand just to get a pension; they come here under the policy that New Zealand sets out. They meet our rules and that is a fair call. The ACT member was clearly advised that this was not a back room foreign affairs New Zealand overseas aid contribution. It was a genuine effort by the previous Government supported by the current Government to make sure that when people who were in receipt of New Zealand superannuation wanted to travel or retire overseas they were not financially disadvantaged in being able to do that. 
As I said at the beginning of my contribution we find ourselves in an unusual situation. First of all it is no longer unusual to have urgency. It seems to be usual to have urgency and I think there will be a motion put to the House at some stage that we stop calling urgency “urgency” and start calling it “normal time” because it is what we do every week. But the Order Paper is very unusual under urgency. Usually when the House moves into urgency it is to progress matters that require the urgent attention of the House outside normal sitting time—for example the referral of a bill to a select committee if a Minister requires a bill to be back in a very short space of time. We heard in the House last week that the Minister for ACC had intended to progress the ACC legislation but he had forgotten to secure the support of a majority of members of Parliament so we could not do that legislation under urgency. We did some other very critical matters such as a customs bill and an offender levy bill. But those issues clearly did not require the urgent attention of the House. It kept members of Parliament in Wellington away from their families on a Thursday night and the huge additional cost to taxpayers to ordinary citizens of New Zealand of running this Parliament was for no good reason. Urgency was without justification and was solely due to mismanagement by the Leader of the House the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
This legislation is in that same category. It does not need to be progressed under urgency but from a personal point of view I am delighted that the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill are being progressed. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 As previous speakers on this side of the House have said it is our pleasure to support and commend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill to the House. I think it is important to note that the reality of life is that people have the best opportunity to travel when they finish work and before other events take over. 
The only point I want to make is to pick up on something that the previous speaker Ruth Dyson alluded to: the fact that the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill from which these bills were divided was a previous Labour Government bill. I ask why if it was such a good bill it took Labour 9 years to bring that bill before the House. The only thing I can think of is that Labour saw the writing on the wall. The Labour members saw that they would be going out of office and they wanted to travel overseas and run for the hills. They were looking after themselves whatever it took. I am very happy to support these bills. Thank you. 
Bills read a third time. 
Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill provides for a $50 levy to be imposed on all convicted offenders when they are sentenced in the District Court and the High Court for one or more criminal convictions. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that offenders in a general sense contribute towards addressing the harm that criminal behaviour causes to victims. In 2008 only 15 percent of the estimated 120000 sentences that were imposed included a component of reparation. Revenue generated from the offender levy an estimated $13.6 million over the first 4 years will be used to fund additional entitlements and services for victims of serious crime. I wish to thank Ministry of Justice officials for the considerable amount of work that has gone into this legislation by the ministry. 
Last Friday I was very pleased to announce to the Victim Support conference that eight new entitlements and services for the victims of crime will be funded from the offender levy. Five of those eight will be administered and run by Victim Support. The implementation of the new entitlements and services will be phased in over the next 9 months and some services will begin before the legislation comes into force because of the availability of Sentencing Council funding to support the revenue to be generated by the offender levy. 
Four of the new entitlements and services will provide further assistance to the families of homicide victims. First the families of homicide victims will be able to claim up to $10000 an extra $4500 on top of the current entitlement to pay for costs associated with their family member’s funeral. As I said it is an additional $4500 over and above what is currently available to them through the accident compensation scheme. Second the existing Government-funded discretionary grant for the families of homicide victims who are suffering financial hardship which is administered by Victim Support will be increased from $1500 to up to $5000. The eligibility for it has also been expanded. 
Third a new homicide support service will be established. These new paid staff will be managed by Victim Support and will build on its existing volunteer network to provide nationwide assistance to the families of homicide victims. The service will provide practical and emotional support to families from the discovery of the homicide throughout the court process and beyond that time. This will ensure that the families of homicide victims have a central point of contact during their interaction with the justice sector and have a reliable ongoing source of support and advice. The fourth entitlement for the families of homicide victims is a new grant to support families attending High Court proceedings for those accused of killing their family member. Up to five family members will be able to claim $124 each for every day that they attend court. That is double the rate paid to jurors. This grant will help to mitigate the financial impact of families having to take time off work to attend a trial. 
Two of the new entitlements and services to be funded from the offender levy will assist the victims of sexual violence in particular. A new sexual violence court support service will be established to support the victims of sexual violence during court proceedings. Victims of sexual violence report being traumatised and re-victimised by the justice process. It is our goal to ensure that the court system is responsive to the specific needs of those victims. The second initiative for the victims of sexual violence is a new discretionary grant that will assist victims with the modest one-off expenses associated with the justice process such as the loss of clothing due to forensic testing. This Government recognises that the emotional and physical impacts of sexual violence are often compounded by the financial costs associated with the crime. This new grant will provide a starting point of $250 to contribute to victims’ immediate costs. 
The last two entitlements and services will support all victims of serious crime. The Government-funded travel assistance scheme which is administered by Victim Support will be increased to better cover the costs of victims of serious crime when travelling to court proceedings and their associated expenses. For travel to court victims will be able to claim up to $3000. For travel to Parole Board hearings victims will be able to claim up to $1500. That is three times the current amount of the scheme. 
Finally new information resources will be produced for the victims of serious crime. This will assist crime victims to navigate their way through the court process and will hopefully inform them about the services and support that are available to them. I am confident that these new entitlements and services will make a real difference in the lives of the victims of crime. 
I am not ashamed to say the Government is proud of what we have been able to deliver in this case in a very short period of time. I do not pretend and nor does the Government that it will take away the pain of the loss or injury that the victims of crime suffer but we hope it will help in some way to smooth the path towards resolution. My hope is that this is just the beginning of reform in this area. It is these types of new services and assistance for victims that members should bear utmost in their minds when they deliberate for the final time on this bill. It is after all a means to a worthy end. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 We will not stand in the way of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge two points: the Government’s best intentions with regard to this measure and the appropriateness of commending the Minister for some of the programmes that he has outlined in respect of the money and resources that will be provided to victims. I join with him in having a sense of revulsion about the offences against victims especially those involving sexual violation and about the trauma and tragedy that victims have to go through along with their family and extended family as they relive every moment of every day in a court proceeding which is required to ensure that the offender is dealt with. I sympathise with as I think all members do on this side of the House and agree with the motivations behind this bill. 
I know some media have accused us of dragging the chain on these things but I say it is appropriate for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to raise matters of concern and indeed it has a right to do so because we would like this legislation to work. But without being unkind I say that throughout this debate we have raised some matters—and I do note some of the Minister’s comments—regarding the provision of services to victims of sexual violation. The Minister announced a provision to compensate victims for the loss of clothing for instance—a very practical measure. When the victims of sexual violation have to submit clothing for forensic testing they will get a quantum of money—a couple of hundred dollars. That is appropriate. They will receive some assistance to get through the trauma of a court case and again that is appropriate. They will also receive some assistance in respect of travel as will victims not just of sexual violation but of other offences. 
But if we are dealing with the victims of sexual violation here is the gap. At the same time as the Minister is announcing small quantities of money for the victims of sexual violation the Minister for ACC Nick Smith is tearing away cutting back on and putting new hurdles in front of the victims of sexual assault and sexual violation in respect of accident compensation. So the victims of sexual violation will get some money for clothing some money for travel and some money rightly to assist them through the trauma of a court proceeding and then they are dumped. Their pain and trauma does not simply become cauterised after the verdict and the sentence are delivered by a judge. It continues for the rest of their life and up until recently of course they were eligible for the provision of services from the accident compensation scheme. 
I go back to that horrific case in Taranaki. The grandmother of two young boys who were raped sodomised and beaten was forced to go to the media and to her local member of Parliament to beg for counselling services for her young ones. The counsellor appointed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) said the children needed counselling and the police said they needed counselling but ACC turned them down. It seems the new step in the procedures could now be sadly trial by media or trial through the advocacy of an MP. We know there are 1100 cases now pending of victims who require sexual abuse counselling which are now in limbo because the Government is sitting on its hands. 
So although I commend the Minister for what he is proposing to do with some of the money I say it is a drop in the ocean to victims. Their trauma and their tragedy and their need for resources and support do not end when the jury says “Guilty” and the judge delivers the sentence. It continues perhaps for the rest of their lives. This Government takes the view that it will put this issue up in a political pamphlet sort of way but there is a complete disconnection between what it is trying to do here— 
Hon Member 
: It’s a shambles. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a shambles as my colleague says because as Minister Power provides some resources for victims Nick Smith pulls other resources away. We raised issues around the resources. 
Paul Quinn 
: This is a friendly day. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member says it is completely different. Well that shows Mr Quinn up for what he is. If he sees the issue as being completely different for the victim of sexual abuse or of a sexual assault to require assistance during the court proceeding and beyond that time I ask him what the difference is. There is no difference to their trauma. I ask him to go and ask a victim of sexual abuse. 
Then we come— 
Paul Quinn 
: What are you talking about? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well if the member woke up he might know. 
Then we come to the amounts that are projected to be raised through this levy. I pay tribute to the ACT Party and Mr Garrett because Mr Garrett made a very important speech. He said that he and his party are as sceptical as the Labour Party about whether this legislation will work. I believe that with a levy of $50 per offender under this legislation it will cost more than that to collect it. It will cost more to collect the levy than the revenue that is gained to dish out to victims. I predict that the Government will end up topping up perhaps at the next Budget the amount of money that it gets in. I predict that the cost of collection will outstrip the money that is brought in. Mr Garrett said I believe—and he will correct me if I misquote him—he would stand by us and may even propose amendments himself to try to deliver support for victims in an appropriate way if this legislation does not work. 
I say to the Government that if it were really serious about giving the victims of crime direct assistance it would not worry about a levy and the bureaucracy of collecting it. If the Government were serious it would take half the money or maybe a quarter of the money that it has given to independent private schools—$5 million $6 million or any part of the $35 million—and it would give that money to Victim Support directly and to other non-governmental organisations and agencies that deal with victims every day. It would give them that resource and tell them to go away and do the work that it wants them to do. The Government would tell those organisations to put an arm around victims look after them make sure they are OK and not to worry about the bureaucracy around the collection of the funds for that work. 
There would not be any bureaucracy if there were a direct cash injection to those people. But oh no— 
John Hayes 
: Put it on the bill Phil! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “Put it on the bill” someone said. Who was that genius? No we do not have to put it on the bill Mr Hayes. The Government should take a quantum of the money it is going to give to private schools and give it to those in need if it is really serious about helping victims. That was another silly interjection from that loose member. 
Paul Quinn 
: Oh we are touchy! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yep we are touchy. I believe that we should make provision in this legislation to resource victims appropriately. We should not write a pamphlet because what this is really about is saying we have a thing called a victim’s levy. The issue of whether the money gets to the victims of crime is another thing—that is the difference. So it is not putting it on the bill. I say to Mr Hayes that it is called reallocating the priorities and deciding whether the priority is giving $35 million to private schools or giving $5 million $10 million or $15 million to victims. 
The other problem with this levy is that it is $50 per offender. A triple murderer will pay $50 even though he or she has committed three offences. A shoplifter will pay $50. A rapist will pay $50. A person convicted of manslaughter will pay $50. A person convicted of common assault will pay $50. A burglar will pay $50 even if he or she commits five burglaries in a night affecting five families and creating five sets of victims. We think that is not appropriate. We think that is inequitable and does not recognise the gravity of the crime or the need involved. There again if we were to provide money directly to say Victim Support in the form of an appropriation then it would be up to the specialist agencies like Victim Support and other agencies who in my view deal better than any bureaucrat can with victims every day to make those assessments and to provide the resource that is needed. 
Then there is the issue of collection. As we have said the bureaucracy around collection will cost more than the money that we get in. Then of course we note that if an offender owes only the levy and nothing else then it will not really be collected. Offenders will not be chased for payment of the levy. We did ask the Government time after time how it would ensure that the levy will be paid. In law the levy cannot be taken into account in terms of hardship to the offender by a judge. I thought Mr Borrows made a very good point when he reminded us that fines can be commuted to community service. So a judge can make an assessment on the basis of hardship and if the bill is $300 plus the $50 levy which cannot be touched the judge may commute the other $300 to community service or quite legitimately in law reduce the $300 to $200. The overall impact of that in totality negates any sort of impact that the offender levy might have had because by doing that the judge has taken into account the hardship of the offender. There is no way to collect the levy and at least Minister Power was upfront enough to say he could not guarantee its collection. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to note that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is supporting the Government in respect of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. It will address the cost of being a victim in this country because for too long victims have been ignored. Given that there have been gains under the previous Government as there were under the Government previous to that it is time that we started working with the scales of justice to show a little more equity in respect of the costs of being a victim. 
In respect of this bill it is important to strike a balance between the money that is required to be able to make some real gains and what is recoverable. We heard from the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove about the inconsistencies or inequities that he saw in respect of the fact that the $50 levy will be imposed on each appearance as opposed to each individual conviction. He said that some people will make on the deal because their crimes may be more serious or more prolific than those of a person who appears now and then for individual offences. The point is that in doing the research towards this bill we found that if we aimed the levy at $50—at that level of offending and at that level of recovery—then we would be able to recover the maximum amount of money and do the most good with it. 
The previous speaker also made comments about the ability to help victims by taking money out of one part of the Government’s Budget and putting it into another. He mentioned for instance the budget for independent schools but he did not hold his hand up at all and acknowledge that the previous Government allowed a whole fleet of new independent schools but kept the cap on funding at exactly the same level thereby dropping the budget per student for students attending those independent schools. He also failed to note that the money granted to independent schools is actually only about a quarter of what the Government gives to students attending State schools. So as far as a bang for a buck goes the Government does very very well out of it. 
Given the parlous state of the Government’s coffers when National took over government and given the world recession that we found ourselves having to cope with the Government needed to find new money from somewhere. So for instance if we look at the education budget we see $521 million worth of promises and pledges made by the previous Government but no money left to fund them. To take accident compensation as an example—because that was what the previous speaker mentioned in respect of services able to be offered by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) especially in respect of victims of sexual assaults—we know there was well over $2 billion of debt there. At the same time we know that when that debt was discovered 18 more entitlements were made available to the public which cut down the money that was available through ACC. If that level of debt had not been there and if those extra entitlements had not been pledged to the public of New Zealand who knows how much we would have been able to do? It does not really matter because this is the pickle that we find ourselves in. 
The other two or three points I will make about the previous speaker’s comments are these: I find it difficult to accept time and again that he does not trust the judiciary. Time and again the previous speaker said that the judiciary will always reduce a penalty on the grounds of hardship even though it is not allowed to and even though it is written into legislation that it is not allowed to make allowances for the fact that reparation will be ordered or for the fact a community-based or custodial sentence may be awarded. The previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove does not trust the judiciary to fulfil its function according to the statutes it is charged to operate under. I believe that in the separation of powers that we have trust is a very very important element. He should not be so duplicitous as to speak out of both sides of his mouth in respect of the way that Parliament operates and the way the judiciary operates. I do not think that it is fair to say that in this particular forum where the judiciary does not have the opportunity to respond; if it does it gets caned. He should not be so hard on the judiciary or so duplicitous in respect of the way it is operating. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I regret interrupting the member but on two occasions now he has accused a member using an unparliamentary term. It does not add to the debate at all. I think it should be suggested to him that he withdraw and apologise for the unparliamentary remark he has made against my honourable colleague on two occasions. 
David Garrett 
: As I understand the Standing Orders—and I am a new member—the member referred to thus must object himself or herself and that has not occurred. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I have just consulted with the Clerk at the Table. The Clerk advises me that if a member is to withdraw and apologise on the basis of offence it is for the member concerned to have taken offence. In this particular case the member to whom the comments were directed was not present in the House. So then the issue is about whether it is an unparliamentary term. The term “duplicitous” is a graphic term and it is a strong term but I do not think it is necessarily offensive in itself. I will not require the member to withdraw and apologise but I want the member to take into account that he is getting into the sensitivities of the House and he might wish to redirect his comments from this point forward. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker; I accept your counsel. 
In conclusion I am grateful that the members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition have seen fit to support this bill. I accept that they agree that it is proffered in good faith in spite of their stated misgivings about the ability to recover the money and the cost of that recovery. We recognise the work that the officials from the Ministry of Justice have put into the research on this legislation. They have advised the House—and it has been used many times in debate on this bill—that over the next 4 years we can expect to gain $13 million net that is not currently available to victims. We trust those officials from the Ministry of Justice in the same way that the current members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition trusted them when they happened to be Her Majesty’s Government. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to its implementation and all that it will do for victims in the future. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand to take a call on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. As Chester Borrows said Labour will support this bill and we do that because it does deliver something to victims of crime. But we are concerned because of the flat $50 levy that— 
Paul Quinn 
: See if you can get through without mentioning the Sentencing Council. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you very much! I am a little tired of the members on the other side of the House and in the select committee because recently I have found that I have been intimidated every time I mention the Sentencing Council. It is bordering on bullying and it is actually getting quite serious. But now that the member has mentioned it I will plunge straight into talking about the cost of the Sentencing Council. This bill is actually at the cost of the Sentencing Council. I congratulate the Law Commission on all the work it did in terms of its proposals for a Sentencing Council. We know that in terms of supporting giving clarity to and giving some sense to victims of crime particularly serious crime the Sentencing Council would have been a very very sensible commonsense— 
Hon Annette King 
: They’ve got it in the UK and it works. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly; it is proven in the UK. We did it: it was all set to go but it was vehemently opposed at the time by Chris Finlayson. One of the first acts of the National Government was to get rid of the Sentencing Council and that is really sad. The Government dealt to a very progressive action that would have delivered to victims in this country. I thank the member for the prompt and I stand by what I have said and what I will continue to do because I believe that it is the right of victims to expect that there will be a mechanism that provides consistency in sentencing. 
As I said Labour is not opposing the bill but we say that it does very little to actually assist victims of crime. It is just window dressing and it is a shame that quite unrealistic expectations have been raised. Chester Borrows made the point that the levy would not be at the cost of reparation but I ask members of the House to consider that point and we have already had it acknowledged that many offenders will not be in a position to pay this levy. The worst offenders will not be paying it. The levy will be collected once any fines or reparation have been paid. I ask members to consider that the $50 levy will obviously have to be taken into account and it would have an effect on the money available for reparation. That is a natural consequence; when a judge is setting those sorts of costs the offender levy is a cost. It is taking from one hand and giving to the other. 
Labour has serious concerns about the bill and we will monitor it very very carefully. When the scheme was first mooted Simon Power claimed that it would collect around $5 million a year for victims. Then he was forced to scale back that prediction to $13.6 million over the first 4 years. Then we must subtract the estimated $1.3 million—if everything is collected—that it would cost to set up the levy and the estimated $1.5 million each year that it would cost to run. Suddenly we have halved the amount available for victims again. Where is the common sense in that? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s a shambles. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is an absolute shambles. The Government’s approach to the levy is the same as its philosophy with accident compensation: charge more— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Being a new member I am not quite sure how to address this point but the member has misrepresented departmental figures because $13.6 million is actually— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order and the member underestimates his breadth of knowledge from his time in the House. He has been through quite a number of debates and knows very well that that is a debating point and does not offend the Standing Orders. I say to him: good try but don’t do it again. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I would have to say that the member often overestimates his talents. The philosophy of the Government in terms of the collection of the levy is very much like its philosophy on accident compensation: pay more get less. It is exactly the same approach: pay more money but put less into the hands of victims. I say to Simon Power that we will acknowledge that there will be some benefit to victims and that is why Labour is supporting this bill. Simon Power is on record as saying that the National Government is absolutely committed to looking after victims so I would really appreciate it if he would sit down and talk to Nick Smith. The irony is that this bill that we are debating in the House today delivers something—not a huge amount—to victims yet on the other hand we see Nick Smith absolutely shafting victims’ rights. If this Government really cared about victims we would not see sexual abuse victims having to go to the media or to their MP to ask for a reversal of the decision to limit accident compensation counselling for those victims. The issue we are facing with the cuts to accident compensation— 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member’s speech appears to be an attack on a Minister and on a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that this is a third reading debate. I generally allow a pretty wide-ranging debate. The member has been by and large on the topic and I am fairly liberal on this. But if the member raising the point of order wants to insist on a very strict reading of the rules and a very strict application of them then he should expect them to be universal and apply to him as well. I would just suggest to him that before he takes another point of order along similar lines he should check his  
Hansard 
 and the Standing Orders and see how narrowly he ran down the rails on other speeches. I am not going to pull the member up but I leave the member to be aware that the debate is on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. I think that was very sensible advice. With the House’s indulgence I would like to recap the previous Labour Government’s commitment to victims. It introduced and passed the Sentencing Act 2002 which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in that sentence being used more frequently. It introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 which set the scene for support for victims. 
As a result of the Victims’ Rights Act the proposal for a Victims Charter was announced in February 2002. The Victims Charter which was released only in 2008 gives the ability for victims to be aware of the standard of service and support they should receive. The charter will go a long way to supporting victims of crime. I feel really proud that the charter was introduced by the previous Labour Government. 
I turn again to the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill as Mr Garrett would like me to do and repeat that Labour supports the bill. We will not oppose any measure that gives support to victims but we would rather have seen that money spent more sensibly. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 It will be no surprise to members that I rise to support the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill despite the reservations that I have made known. But before I continue my speech I would like to pay tribute to both the previous speaker Lynne Pillay and the previous Labour Government she represented because it is indeed the case that Labour’s actions in 2002—specifically the Victims’ Rights Act—were a major departure from the common law and very very welcome ones. It actually shocks people who are not lawyers to have explained to them that until quite recently the victim was in fact utterly irrelevant. According to the lofty towers in law schools the crime had been committed against the State and the victim just happened to be the person who was there. It is quite correct that that Labour Government made some very welcome changes in that regard so I think that credit is well due there. 
As I have said in earlier speeches on this bill I think it can be summed up as a great idea but with some major flaws. One of the major flaws is of course the costs and the practicalities of collecting the levy. Mr Cosgrove said for about the fourth time that what could be achieved here is a diversion of money from taxation or more specifically—as he was playing to his audience—a diversion of funds that go to private schools to go to victims instead. Well that misses the point that this is an attempt in a sense at user-pays is it not? It is “offender-pays”. It is a levy on offenders for the wrong they have done. It is a cost to the offender and not if you like a cost to the rest of the taxpayers but that point has been missed. 
I believe that $50 is an entirely appropriate amount for the levy. It is the equivalent of three packets of cigarettes or a couple of slabs of beer to use analogies that will be quite clear to the criminal fraternity. Every villain or his mate has 50 bucks in his pocket or his mum or girlfriend can be prevailed upon to bring 50 bucks down to the court. 
It is also entirely missing the point to say that the levy is the same regardless of the crime. Another of the Labour members referred to a triple axe-murderer. Well fortunately and to my knowledge of crime in New Zealand which is not inconsiderable I do not think we have had one of those. But a member speaking in the recent series of speeches referred to the levy being the same for murder as for assaults and the member said that that was wrong. Again that is missing the point. Recognising the difference in the nature and gravity of crimes is a function of the sentence. The levy is not a sentence. It is if you like simply a price that a person pays for being a criminal. 
The major problem as members opposite have quite rightly pointed out concerns collection. As a new member in something of a flash in the head during the Committee stage I came up with an idea that I believe would have solved the problem beautifully. The idea was that offenders would be held in custody after conviction—say after being sentenced to do 100 hours’ community service—until someone came up with the 50 bucks. It is much like the way in which persons who are granted bail are now held in custody while their bail bond is written up and that may take half an hour or half a day depending on how busy the police are and what sort of a prat the offenders have made of themselves. But if we were to introduce an amendment whereby a convicted person was sentenced to a community service let us say and was remanded down below until someone came up with 50 bucks I believe that compliance would be damn-near 100 percent. We could install a separate Eftpos machine down there a cash tin and a receipt book and compliance costs would be virtually nil. It would take just a bit of extra police time. But in my inexperience I did not realise that such an idea—brilliant though I immodestly claim it to be—had to go the rounds of all the parties and needed much more time. I approached all the parties in the House except the Greens. 
Hon Member 
: Well why not? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: I did not bother to approach the Greens because in my view I am sad to say they are criminal sympathisers. They have opposed every single law and order bill that has been introduced in this Parliament. Mr Locke when speaking on the previous two bills we have debated—the car-crushing bill to use the vernacular and the boy-racer bill to again use the vernacular—opposed them. He said in justification that it was wrong to increase the numbers in prison. Well imprisonment is not a penalty for either of those bills. The fact is that the Greens oppose anything that calls criminals to account. On a personal level I see that Ms Bradford is in the House. I think that I have a very cordial relationship with her and I am sad to be saying this about her party while she is here representing it but I believe that that is the case. Every other party I spoke to thought that it was a good idea but that it was too late in the piece. 
Despite our misgivings about the collection aspect we support the bill. I endorse what Ms Pillay said and I hope that she is not offended by that. Anything that helps victims has to be good. Anything that helps victims has to be an advantage even if the collection method is not so efficient. I will confirm again what I said earlier: if the dire predictions of inefficiency made by members opposite prove to be correct then this party will support an amendment to remedy that problem and to have the levy collected more efficiently. As I have suggested I would be interested to hear other members’ views if this comes to pass. But I cannot see how it would be less than a no-brainer to do as I have suggested which is to install an Eftpos machine down in the cells and to have a cash tin and a receipt book there. I believe that compliance would be close to 100 percent and collection costs would be virtually nil. With that small caveat the ACT Party is happy to support this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora ano tatou. As members of the House will probably be aware—especially after they viewed that awesome programme that screened on Maori Television last Wednesday at about 8.30  
The Maori Party: The People’s Party 
—the Maori Party is a party of the people. The programme was broadcast by that awesome television station Maori Television. 
Hon Annette King 
: Set up by Labour. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: It was set up by Labour— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Opposed by National. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —and supported by the Maori Party and sort of by National. It is good to say that that issue is dead done and dusted because we will be broadcasting the Rugby World Cup. 
Be that as it may I say to Mr Hughes that the real korero is that we kind of like to think that we are the people’s party. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I am sure that he would agree with that. A part of that is that we place a lot of emphasis on sending out everything that we talk about in the House that we write and that we think about and we definitely ask for feedback from all of the people on our awesome email tree. Within half an hour of sending out the speech that my colleague Rahui Katene delivered during the first reading debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill in February I received an animated email from a person called Rawiri. I want to share his ideas— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Rawiri Garrett? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —not quite—as they seemed to make quite a lot of sense as have some of the other ideas that members have spoken about thus far in this debate. Rawiri asked a few basic questions: “In regards to the Act I agree with the basic concept of it but trying to police it seems like a nightmare. 1. How are they going to pay the money if they have none? 2. Is there going to be an easy system for victims to get this money (normally there is so much bureaucracy involved) 3. Which Government department is going to handle it.” That is a starting point. He went on: “At the present time I have no confidence in the justice system. Really the only way to bring down crime is to start at family level and make sure that there are decent and proper kaumatua on the Marae who can help educate the families. We all must take responsibility for the way things are not just put back onto individual families.” 
For me Rawiri has summed it all up in a couple of sentences. Of course we agree with the basic premise that crime does not pay. So as a principle we have supported the notion that all offenders who have been convicted of a criminal offence must pay a levy of $50. It is not just the Maori Party that thinks like this. The United Nations Declaration of the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power states that offenders should where appropriate “make fair restitution to victims their families or dependants. Such restitution should include … payment for the harm or loss suffered”. 
We support the concept of the levy particularly as a way to achieve the restoration of well-being. We are particularly conscious though of the disproportionate likelihood that Maori and Pasifika people will be victims of crime. Among both Maori and Pacific people aged 15 years and over 47 percent had experienced some form of criminal victimisation in 2005. This compares with 43 percent of Asians and 37 percent of Europeans. We have to ask why Maori and Pasifika people are being overrepresented in the status of victimhood. According to the 2008 social report from which these statistics emerge it is due to an association with many factors such as Maori and Pasifika people being more likely to be young to be unemployed to be sole parents and to live in more socioeconomically deprived areas. Probably the most disturbing fact of all was that for Maori women the risk of being assaulted or threatened by a partner was three times the average—that is 18 percent compared with 6 percent for all other respondents. So there are some pretty serious reasons why we want to look seriously at supporting this levy and therefore in effect supporting victims. 
We are a party that has often talked about restorative justice and the expectation that offenders will be required to take responsibility for addressing the harm their offending has caused. We want offenders to be held to account. As in a lot of this the Maori Party has been involved in the establishment of the Youth Court sitting at Manurewa Marae in Auckland. It is an initiative that itself has gone on to be extended out to a judicially-led initiative from Gisborne. Marae-based Youth Court sittings involve the wider community in an attempt to enhance the usual Youth Court processes. They are designed to increase accountability and in the end to reduce reoffending. I have to say that I am in full support of the statement made by Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft earlier this year that court-ordered mentoring compulsory education and attendance at parenting programmes may succeed if the programmes are culturally appropriate and meet the ongoing needs of the offenders and their family and whanau. The important thing to the Maori Party has always been to ensure that the victims and indeed the offenders are connected to whanau and have the support of their community around them to heal to restore their sense of confidence and to forgo the temptation to reoffend. We know that Maori are overrepresented as the victims of crime and as such need to be able to have a role in determining the approved agency and its service priorities and delivery. 
So although we agree in principle with the concept that victims must be supported there are still some questions such as those Rawiri posed a little bit earlier. In short these concerns are first that the cost of administering the scheme may make it unworkable; second the impact the levy will have on the current reparation system; third that the system deals only with victims’ access to services and not real financial support and compensation for victims of serious crime especially if they cannot access accident compensation; and fourth of course the long-term implications for accident compensation and whether this initiative in effect opens the door for privatisation. We wonder too whether the crime tax being imposed by this legislation might end up with minor offenders paying for those at the high end of the criminal spectrum. In other words low-level offenders may end up subsidising the fund for serious offenders sentenced to jail who would be unlikely to pay the levy. To us that seems rather unfair. The proof of course will be all in the implementation. Will this bill end up just adding to the number of so many uncollected court fines? How will the agencies address the practicalities of collecting and distributing the levy and can we be assured that the administration costs justify this? 
Finally I referred to Judge Becroft earlier in my speech. One other idea that I thought was rather sensible was his analysis that because all but one of the orders available to the Youth Court are not considered convictions young people who are dealt with wholly in the Youth Court are excluded from the requirement to pay the levy. This exclusion is consistent with the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 which limits the ability of the Youth Court to impose financial penalties on young people or their families. These provisions recognise that although payments to victims can be a powerful restorative tool many young people appearing before the court or their parents are unlikely to have the means to pay a fine or reparation and any subsequent default could extend their involvement with the court in a way that is at odds with other attempts at rehabilitation. 
I absolutely support these measures. Of course we do not want our children and families to suffer financial penalties and of course we do not want to extend their time in front of the court. But I guess that yet again it raises the issue for me of how we encourage our young people to consider their roles and responsibilities. It is about facing up to the consequences of their actions and restoring to ourselves a sense of collective responsibility. This is a very complex area of legislation but we fully support this bill at its third reading. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is very good to follow Te Ururoa Flavell in this debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. He made some very perceptive comments about victims and the sociology of victims. As he made clear and as the statistics and the research show victims more than often are not if we can put this in graphic terms the little old lady who is worried about crime. I suppose that the cruel irony is that crime more often happens to the young seemingly invincible Maori male who thinks that crime will not happen to him but that is where crime is at. The young the poor and the dispossessed are the victims of crime much more often. 
It is good to talk on this bill which is very much about victims and putting victims back at the centre of our justice system. Previously in other parts of the debate on this bill I have talked about the very real benefits that what we are doing here will have for victims of crime. It will mean travel to and from court and that is not insubstantial. It will potentially mean replacing clothing that had to be sent off for DNA testing. It will mean counselling. These things will make a real difference to the victims of crime. This bill is part of a bigger picture. It is a piece of the puzzle in what we and the Minister Simon Power are doing in the justice arena. We are toughening up law and order. We have put through a raft of bills as part of our initial 100-day programme. We have toughened up the bail law sentencing laws and aspects of parole. But what we are also doing and what should not go unnoticed is that we are putting the victims back at the centre of the justice system. We are not just all about offenders. We are also doing something for those on the other side of the coin—the victims. 
I can think of a number of people who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee and also the Law and Order Committee who have been victims of crime who very much feel that they have not been part of the justice system and that they have not been listened to. In our society the system we have is the 
“ 
Queen v Smith 
” not “ 
Smith v Smith 
”. It is the Crown that brings a case. What that means is that often victims do not have control of the case and rightly so because there may be cases where witnesses are reluctant but it is still right and proper for the Crown to bring the case. This bill illustrates that we are hearing what is being said at select committees. We are bringing victims back in. We are trying to do things to make it better for them to ameliorate the conditions in which they find themselves when crime occurs. 
Some of the points made by members opposite are at first blush fair but when analysed they do not hold much weight. One of the things that Clayton Cosgrove said is that judges will be dishonest about this and that they will say: “Well we have got this $50 levy so because of that we will reduce all the other fines and reparation.” I do not believe that is true at all. I think that judges will be much more true to their oath than that. They will read this bill and see quite clearly the intent of Parliament and this $50 levy will not be taken into consideration when they look at other financial penalties. 
Another thing that has quite frequently come out from members on the other side of the House is that it is not right that this levy is per offender rather than per offence. I say two things in relation to that. Firstly if it were per offence we would have a ridiculous situation where for example an offender coming before the court with 100 burglaries would attract exceptionally large penalties. That would be unworkable. Secondly and this is a significant point this levy is not a sentence. It is not about punishing the offender; it is about doing something for the victim. 
I come back to the points I have already made. This bill is a plank in our justice armoury and in our agenda on justice. It is very much about putting victims back at the centre of the justice system where they belong. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 Before I start I want to go back to something that Mr Borrows said earlier about how the National Government has come up with this Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill based on research. I say to Mr Borrows that I find that really interesting. I would love to see that research because I do not believe that we have seen it yet. The fact that the National Government is basing something on research is in complete contrast to what it has done with everything else. I say to Mr Borrows that I would like to see that research if he has it. 
Labour members are not opposed to this bill but we believe that it will do very little to assist victims of crime. That is our major issue with it. Just like much of the National Government’s other legislation this is window dressing. It is another example of the National Government’s ploy to give ordinary New Zealanders the impression that it is taking extreme steps to tackle law and order extreme steps to protect victims and extreme steps to enforce punitive measures to punish criminals but it is all a farce. The word for this Government is farcical. It has bought into the idea that perception is everything and in the process of creating this perception of being tough on crime it has brought to the House a series of bills that although not harmful will do little to help reduce crime to protect New Zealanders and to compensate and care for victims. 
The National Government has raised unrealistic expectations in the public about what it will deliver through this bill. Victims of crime are destined to be disappointed. The legislation sets out a $50 levy that will apply automatically when an offender has been sentenced in criminal jurisdictions. No matter which way we look at this we see that it is quite a shambles. There are questions that have to be asked: what is the likelihood of these sentenced offenders paying the levy; will the cost of the bureaucracy required to enforce and collect this levy outweigh the benefits to the actual victim; and will the money collected to provide any level of assistance to the victim let alone any adequate level of assistance be enough? 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s hard to put passion into the standard rhetoric you’ve been given isn’t it? 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: The bill provides nothing more than lip service—just like that member over there Mr Quinn—to the victims and represents gross Government hypocrisy given the cutbacks to accident compensation entitlements. 
Paul Quinn 
: That’s the problem when you don’t write your own speeches. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: The member over there is going on and on. I know that he finds it difficult to stand up without yelling but I can speak calmly. 
If the Government really cared about victims it would not be attempting to make sexual abuse victims have to go to the media or an MP to reverse Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) decisions to limit their counselling. An earlier speaker commented that this was not related. Well it is related. When we look at the legislation that this Government is proposing we have to look at the entirety of it. We have to look at what it is trying to do on one hand while here it is trying to do something else on the other hand. At the end of the day we are seeing a contradiction. So it is relevant and it is something that the public needs to be aware of. 
With regards to accident compensation we have recently seen a Taranaki grandmother of two young boys who had been raped sodomised and beaten being forced to go to the media and to her local MP Jonathan Young to beg for counselling. The ACC-approved counsellors said that the boys needed counselling and the police said that they needed counselling but ACC turned them down. It seems the new step in the procedures could be trial by media or MPs and that is something that this National Government has imposed on the public. Because this Government has been sitting on its hands there are 1100 cases pending of people needing sexual abuse counselling. If this Government really cared about victims it would not be cutting the entitlements that families of suicide victims currently receive. Does this sound like a Government that cares about victims: “If my doctor told me that I was terminally ill and had 30 days to live with the ACC rules the way they are I’d be finding myself a train to throw myself under on the 29th day because my family would be treated so much more generously.”? 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Who wrote this? 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Well I say to Ms Tolley that I did not write that; it was her colleague Nick Smith and I ask her to remember that. 
The reality for victims is that this approach is getting worse not better. It is astounding that Simon Power can keep a straight face when he says that the negative impact of crime on victims is a priority for this Government. National made a big deal in the election year of being on the side of victims. This bill which levies all offenders regardless of their offence has a paltry $50 as the upshot. The worst offenders who get jail sentences will be unable to pay the levy anyway. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: Oh we’ve got back to the bill! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: The Minister Anne Tolley is going on again about what I am saying but if someone wrote her speeches she would be much better off than standing up and making them up for herself. 
This offender levy scheme will require a bureaucracy to administer it and the collection costs are likely to outweigh the returns. Simon Power claimed that the scheme would collect about $5 million a year for victims and then he was forced to scale back to predictions of $13.6 over the next 4 years—very different from the $5 million a year for victims he initially claimed. When we subtract the estimated $1.3 million that it will cost to set up the levy and the estimated $1.5 million it will cost to run suddenly we have half the amount available for victims. 
It is already difficult enough to collect reparations from criminals so we on this side of the House struggle to comprehend why the National Government thinks that it will be any easier to collect this levy. It is unfair to victims of crime to raise expectations of greater compensation when National members know the reality is that this will make absolutely no difference. It was revealed in the Ministry of Justice document  
Structure of Operations in the Ministry: Proposals for Consultation  
that people who owe the offender levy will be grouped based on their willingness and ability to pay and their attitude towards compliance. The Government is prepared to tolerate targeting only those most likely to pay while hardcore fine-defaulters are let off the hook. Even National’s Minister of Corrections and Minister of Police herself Judith Collins has admitted that fines for crime do not work. She stated: “There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take.” Again that was one of National’s own Ministers. 
Increasing victims’ rights is about restoring some fairness to an unfair situation but this scheme will lack the consistency to deliver that. It would be unfair if the amount of compensation varied from year to year depending on the ability of the Ministry of Justice to collect revenue from offenders. Labour had already asked the Law Commission to look into the best options for setting up a proper victims’ compensation scheme to ensure that the inequalities and inefficiencies in National’s scheme could be avoided. By disregarding the Law Commission’s advice National has delivered New Zealanders a substandard scheme. We on this side think that it would be more effective to give the money it would take to set up this bureaucracy to an organisation like Victim Support. 
I want to briefly discuss the Labour view on the issue at hand. Labour members of the Justice and Electoral Committee support increased funding for victims of serious crime. On that basis they support the bill but with reservations. They noted that funding for the scheme is at the cost of the disestablishment of the Sentencing Council which would have improved the justice system by delivering consistency with sentencing. Further they expressed concerns about the high administration costs of the scheme and the possibility that the levy could detrimentally affect reparation payments. The Labour members of the committee stated very clearly that they intend to closely monitor the effectiveness of this scheme and that is what members on this side of the House will be doing. We support this bill for the reason that although it does not help it also does not harm. We have been pushed into a corner and therefore we support the bill. Thank you very much. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker Carmel Sepuloni questioned what this Government is doing for law and order. This Government promised that it would implement an increase of 600 police officers in New Zealand of which 300 would be deployed in South Auckland and that has been implemented. 
The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill applies a $50 levy on offenders. The bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002 and provides that all offenders who have been convicted of an offence must pay an offender levy of $50. The $50 levy will be imposed on all offenders at the point of sentencing. It is intended to help pay victims’ expenses not covered by ordinary State assistance such as travel to and from court. The levy will be in addition to any other penalty imposed by the courts. There have been many submissions from the public and I would like to mention one in particular—the submission of Judy Ashton from Nelson. Her 20-year-old daughter was killed by a drug addict and disqualified driver who was on parole and was on a police witness protection programme. She commented that there is absolutely nothing that could compensate her for her daughter’s death but nevertheless she supports this bill. In her words: “I have a vision that one day the victims of the crime will be truly recognised and regardless of their assets or income they will not be left financially disadvantaged by the crime that was forced upon them.” 
The Government wants to eliminate the all too frequent horror stories that victims are forced to relive which are traumatic simply because the system has been deficient and has let them down and it seems that offenders are getting better deals than the victims. Like all of our law and order policies the victims’ compensation scheme’s overreaching objectives are to ensure there are fewer victims of crime in New Zealand. This levy is set at a rate that most would agree is too low to compensate victims. There is no argument about that particularly for the victims of the most serious crimes. But it is an important first step towards reinforcing the focus of our justice system on to the needs of the victims. It should be noted that the Government will also be introducing other measures to improve the services that the victims receive and to enhance victims’ rights. In other words it is part of a bigger package. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 Classic Tory tokenism—that is what I say about this bill. Although Labour will support this bill because indeed it does no harm the question must be put to the House and I guess to the people of New Zealand that after spending all this money going through the whole process and considering all these issues has it been worth it? I guess we will find out in a year or two’s time. 
Hon Annette King 
: In 4 years’ time. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: That is right. In 2 years’ time I think we will make a judgment and so too will the people of New Zealand. We will see what happens then. 
The terrible reality is that crime creates unfairness. There is no way of avoiding that reality. Whatever crime it is an injustice occurs. Someone is the perpetrator of that injustice and the other person or persons are usually the victims. It is Parliament’s role and responsibility to reduce the unfairness of those crimes and the unfairness across this nation. What will happen when a crime is committed? Usually our good police catch people at an increasing rate—well under a Labour Government they used to do that. Thanks to Minister King and effort focus and encouragement the police caught criminals at an increasing rate. They were then taken through the courts and were convicted if they had committed the crime. The same process will continue but when all criminals are convicted a $50 levy will be imposed on them. 
The question must be about whether we are reducing the unfairness of the process. As I have travelled around this country and as I have been an MP the biggest issue of unfairness relating to crime has been the issue of inconsistency in sentencing. People cannot understand how in one part of the country there will be a sentence for a certain crime and in another part of the country there will be a different sentence for the same crime. So the Labour Government brought in the Sentencing Council and that was the single biggest initiative to reduce unfairness from crime. Victims felt that if a convicted criminal received a lesser sentence then that was a huge unfairness and it reflected poorly on them. But this present Government has said that it will do away with the Sentencing Council because it is not important and that it will set up a bureaucracy to charge every convicted criminal $50 which will address the issue of unfairness. Well that is tokenism and I am sure that Mr Deputy Speaker could understand that if he had the opportunity to say so. But the fact that the Tory Government has disbanded the Sentencing Council the single most important— 
Hon Simon Power 
: It never started. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Power knows that. He knows that the Sentencing Council was the best initiative in terms of addressing unfairness in crime in this country but he was forced to disband it because of ideology. I know that Simon Power agreed with having the Sentencing Council. 
The $50 levy will now be a significant step forward in addressing unfairness in crime. Let us look at some of the costs. It will cost $1.3 million to set up this bureaucracy—this from a Government that says it is reducing bureaucracy. It will then spend $1.5 million a year to run the bureaucracy. Again this is from a Government that claims to be reducing bureaucracy. How much will the Government get? The claim is about $5 million a year or closer to estimates just over $13 million over 4 years. I will let the House or the National members do the arithmetic on that. That is not delivering good value for money for victims in terms of either this Parliament or the Government’s efforts in bureaucracy. 
Let us then look at those this levy will be collected from. The reality is that there has been an obligation in the justice system for some time to pay reparation. It is one of the things that the Labour Government brought in in a genuine attempt—not tokenism like the Tories—to take from those criminals some money to pay back to their victims. But we realise that as with unpaid fines it is sometimes very hard to extract money from criminals for a whole lot of reasons. Many criminals do not have money for a start—that is why they have committed the crimes—and some are just very pigheaded have good lawyers or whatever. But there are tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars—in fact I am not sure what the last count is—in unpaid fines throughout this country so we are therefore going to impose a $50 levy on every convicted criminal. This is big progress for the National Government and for Mr Power! No doubt it is his greatest claim to fame. 
Let us have a look at those we will collect that levy from and whether it will be possible to collect it. The Ministry of Justice itself says that it will be taking money from people who owe the offender levy. I quote from a document: “People who owe the offender levy will be grouped based on their willingness and ability to pay and their attitude towards compliance.” So those criminals who are convicted and charged a $50 levy and who say they would like to pay the levy will no doubt pay it. But the Ministry of Justice will group together those who do not want to pay and say that some criminals are in the too-hard basket and that it will not take the levy from them. Yet some are in the easy basket and it will take it from them. That will create more unfairness in the justice system not less. 
There is some honesty coming from the Minister of Corrections; this happens only infrequently. But she said—and she should have spoken to Mr Power before he set up this legislation—“There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take.” We know that the Ministry of Justice will not follow up on those token fines and levies so that again creates an unfairness in the system when in fact the Government claims that it is trying to help victims. This is typical Tory tokenism and that is true of most of the legislation and many of the people on the Government side of the House. 
I will now go to an organisation comprising a learned set of gentlemen and ladies the Law Commission. Let us just see what the commission said about this levy. Mr Power obviously did not listen to the Law Commission when he should have—that is when he was drafting this legislation. The Law Commission report states: “There would be particular difficulties with imposing levies on persons who have been sentenced to long-term imprisonment.” There is no surprise there. The report continues: “Moreover the non-payment rate of small levies imposed on all offenders would probably be so high that the administration cost of enforcement would exceed the amount collected.” Well if we are starting off with best projections that $5 million will be collected and that it will cost $1.3 million to set up the scheme and $1.5 million to run it there is not much margin for leeway there. I say that within a year—certainly within 2 years when the Opposition will be checking the Government on all of these facts and figures before the next election—the Government will be in a negative situation regarding this levy. 
I will talk about the other issue of unfairness in relation to those who will end up paying the levy and I quote again from the Law Commission report: “If levies of the same amount were imposed on all offenders that would raise proportionality issues …”. As my good learned colleague Clayton Cosgrove asked how can anyone justify charging the same levy on a multiple murderer as on someone who might have been involved in some low-level property crime? I continue by quoting the Law Commission: “why should an offender convicted of a very minor offence without any direct victim at all pay the same amount as an offender convicted of rape or wounding with intent to commit grievous bodily harm?”. 
The Labour Opposition will support this legislation but I have to say that we do so reluctantly because in my summation this legislation which was paid for by the removal of the Sentencing Council will create more unfairness in the justice system than we have seen before. This Government ignored the wisdom of the Sentencing Council and closed it down. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Thank goodness the debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill which has gone through three readings and a Committee stage has not finished on such a poor note and that I have the pleasure of winding up the debate on this fantastic legislation. This bill continues to lock into place the law and order policies of this Government. 
I do not intend to speak for too long; I just want to cover three areas. I will briefly touch on the mechanism of submissions and to put the record straight I will also cover the economics of the scheme. Firstly for the information of members opposite I will deal with the submissions because clearly they were asleep doing other things or distracted during the select committee process. There were 13 submissions on this bill. There were six in support two were opposed and four were neutral but offered enhancements. I will provide members opposite—particularly the last speaker—with the range of organisations that supported this bill. There was of course the Sensible Sentencing Trust the National Council of Women of New Zealand fully supported it and the Human Rights Commission strongly supported it. Then of course we had the submissions referred to by my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi who shared with the House the heartfelt submission of Judy Ashton. 
Contrary to the impression given by the Opposition there is absolutely no doubt that the public are overwhelmingly in support of this legislation. What does the bill do? It imposes a $50 levy on all convicted offenders at sentencing either in the District Court or the High Court. The Opposition has scoffed at what it terms an incidental figure. The fact of the matter is that the purpose of this levy is to pay some money to assist the victims of crime. It is just a start in a process which will add to other reparations made by the court and other mechanisms that the outstanding Minister of Justice canvassed in his opening speech on the third reading. He talked about the types of support that this Government is giving to the victims of crime. The revenue generated from this $50 levy will be used to support that fund. So that there is no doubt I want it recorded that the projected net positive revenue from this scheme is $13.6 million after 4 years. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Minus. 
PAUL QUINN 
: No no. I have the figures here in my hand in a document dated 10 June. Net revenue equals gross revenue minus the expenditure. I know that is difficult for Opposition members to understand. They cannot read cash-flow statements they cannot read profit and loss accounts and in fact they probably do not know what a profit and loss account means. The profit and loss accounts from this process say that there will be $13.6 million in net revenue after 4 years. Where the members opposite have been getting their figures from I just do not know. They have probably made them up as they always do. I say to members let the record show that this is cash-flow positive. 
I will also say that the officials who did an outstanding job advised us that current reparation collection rates are at 15 percent. This is based on what the courts order and what comes in. The officials anticipate the courts being able to collect this levy at a 60 percent collection rate in a worst-case scenario which means that the victims of crime will receive much more assistance. 
The last thing I will mention which I was not going to cover but Damien raised it again and it was Lynne Pillay’s favourite is the Sentencing Council. All I can say to the previous speaker is that the council never started. This Government is much more interested in creating a fair and just system that assists victims of crime rather than setting up gravy trains for the Labour Party’s old boy network. They will not have a retirement process. Members opposite probably would have elevated Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Warren Young retired them to the Sentencing Council and they would have sat on the gravy train for the rest of their lives. With those few concluding remarks it gives me great pleasure to have the final word on this outstanding bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Domestic Violence Act 1995 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on this part includes the schedule. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I will get the negative stuff over first and say from the outset that we in Labour were a little disappointed that this bill went only part of the way to picking up Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill. Our preference would have been to see National take over that bill and progress it through the House. That has not been the case but I stand and speak in support of this bill. I know that it goes a long way to addressing many of the concerns around domestic violence. 
Part 1 which amends the Domestic Violence Act will ensure that there is more protection for women—although not in every instance it is predominantly women and families in the case of domestic violence—at the crucial time when there is considerable heat in the situation and it is essential that the offending party is off the premises and away from the family. I note that in terms of new section 49 “Offence to contravene protection order” and new section 49A “Offence to fail to comply with direction” in clause 5 the changes are sensible. They are common-sense changes. Certainly as I said before they go a considerable way towards enhancing protection for women and families in domestic violence situations. 
We all know that domestic violence is an absolute blot on this country’s landscape. The previous Labour Government put considerable resource time and energy into this issue. It worked with non-governmental organisations to tackle the causes of domestic violence to provide education around domestic violence and to raise awareness to ensure that people in this situation get the support and the protection that they so much deserve. 
I am taking only a short call on this bill currently but I am very pleased to be speaking on it. This bill will get the support of all members of the Committee I assume and I think that is commendable. At the very heart of the matter is protection for families who are subjected to violence and actions that no human being—and in particular no child—should be subject to. I am very pleased to speak in support of the bill. Thank you. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the member Lynne Pillay for her comments on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. She is aware that since this bill was introduced to the House a second bill that deals with some of the other issues that she refers to—plus another matter which will enable us to ratify an international instrument in respect of one particular matter—has been tabled. Some issues remain with regard to the current legislation to which the member refers and that is why the second bill the Domestic Violence Reform Bill remains on the Order Paper. I assure her that I am doing my best to work my way through the remaining issues. 
Broadly speaking this bill is a piece of work that I started on about 2½ years ago with some staff with whom I was working at the time while in Opposition. I am pleased that the bill has made the progress that it has to date and I hope that towards the end of the evening before we adjourn the House we may make some more progress on it. 
Part 1 amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995 by inserting new Part 6A which provides for the police safety order initiative. In brief the provisions provide the police with the power to issue a police safety order when called to a domestic dispute if they are unable to arrest the alleged violent person. Part 1 also amends the offence provisions. Firstly it removes the tiered penalty structure for the offence of contravening a protection order while retaining the current maximum penalty of a term of imprisonment of up to 2 years. That was actually quite an important signal to send in the Part 1 provisions. Secondly it separates out the offence of failing to attend a programme as directed and retains the current penalty of up to 6 months’ imprisonment or of a fine not exceeding $5000. That continues to give emphasis to the importance of participating in the programmes emphasised in this legislation. Section 50(2) of the Domestic Violence Act which requires an arresting officer to consider certain criteria before arresting a person who he or she suspects has breached a protection order is also repealed. Repealing those criteria aligns the principal Act with section 315 of the Crimes Act 1961 which permits arrest without a warrant where there is good cause to suspect that an offence has been committed. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of changes to Part 1 to provide more explicit provisions around the law enforcement and court processes associated with the police safety orders. I thank the committee for that work; I think it added to the bill and has made it a more whole piece of legislation. Supplementary Order Paper 72 in my name consists of several technical amendments to Part 1 and I hope the Committee of the whole House will see its way to supporting them. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I thought I might take this opportunity to go over briefly some of the more substantive changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee made which the Minister of Justice referred to. But before I do I highlight again what a considerable advance this legislation is. That is of course originally thanks to the drafting by the then Labour Government but I also congratulate the Minister on taking on this legislation. I am sure at some point in the third reading we might go into it in a little more detail. Some of those additional pieces could perhaps be expanded on although as the Minister has mentioned they have been put into the new legislation. There are still parts of Labour’s legislation we would like to see acted upon. 
This legislation is a very new type of tool for police to add to their tool kit in preventing domestic violence. I want to highlight that this tool is intended to be a preventive measure but with that come some difficulties. Of course we are asking the police to intervene in many cases before a crime has occurred. The Police Association came forward and suggested in the select committee discussion that for instance some of the penalties for breaching a police order should be heftier than what had been proposed. We had to put back to them that we needed to weigh up the consideration of the fact that in the first instance a crime had not yet occurred and that some of the association’s suggestions may be considered disproportionate. That was a balance that I think the select committee has struck in what it has produced. 
The first change that I want to touch on briefly is in respect of some words that were either changed or removed. I think that that was in order to aid the police in making a decision as to whether a police order is required. The select committee tried to have a very practical discussion with officials about the kinds of practical situations police officers may find themselves in so that we could ensure that we were not adding any words unnecessarily that may prevent police officers issuing orders where it might be extremely useful. One word was “immediate”. We recommended the removal of the condition that an order be issued only if necessary to safeguard the immediate safety of the person. That was on the basis that at any one point in time when a police officer arrives at a house there may be a period where the dispute may seem slightly more settled but that may not be the case a few hours after the fact. We wanted to give maximum flexibility to the police in that regard. The other word was “serious”. Proposed new section 124B(2) of the Domestic Violence Act sets out the matters to which the constable must have regard when considering whether to issue an order. One matter was whether there was a serious likelihood that domestic violence might be used. We felt that the word “serious” was quite imprecise so we recommended removing it. 
I will touch on two other issues. The committee rightly picked up on the fact that when a police officer is called out originally the criterion was that a constable could award an order if there was a view that that person had not committed crime significant enough for an arrest. We considered that there might be another offence that may have occurred in that environment or in that home to cause the person’s arrest which might be completely unrelated to domestic violence but that there might be reason enough to suspect that a safety order might be useful. We wanted to ensure that even if an arrest had occurred a safety order could be used as well. 
Another issue I will touch on briefly relates to who could award an order. We determined that it would be worthwhile to clarify that a constable who is not a qualified constable must receive authorisation from a qualified constable. That was specifically to take into account the fact that in a rural environment someone may not have reached the required bar in order to issue an order but may be the only person available on the scene at that time to do so. We wanted to give not only maximum flexibility but also oversight to those situations. We considered that it would be appropriate that that may occur via telephone. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak in this debate in support of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. As the bill went through the select committee process it enjoyed the goodwill of members on all sides of the Justice and Electoral Committee table. We had a number of very positive submissions from the public in respect of this bill and only one or two were against it. Those submissions seemed to be from a partisan view of the proceedings of the Family Court rather than against the bill itself. We made a number of changes around process to take account of for instance—as the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern mentioned—the difficulties for those in rural areas of accessing legal counsel. The days available to obtain a formal protection order whilst the police safety order endured was lengthened slightly. There were some concerns around just how that would fit at certain times of the year—for instance over the Easter period or over the Christmas period—and I think that those are valid concerns. We will have to see how that runs. There were also concerns in respect of an enhancement made to the bill to allow police who preferred prosecution out of certain circumstances to be able to bring a safety order there as well. 
One other aspect of the debate within the select committee process that was very interesting was the submissions made by groups in support of women as victims of family violence. One group suggested that the protection orders should not be able to be put in place by a court on sentencing because it took away the power of the victim to have some self-determination in respect of her—it is usually “her”—own circumstances. It was interesting to note that the exact opposite suggestion was submitted for exactly the same reasons. Other groups in support of women came before the committee and suggested that courts should be able to make these orders without any consultation with the victim or despite their not wanting them because women who are oppressed in these relationships are frequently unable to make those decisions and choices of their own volition. In the end we allowed the courts to impose a protection order at sentencing because we felt it was in the best interests of the people involved in the centre of these disputes. 
I finish by thanking those who were involved in the select committee process. I am thankful for the spirit in which we engaged together for the good result we ended up with and for the enhancement of confidence in the parliamentary process given the result we had in preparing this bill for the House. I commend it to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I will begin by acknowledging the member who has just resumed his seat. Not only was that a considered contribution to this very important debate but also I understand that he was very well regarded as chair of the committee not just in the way he dealt with other members of the committee but also in the way he dealt with submitters and I acknowledge him for that. I am not likely to do that often given his current political affiliation but when it is warranted I certainly will. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just wait! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is right. When he moves on from that position we never know what might happen. 
I acknowledge the Hon Annette King who put a huge amount of work into preparing the Domestic Violence Reform Bill and also all the officials who worked so hard not just with Annette King when she was Minister but also with community organisations up and down the country to make sure that that bill had really strong input from people who knew the outcome they wanted. There is no debate about the outcome that is required but these issues are not always as straightforward as they seem. The bill that Annette King introduced to the House was the result of widespread community consultation and that is the point that I want the Minister to reflect on before he takes the next call. 
I will add that it was one of the few pieces of legislation that went to the cross-party family violence prevention group which had every single party in Parliament tragically with the exception of National represented on it. That cross-party group looked at various options in terms of enhancing safety in the home and supported the progress of the bill. It certainly is not often that we have people like Heather Roy Tariana Turia Sue Bradford and Judy Turner in the room together all working on one cause with a great deal of passion and commitment. I regret that National left the group and did not come back because it was an opportunity that was lost. 
The original bill came forward with a lot of support from both outside and within this Parliament. Part of the bill that I am referring to the Domestic Violence Reform Bill has been picked up by the Minister Simon Power and I acknowledge his commitment. I have no doubt about his personal commitment to enhancing safety in the home and I acknowledge that as well. But I find it quite puzzling that despite him introducing a second bill there are still quite important issues from the original Domestic Violence Reform Bill that have been omitted. Frankly if we have an opportunity as a Parliament to make our homes safer for everyone and particularly for women and children why would we throw away that chance? That is the question I want the Minister to answer. There was a bill already before Parliament that had majority support in this House without doubt. There may have been some small parts of it that could have been debated but I doubt even that. 
The Minister went to all the trouble of introducing his own bill which took part of that original bill and sent it to select committee and then went to another lot of bother to introduce a second bill. Still he missed out four quite important parts of the original domestic violence reform legislation. Why would anyone want to reduce safety by taking away some of the key elements? That is what I would like the Minister to answer because it seriously is a puzzle to me. 
My colleague Jacinda Ardern outlined some of the concerns that were raised both by members of the select committee and by submitters to it. I want to proceed with asking the Minister directly for his views on the four points that have been omitted in both pieces of legislation and that were in the original Domestic Violence Reform Bill. The first omission is changing the definition of a child from under 17 years of age to under 18 years of age in the Domestic Violence Act. Obviously that would give us compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and that is a good thing. It does not improve anyone’s safety but it is always good to sign up to United Nations conventions when we can and when it makes sense for our nation. It also would align the domestic violence legislation with the Care of Children Act. It is very puzzling that a Minister who is generally regarded as having quite a lot of rigour showing attention to detail and common sense would waive the opportunity to make a very straightforward move aligning the domestic violence legislation with the Care of Children Act; it puzzles me. 
The second omission was the decision that has specifically been made to not require reasons to be given in writing when a without notice application for a protection order is declined by a judge. To the best of my knowledge there has been no explanation from the Government as to why it specifically made the decision not to proceed with including that provision in the legislation. Again this is something that was worked through by experts in the field by people who are survivors of domestic violence and by people who support them to move from being a victim to being a survivor. It was worked through with the police and the Ministry of Justice—the people who know what they are talking about. This was the advice that was given to us; we took it from the best sources. But the Minister said: “No I’m not going to do that.” Once again it is a big puzzle and I would like the Minister to take what will be one of the last chances to explain that second puzzle to me. 
The third omission from the original legislation was the decision not to introduce information sessions. That is contrary to all the evidence around the fact that protection is best given in a situation where an individual knows how he or she can access support and that person also understands the nature of the threat that he or she may be faced with in the future. That message does not seem to be understood by the Government even though people in our country die at the hands of partners who often have quite recently professed to love them. They have been frightened and they did not understand what may happen to them. Information sessions are a critical part of enhancing an individual’s safety. We literally have people in our nation killed and we may have an opportunity to enhance the safety of someone who could be in that situation tonight. I know the Minister is committed to that aim. I cannot understand why he took that information session provision out of the original legislation because once again it was on best advice that that was included. I hope that this is not a political party issue. I am sure that every single member in this House wants to enhance the safety of individuals particularly within their own homes. Once again I ask the Minister whether he could please explain to the Committee why he did not take the advice that Labour was given when in Government to include those information sessions as part of the legislation. 
The fourth point is the Government’s specific decision not to introduce funded addiction treatment services and again that is despite overwhelming evidence about the association between domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. I cannot fathom why that specific recommendation has been taken out. It is a huge contributor to enhancing safety not only in the home but also in our broader community. In my view it is not too late for the Minister to say that he has changed his mind and introduce some amendments. Labour would support those particular provisions being put back in the legislation. The Minister is able to provide Supplementary Order Papers at a moment’s notice. He has the advantage of having some extraordinarily competent officials on hand. They may well have those amendments drafted just in case the Minister decides that the best evidence is worth taking and that doing every single thing we can to enhance safety in the home is worth pursuing. 
Despite those omissions the parts of the Hon Annette King’s legislation that the Minister has taken on board are very good. I hope they achieve the aims that we all share to ensure that fewer children fewer women and fewer men are harmed by those who should give them the security and the love that they deserve within their own homes. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I start by acknowledging what the previous speaker Ruth Dyson said particularly in relation to Chester Borrows. He has done an exceptionally fine job of chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee through its consideration of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I agree with what Chester Borrows said: all the members of the select committee—whether they were from Labour the Greens or National—entered into a spirit of cooperation that was very good to see. It was this Parliament and the select committee process working at its finest. 
I also agreed when Ruth Dyson said that every member of this Committee wants to do his or her bit to enhance the safety of victims and potential victims of domestic violence. In fact we want to do what we can to ensure people do not become victims. The Minister of Justice acknowledged that there is more work to do which he and his ministry are working on. This bill is a response to a serious issue and in respect of the Minister I think we are seeing a fine response. 
Before talking very briefly about the response I say that I am sure no one doubts the severity of the problem. I agreed with Lynne Pillay when she said that domestic violence is a blot on our society. We think of the very high-profile cases the children like Nia Glassie and the wives and spouses who are badly beaten. But of course it is also clear that domestic violence can be rather more banal than those headline cases. With 80000 domestic violence call-outs for police every year no one can be in any doubt that this issue needs a response from this Parliament. As I said it has been a privilege to be part of the team under Minister Simon Power that worked on this. 
What does the bill do? Well it does many things. It deals with the penalty provisions for failure to attend a programme and so on. There are a number of specific provisions but perhaps the key part is that it allows for on-the-spot protection orders for up to 5 days in situations where police may not have sufficient evidence to charge then and there—although they may get it eventually—but it is quite clear that the situation is bad is serious and needs to be dealt with. In other words this bill allows for immediate safety to come first. It empowers the police and gives them the tools to ensure that immediate safety comes first. I do not think anyone in this Chamber could disagree with that. I look forward to taking a call in the third reading debate of this bill. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand again and speak on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I was a bit remiss in my first speech so I will now also add my compliments to Chester Borrows for his excellent chairing of the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
I will also take this opportunity to acknowledge the submitters. They include the people who work at the coalface in the many organisations who came and gave submissions. They did so because they are very very committed to providing protection for victims of domestic violence. I not only acknowledge the submissions that they gave but also the work that they do on a day-to-day basis. I know that it makes a real difference to the lives of predominantly women and children in New Zealand and I am very proud to acknowledge that in this House. 
I also acknowledge the victims of domestic violence who made submissions. I believe and I am sure that all members will agree with me that that is a very brave action to take for people who have already been through very very difficult situations situations more painful than anyone in this Chamber can contemplate. For them to be able to come to the select committee and share their stories in a very meaningful way assisted us in our deliberations and that was a very very brave thing for them to do. 
Again I acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson and the points that she made in terms of the bill’s shortcomings or in terms of what is missing from this bill. I acknowledge that another bill is following this one but if we look at the domestic violence statistics every hour is an hour too long. Every day is by far too long. That is why I am pleased that we are debating this bill under urgency. Let us get this bill through; let us get this bill into effect as soon as possible. 
I will also talk about a couple of issues in Part 2 particularly those relating to the amendment to the Sentencing Act. We spent quite some time considering the effects of the protection order and I am really pleased with one of the amendments that we made to new section 123D to be inserted in the Sentencing Act by clause 9. The section states: “On making a protection order the Judge or Registrar must explain to the offender—”. The initial draft of the bill talked about the effect and the consequences in a couple of lines but select committee members discussed quite extensively how important it is in this situation that offenders understand what is required of them with regard to the protection order. It is not just the order that is important but also the direction to attend a programme that will assist offenders—well we certainly hope so—to address their violence and the consequences if they fail to do so. 
Where there is an order that offenders are required to attend a programme and they fail to do so there will be consequences arising from that. I believe that that is a very sensible amendment. That direction is about protection and safety in the immediate instance and also about looking forward and ensuring that offenders take responsibility for their actions. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the member Lynne Pillay for her contribution to the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. A few johnny-come-latelys though are contributing to this discussion in the Committee stage. I myself have been an affiliate member of the Chester Borrows fan club for some time. Now everybody else seems to be rushing to the party during the Committee of the whole House to pledge their allegiance to Mr Borrows. I tell members of the Committee that I have been a fan of Mr Borrows for longer than most members and I would appreciate it if there was more historic depth to their analysis of his contribution on this particular issue. 
Part 2 of the bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002. It provides that when an offender is convicted of a domestic violence - related offence the court may make a final protection order against the offender if it is satisfied that the making of the order is necessary for the protection of the victim and the victim does not object. When making the protection order the court must explain to the offender the effect of the order and of any direction to attend a programme. Any protection order issued by the criminal courts is referred to the Family Court. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee made two amendments to Part 2. Ms Pillay made reference I believe to one of those. The first is to delete new section 123B(1)(c) inserted by clause 9. That amendment clarifies that the criminal courts may make a protection order regardless of whether the victim has applied for one in the Family Court. That is a critical step and one that the committee should be applauded for taking. The second amendment is to new section 123D also inserted by clause 9 and it requires the court to explain to an offender the effect of a protection order and the consequences of failure to comply with it. The court must also explain to the offender the effect of the court’s direction to attend a stopping violence programme and the consequences of failure to attend any such programme. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on Part 2 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. Part 2 focuses on the amendments made to the Sentencing Act and the Minister in the chair Simon Power has already rightly pointed out the most significant changes that were made by the Justice and Electoral Committee. When considering this part I want to expand a little bit on the process that the select committee went through in determining those changes. 
I think at the heart of this bill is the overall objective to streamline the process that a victim in particular may go through when using our justice system to obtain a protection order. There was one thing that I think came through quite clearly during the submission process. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Before the break I was talking about one of the primary objectives of this bill which is to improve access by victims to such things as protection orders. When the Justice and Electoral Committee was considering one of the clauses in Part 2 it occurred to us that we could improve that objective if we allowed a court to order a protection order when it was considering a case even if it was not the court to which a particular application had been made. In the end we considered that a sentencing court should not be precluded from making a protection order if it considered that the protection order was necessary for the protection of the victim of the offence. We made that change after careful consideration and after hearing submissions made by for instance Family Court judges. It was a well considered and appropriate change to make. 
There are only two other aspects of Part 2 that I wish to draw attention to. One is new section 123D which requires that after the issuing of a protection order a judge or registrar must explain to the offender the effect of that order. That change was based on submissions made by the Family Court which pointed out the rate of non-compliance with some of these orders. It was the view of the select committee that we should do everything we can to ensure that orders for individuals to attend programmes to stop violence for instance should be enhanced in any way available to us. I think there is still more we can do in that particular area. It struck me during our consideration of the bill that although we were using all the tools available through legislation the surrounding areas—the support programmes and community networks aimed both at victims and at turning round the behaviour of offenders—perhaps needed the greater attention of the House. 
The final point I will briefly talk to relates to consent for protection orders. The select committee had some discussion about the issue of consent in issuing a protection order. We had considered that very same issue in relation to the awarding of police safety orders. The committee decided rightly so that these were quite different tools. A police safety order is a short-term order that is intended to diffuse very heated situations and prevent violence from occurring. Women’s Refuge after seeing how those orders work in Australia agreed that applying them without consent appeared to be of value to victims who would acknowledge that after the fact. Of course the reason then that we thought police safety orders should be able to be applied without consent was that it gave victims time and space to consider whether they wished to apply for a full protection order. A protection order has many larger longer-term ramifications than a police safety order. In order for protection orders to work in the long term I believe they require the buy-in of victims which is why we have in the end rightly differentiated between those two forms of protection for victims or potential victims of domestic violence. 
Those are the main aspects of the amendments to the Sentencing Act that I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to. I look forward to discussing further in the Committee stage the amendments to the Bail Act and to the third reading. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am looking forward to hearing the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power take a brief call. I encourage him to do so because he still has not addressed the questions I raised earlier in the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and those same questions apply to Part 2 which we are now debating. I heard the earlier contribution from the Minister and I thought that it was considered in the main. Some parts of it were quite amusing especially the Chester Borrows fan club section of his contribution but I have serious questions. The Minister is well regarded for taking issues from whatever political party as seriously as they are presented to him. So I say to him quite directly that I am still puzzled about the Government’s reasons for omitting four quite important sections from the Hon Annette King’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill. 
I will refresh the Minister’s memory from the earlier debate. The application of this bill to the Sentencing Act will be very well known to him; he will be familiar with the Sentencing Act I am sure and he will understand how the four points I raise apply to Part 2. These are provisions that the Hon Annette King included in the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. That legislation was well consulted around the country and had overwhelming support from the experts and key players in this area. 
Four provisions of that bill have been omitted from this bill. The first omission is that this bill does not change the definition of a child from a person who is under 17 years of age to a person who is under 18 years of age. The definition in the Domestic Violence Act as noted in new section 123A of the Sentencing Act inserted by clause 9 still applies. The opportunity to align this legislation with the Care of Children Act should have been irresistible. The proposed provision made sense and had wide-ranging support but the Minister decided to leave it out. That makes no sense at all. The second omission —again a specific decision made by the Minister—is that this bill does not require a judge to give reasons in writing when he or she declines a without-notice application for a protection order. That was not an oversight; it was a deliberate specific decision that was signed off by the Minister. From my perspective it is extremely puzzling. The Minister has made no attempt to explain why the decision was made to omit that. 
The third omission is that this bill does not introduce information sessions. In my earlier contribution I explained the importance of that aspect in the protection of women in particular who do not necessarily understand the relationship they are in and the different tack it can take. It is very hard for people who have not been in a violent relationship to understand how a person can still live with somebody who is violent with him or her. An information session is critical for people in their understanding of their relationships and in being able to determine key risk factors for the future. The fourth omission is that this bill does not introduce funded addiction treatment services despite overwhelming evidence about the association between domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. 
I know that we are in urgency and that the Government is under a huge amount of pressure from the extensive legislative timetable it has ahead of it but I consider that the Committee would benefit hugely if the Minister were to spend 5 minutes of his time explaining what he has against those four provisions of the Domestic Violence Reform Bill—and it is still on the Order Paper—that have been omitted not just from this bill but also from the related bill that the Minister introduced. 
Those provisions should be in this bill; those amendments should be consistent with the provisions of the reform bill. The Minister did not need to pass over the Hon Annette King’s bill. He could have short-cut all the systems and just put his name on it. He must have a good reason not to give those protections to women and children who right now right at this very minute as we debate this bill are living in dangerous situations. Why has the Minister not taken that chance? 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 
 agreed to. 
Schedule 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to omit the schedule and substitute a new schedule be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The commencement clauses contained in clauses 1 and 2 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill relating to revised offence provisions the new provision on arrest without a warrant and the amendments to the Bail Act will come into force immediately following this bill’s assent. Proposed new Part 6A of the Domestic Violence Act which concerns the police safety orders and is to be inserted by clause 7 of the bill and the amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002 that are made by Part 2 of the bill and enable the criminal courts to make protection orders will come into force on 1 July 2010. The additional time allowed before those proposals come into force will allow for the development of processes and for system changes and training to be completed. 
In respect of the matters that have been raised by the Hon Ruth Dyson I will take a moment to address those because they are fair questions. The first reassurance that I want to give the member and the Committee of the whole House is that in respect of the domestic protection orders we were keen to move that part of the legislation that was previously on the Order Paper swiftly which is why it was introduced and extracted from the remaining legislation. The second bill that was introduced to the House which we are debating now was introduced in a way to cover some of the issues that have been raised by the member in her first contribution to the debate on Part 1 but particularly because I was keen to see a particular international instrument taken care of as part of this bill. I reassure the member that the reason the original bill is still on the Order Paper today and will remain on the Order Paper is that those matters she has raised are still under active consideration. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I will talk briefly to the title and commencement clauses because there was some discussion at the Justice and Electoral Committee when the bill was referred to it as the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. The Minister originally set out that the legislation would come into force only on the date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. That was not satisfactory to the committee. The view was that the legislation should be time-bound which eventually was the case with provisions coming into force on 1 July 2010. 
Of course those provisions will still affect only a particular group of people as set out in Part 3 which talks about the amendments to the Bail Act. We have already considered that children for instance are defined as being those aged up to the age of 17 as described by the Domestic Violence Act. Regardless of when this bill comes into force because of its drafting there is a significant group of young people who some of us on this side of the Chamber consider will be neglected by this bill. I look forward to expanding on that issue in my speech during the third reading debate. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper71. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Domestic Violence Amendment Bill 
Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Readings 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This was some of the first legislation to be introduced by the National-led Government and it is particularly important to me. 
In less than a year this Government has made important legislative inroads into dealing with the impact of family violence on New Zealand families. New Zealand has a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect women children and men from violence in the home yet we continue to have high rates of family violence. For example the police currently record approximately 86000 family violence events in a year of which approximately half involve offences. Family violence also has a negative intergenerational effect. Children socialised within a violent environment are not as well equipped to adapt to and adopt positive lifestyles and may go on to become the subject of violence within their adult relationships. 
This legislation aims to strengthen the responsiveness of criminal justice agencies to victims of domestic violence through amendments to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Bail Act 2000. The most significant amendment is made by the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and is the introduction of police safety orders. Issuing a police safety order addresses the immediate safety of victims by removing the alleged violent person from the home for a period of up to 5 days. The police will issue the orders in situations where there is an insufficient basis to arrest but where they believe there is a likelihood of domestic violence occurring and an order is necessary for the safety of the victim. The orders will provide a period of safety in which victims can consider their future options including the possibility of a court protection order. 
An important feature of the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) is the proposal to amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to enable the criminal courts to issue a protection order on behalf of the victim in cases where an offender is sentenced for a domestic violence offence. Both of these provisions will be enacted from 1 July 2010 to allow police and the courts time to develop operational processes and undertake training. This will ensure a smooth transition from the legislation to day-to-day policing practice and court management of domestic violence matters. The other provisions come into force on enactment. 
The Domestic Violence Amendment Bill amends the offence provisions in the Domestic Violence Act by removing the two-tiered penalty structure for breaches of protection orders leaving only the maximum penalty of a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years. The legislation also provides a penalty of up to 6 months’ imprisonment for the specific offence of failing to attend a court-ordered programme. Further the legislation repeals the statutory criteria that police have to take into account when considering whether to arrest without warrant a person who they suspect has contravened a protection order. This means that the approach taken by police will be the same as for any other offence when an arrest without warrant is being considered. The Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) amends provisions in the Bail Act 2000 to allow the police to impose any conditions considered reasonably necessary to protect any particular person residing with the victim such as children new partners or elderly parents. 
Overall I believe this legislation will provide useful tools in expediting the response of the criminal justice sector to domestic violence. The police safety orders will provide immediate protection for the victim while making it very clear to the person who has allegedly committed the violence that his or her behaviour will not be tolerated. Similarly I expect that the number of protection orders that are made each year will increase as offenders sentenced for domestic violence offences are also issued with protection orders. This Government’s commitment to dealing with family violence is further supported by the introduction of the Child and Family Protection Bill which picks up on proposals that centre on child welfare and the issue of reconciling the Domestic Violence Act and the Care of Children Act. 
At this point I acknowledge Labour’s efforts in this area prior to the last election. I acknowledge in particular the work that was done by the Hon Annette King. For whatever reason the legislation was not able to be advanced prior to the general election but these bills are an important continuance of cross bench support of these sorts of measures. I also acknowledge the contributions made during each reading and the Committee stage by Lynne Pillay the Hon Ruth Dyson and Jacinda Ardern who have taken these issues and asked questions that are significant in the context of this work. 
We know that for a significant number of victims of violence the most dangerous place they can be is in their own home. As I said in my first reading speech we cannot legislate away behaviour when it is driven by broader social attitudes that will shift only over time. However the way in which agencies respond to family violence can save lives and reduce the number of victims. This legislation is predicated on the belief that there is still more that can be done to protect victims of family violence and help prevent them from becoming just another statistic and I urge the House to watch this space. I am particularly proud to have worked on this legislation during the course of the early days of this Government and I commend it to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Along with Simon Power I say it is actually a pleasure to stand and speak in the third reading of this legislation. Putting aside the issue of process and what occurred when Labour was in Government which pre-empted this debate I think there has been a complete meeting of minds and hearts over a matter that is very dear to all of us: the protection of women and families in their own homes. We know that if we do not have safety a community that is aware and safeguards for people who are in an unsafe position then we end up with some very very dysfunctional situations. We end up with a society and with communities that even if they are not directly affected by the senseless horrible acts of violence are affected emotionally by them. People are drawn in emotionally by the empathy that they feel for victims. I think that has been a key driver in terms of this legislation. 
I acknowledge again with regard to situations of domestic violence that I dream of the time—and I am sure others join me in this—when there is no need for this sort of legislation and for actions such as the issuing of police safety orders and protection orders because we have a safe society where everyone is valued and where it is accepted without argument that violence is unacceptable. I do not think it will be in any of our times in this House. We are not there yet. What is really important about this legislation is that there needs to be in a time of violence in a time of anxiety fear and anger—all of those things—a way to defuse the situation when the police arrive at the scene and a way to remove the offender from the scene. All too often in the past we have seen that it is usually the case that the women and children need to find somewhere else to go. They need to move. They need to uproot themselves and take themselves away from their homes to a safe environment. 
I think this bill takes a far more sensible commonsense approach. This is about us saying that people have the right to be safe in their homes and if there is a person there who is stopping that from happening and subjecting them to violence then that situation has to be fixed and fixed the way that is the least disruptive and the least heart-rending to the victim. That is why the police safety orders are very sensible. 
The members of the Justice and Electoral Committee all know that we spent quite some time on looking at whether the police safety orders should be for 3 days 5 days or more than that and at whether public holidays should be counted or weekends—all of those things. I am really proud that the committee considered those things very carefully and I acknowledge all the really careful advice that we had from officials. I think we can all put our hands on our hearts and know that a period of up to 5 days—and I stress “up to”—is the most sensible approach. What does that do? It certainly does not allow time for victims to be healed and move on in any real sense of the expression but it does allow them to be able to gather their thoughts from the horror of it all and in many instances to organise themselves to take moves to get the support that they need. That support could be a myriad of different things. It could be working with agencies who care for victims and who offer them a lot of advice. Obviously in a violent situation a victim who is looking at the interests of children is in a really vulnerable situation. It is very hard to actually think about what one should do in a very sensible methodical way. That is simply very very difficult. 
The period of 5 days provides a little time for victims to gather their thoughts and then to go through the due process. That may be going for a protection order but I would hope it would always entail having support from the agencies who work very hard to support victims in that situation. I think that the work they do is imperative for that to occur. It is about saying to victims that they are in a safe place for 5 days and they have the ability to ensure that they are always in a safe place. It may mean going through processes that their heads are not completely geared up to going through but if they do so they can be assured of a safe situation not just for 5 days but into the future. Victims need to be told that by the way agencies are also there to help them and assist them in rehabilitating themselves in getting to feel well in terms of their self-esteem and in ensuring their children are safe etc. I look upon the period of 5 days as the buying of time and not just time but safe time. It is a time of safety a time of being free not only from violence but from threats and from fear. It is a time for victims to gather their family support and the support of agencies to make very important decisions about where they go to from there. 
I think it is very timely that this measure is happening at the moment. I am really proud that we have seen a lot of campaigns in our communities. I acknowledge our community in Waitakere Violence Free Waitakere the council the mayor and every organisation that is absolutely committed to saying to people to our communities to our families and to people that violence in the home is not OK. Violence is not OK anyway but if there is any place where people should think they have the complete unfettered right to be safe and secure where else is it if not in their own home? I am really pleased that we are at this point now. I know that it will not be very long before this legislation is passed and that is very very good. I have acknowledged the staff who have worked on it. I have acknowledged in earlier speeches the role that the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power played and I am not going to go into that again because I think he is feeling quite overwhelmed by the accolades that he is receiving. 
I think there have been times when our society and when people in our history have not taken the issue of violence properly. I remember that when I was a child violence was not discussed openly. Often people thought there was a problem family or that things were happening. I feel really proud that we are now at a point whether it is within legislation or within our communities where we have lifted expectations to the extent where sometimes if victims in that situation are not able to say “It is not OK.” then a lot of other people are able to say “This is not OK. You are not safe and you deserve better than this. You deserve to have safety and security.” This legislation goes some way towards ensuring that. I look forward as the Minister said to further legislation being enacted in this area. It would have been good to do it in one package but that did not happen. Looking towards the future if there is urgency again which seems to be a bit of a common procedure— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Normalcy it is now. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Normalcy! But I would urge the Government to recognise that this is an issue that warrants it pushing legislation through on as fast as possible. 
I am really happy to commend this legislation to the House. Thank you. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is great to be part of a Government that is taking a lead on the issue of family violence and also to be part of a Parliament where parties across the House take the issue seriously. As a result of this legislation significant hurdles will be put into the cycle of violence. As a person who has worked a lot with families who are suffering from violence within the home I know that it is a sad truth that within violent homes we teach our boys how to be violent to their women and we teach our women in many cases that their role in life is to put up with violence and to endure it as best they can—that that is their lot. So it is good to see a roadblock come up in the legislation dealing with violence. It will be a significant hurdle to the cycle of violence being perpetuated through the generations and that is a good thing. This legislation is about breaking that cycle of violence. 
It is also about empowering the vulnerable. The vulnerable in our community particularly women and children need protection. Over time they often get into a situation where they are unable to protect themselves make themselves safe or create and maintain a safe environment for those they love. 
There have been a number of lessons that I think we have picked up on and there are a number of challenges for those out in the community in respect of this legislation too. One of my concerns and one of the concerns of the Justice and Electoral Committee is the lack of availability of lawyers operating within the legal aid area especially in rural and provincial towns. Five days is not a heck of a long time to be able firstly to come to terms with the situation that has arisen to gain some advice or some support from those we would normally rely on to provide that to get us through and then to identify locate and get an appointment with a solicitor—and at the back of people’s minds frequently is the cost; people wonder how they will pay for it. So there needs to be a significant stepping up of community groups that people turn to for support help advice and information on family violence. The legal fraternity also needs to step up and to make themselves available in a timely way so that they can help people who turn to them in times of need. 
I talked briefly about education; I will talk a little bit more about that. The It’s Not OK campaign is confronting us on our televisions on a nightly basis and that is a good thing. But similar campaigns in the past have got a bit wobbly and fallen over. After families have been through the cycle of violence on a couple of occasions and have taken steps to address it—maybe they have reported the matter to the police and maybe charges have emanated from that—the cost to the family becomes quite significant in terms of loss of income loss of support and loss of parental support. So getting people to report a third and fourth incident becomes quite difficult when the lessons are not learnt by the perpetrators on the first and second occasions. There needs to be some more education amongst our community so that 6 12 or 18 months down the track violence is still not seen as OK and to make sure that this particular campaign does not go the way that for instance the “It’s Not Just a Domestic” campaign went in the early 1990s. That campaign saw a fairly steep rise in the reporting of domestic violence but it then tailed off as the same families decided that it was too big a disruption. 
Another point in respect of education that was made during the select committee process was the need for training of police officers who attend the scene of domestic violence crimes. One of the big pluses of the police strategy on domestic violence in the last few years has been to have attending police treat the scene of domestic violence as a crime scene: they photograph the scene seize exhibits freeze the scene and do a proper investigation in order to substantiate charges that may come from the incident. But it was noted before the select committee that there was a little gap in some of that learning in respect of deciding at the scene who the primary offender is and who the primary victim is. Often the person who is most composed and most calm is actually the perpetrator of the violence because the violence has not been done to them. For an attending police officer the most reasonable person to speak to at the scene of the crime is the offender not the victim. The whole disempowerment scenario and regimen that goes along with domestic violence kicks in and can in some circumstances pull the wool over the eyes of the not-so-experienced attending police officer. So there is a real need for extra training for attending staff so that they understand the dynamics of a situation that they move into and can take action against the correct party. That need was flagged. 
One of the final points I will make is about the ability of the District Court when sentencing people who have been arrested for family violence incidents to issue a final protection order which after the initial imposition in the District Court would fall back to the Family Court for for instance appeal or later amendment. When we look at this we have to wonder why it has taken us so long. Historically in the late 1980s we became very rights-focused in this country. We had quite a long way to go in respect of rights so we saw some very big changes. But through the early to late 1990s and into the 2000s we moved too far away from the responsibility aspect. Now we have come to a time when the community is seeing a need for us to be a little bit more interventionist. The implications of standing back and being too mindful of rights and not being cognisant enough of the responsibilities that go with living in this free and democratic society have hit home in Parliament if I can use that phrase. It is very timely that that has happened. 
It is a relatively new experience for me being new to Government and not having been in the House all that long to see my fingerprints at least a little bit—and we know that success has many fathers—on legislation that has come through our select committee process and is being passed through the House. 
What a privilege it is to know as the previous speaker Lynne Pillay said that we have done the business and that we are leaving the place just a little bit better than it was when we found it. It is a privilege to be a member of Parliament—a privilege that fewer than a thousand people within our country’s history have experienced. It is something that I am sure all members of the House take very seriously. It is quite a proud moment to be able to see that this legislation will make life a little bit better for quite a number of people in this country. I commend the bill to the House. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I do not think it is really necessary to reiterate the importance of the legislation the third readings of which we are now discussing tonight. We have heard consistently throughout contributions from both sides of the House that domestic and family violence contribute to 80000 recorded events per year and of course there is the role that violence plays in homicides and—as the Minister of Justice rightly pointed out—in intergenerational family violence. Labour saw it Labour recognised it and Labour crafted the original version of the legislation. The National Government had the good sense to further that legislation in some form or another. 
There are perhaps two significant changes that the Government chose to make to the legislation. The first change extends the period that a police safety order covers—from Labour’s initial proposal of 72 hours to a period of 5 days. I have to say that having heard the submissions from various community organisations and from those in the law enforcement community I feel content that we have struck the right balance in the legislation with the extension to 5 days. 
The second significant change is what was omitted from the legislation. The Government had an opportunity to create comprehensive legislation but it reneged. Minister Power talked to us about the Government’s Child and Family Protection Bill but it is in no way as comprehensive as the previous omnibus Domestic Violence Reform Bill which was introduced by the Hon Annette King. I will spend some time going over the changes omitted and the opportunities lost in the same way that my colleagues have done. 
The Minister briefly addressed the House on that particular question. He told us the amendments that were removed by the Government were still under active consideration. I question what there was to consider. From my perspective the evidence was clear the submissions and feedback from community groups were clear so I cannot see where the debate lay on those clauses. 
For the benefit of my colleagues across the House I will go over four of the most significant changes. The first was the Government’s lack of recognition of the fact that we continue to neglect our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in the definition of children in our legislation. The Government has already used the opportunity in its Child and Family Protection Bill to fulfil another international obligation but has ignored our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child when it comes to the definition of children. We had the opportunity to further protect children through the amendments made to the Bail Act that allow us to put conditions that would enable children in violent domestic and family relationships to be protected. I do not understand what the harm in doing that would have been. Perhaps there is a political point the Minister would like to share with us about the wider ramifications for our youth justice system which I would also debate him on. 
The second aspect of the legislation introduced by Labour that was removed was access to funded addiction treatment programmes. Again I do not understand why the Minister chose to not address that in this legislation. It was a perfect opportunity. Perhaps we would not have to put the House under urgency to consider it in another piece of legislation. It could have been moved into this one. It would have been a very efficient way to deal with it. 
We already know via the evidence that if we look in isolation at tools for the police we miss an opportunity to address the contributors to domestic violence. The evidence suggests that alcohol and drugs are huge contributors to domestic violence in the same way that they are contributors to youth crime. Again that is something that this House must continue to work on. 
The third aspect is application without notice for a protection order which I think fitted fundamentally within the objectives of the legislation. As much as the Minister may choose instead of listening to these points to give tips to his colleague Simon Bridges on how to bat back the points made by the Opposition he may wish to consider why it would not have been more efficient to put that provision in this legislation. If we had already established the evidence if we had already consulted the community if all those major significant organisations had said that this was the way to go why did we not proceed? 
The fourth aspect was about information sessions for protected persons. We already had looked at in a sense an iteration of this in the existing legislation. If we explain to offenders about protection orders and alcohol and the ramifications of those and the requirements for them to attend stopping violence programmes why do we not give information sessions for protected persons? There is no reason why that should have been delayed for active consideration by this Government when there already was an aspect of it in the legislation. I would be interested to hear Simon Bridges tell us why explaining to a victim the nature of the threats he or she faces and where he or she can get support is a bad idea. I look forward to hearing the members from the National side of the House explain to me why those aspects did not deserve to be in this bill. 
We must acknowledge in this House that the arm of the State the tools for law enforcement are just a small part of the wider solution and preventive measures that we must put in place to tackle domestic violence—they are a small part. We must look more broadly if we are to really tackle the contributors to domestic violence and the support networks required for the victims of domestic violence. We must look beyond tools for law enforcement and tools for use simply within our justice process. 
I am pleased the Government has put forward this legislation and progressed it through the House. I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged and demonstrated his awareness of the importance of this issue but I think we have a lost opportunity here. I am very willing and open to congratulate the Government in the future if those four aspects are progressed in this House. But I am disappointed that they were not progressed. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I do not intend to take up very much time of the House. I will just reiterate the support of the Green Party for this proposed legislation as we had conveyed in the first and second readings. We think this legislation is a good example of the success of the Justice and Electoral Committee in operation. It worked well and harmoniously. In fact it is good to see the House united on an issue as important as this one and I take the opportunity to join in the congratulations to the chair Chester Borrows not just on the way in which he handled this legislation but on the way in which he handles all issues before the committee. 
The Green Party has shared the concern articulated by the Opposition pertaining to some of the omissions in the legislation particularly the four that were cited. There is no point in reiterating what they are; I think we have internalised them very acutely by now. Whether it is an opportunity lost or simply an opportunity deferred will prove to be a matter for the future. I would offer the personal view that I am quite confident that the Minister of Justice will in his very capable way address those omissions in the future. We will certainly be looking forward to seeing that in legislation. 
Let me conclude with a more philosophical point if I may in response essentially to comments made by one of our colleagues from ACT during the debate on earlier bills—I think the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill and the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill—where I think that Mr Garrett looking through a glass darkly concluded that the Green Party somehow sympathises with criminals. It is just worth noting in passing by way of clarification that of course we are not sympathising with criminality per se at all. The difference between the Green Party and ACT in that respect is that we do not have a policy that stresses punitive justice. We have a policy of restorative justice. Where we confront these issues at the margin we may well have differences of view. 
There is quite a broad commonality running through all parties in this House when it comes to handling law and order and crime. But our philosophy is that it is equally important to understand the social causes of crime as in fact the Minister Mr Power himself mentioned in the first reading and again in the third reading. We can tinker at the margin as much as we like and I would not want to denigrate this legislation in that category. The Green Party is indeed as sympathetic towards victims as any other party in this House but equally so it is very important to understand the social causes of what brings individual humans to criminal acts and to seek to redress those social problems. If we put as much energy and creativity into that endeavour as we do into seeking to increase the prison population then I think we will do better. 
As Sue Kedgley said in the first reading if we have a society that is saturated with violence on television computers and videos and we almost encourage our children to grow up imbibing that culture then we will be simply reinventing the wheel of violence generation after generation. We will be seeking to give succour to victims as indeed we will be obliged to do morally we will be looking to expand more and more prisons at vast financial and social cost and we will be simply engaging in an eternal cycle of punitive vengeance. 
There is a difference a philosophical difference between ACT and the Green Party but I suggest there is more in common than Mr Garrett may have misperceived. With that mild comment in reply I simply reiterate that the Green Party is very very happy indeed to support the legislation congratulates both the Minister and the chairman in this respect and looks forward to future legislation. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Like Kennedy Graham my colleague from the Green Party who is also on the Justice and Electoral Committee I do not intend to use all my speaking time; I will probably not even use most of it. That is in no way to give an indication of anything other than the seriousness with which I approach this issue and the significance of this legislation which will soon be law. This is a very happy occasion in many ways. It is serious yes but it is happy. Although there are some issues and some points that Opposition parties seek to bring out in the debate nevertheless it is a time when the whole House becomes united against domestic violence. As I apprehend it we will all be voting for this legislation to become law. 
I agree with some of the things that Kennedy Graham spoke of. There are issues in our society concerning violence. It can be cultural and it can be a product of what is being watched on television—our media and our culture. I suppose this is not in contradiction to that but I agree with what the Minister Simon Power said; there are also issues of intergenerational violence of violence spanning families over generations which make up the undoubted problem of domestic violence that we have in this country. No one would argue that it is anything other than a problem even if following on from Kennedy Graham following on from the Minister we can also acknowledge how undoubtedly complex the causes of it are. 
With all that as the background domestic violence is a complicated causal issue. Domestic violence is an undoubtedly large problem in our society with 80000 or so police call-outs a year. But as I say this is a happy time because we are united against domestic violence. It is a happy time because this legislation is in favour of victims. It puts victims where they should be in the process at centre stage with their concerns at heart rather than marginalising them as has historically been the case in New Zealand and in the Westminster tradition. 
With those few thoughts I will say that a majority of the select committee’s time was spent in relation to the police safety orders. We originally called them “police orders” but I think “police safety orders” more accurately reflects what they are what they do and what their purpose is. As I said during the Committee stage the police safety orders address the immediate safety issues that may arise for the families and whanau. It may be that the police at that time do not have sufficient evidence to arrest but nevertheless they are presented with a situation where there is a likelihood of violence. They can defuse the situation with a police safety order. They can effectively solve the situation for a period of up to 5 days. During that time they can look at the options they are presented with which may include prosecution of the alleged offender. 
In conclusion I think this is a happy moment for this Parliament. We have come together on a piece of law notwithstanding some of the comments from some members in the House. This is another step forward for victims in New Zealand. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is a genuine privilege for me to contribute in the third reading of the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Bail Amendment Bill (No 2) into which the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill has been divided. I look forward to their conclusion and rapid progress into law. I begin by commending my friend and colleague the Hon Annette King who started this process by introducing the Domestic Violence Reform Bill upon which Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill was based. I further commend—and it will be for the final time this evening—Chester Borrows for his excellent chairing of the Justice and Electoral Committee. He not only has been very respectful of the other members of the select committee but also was very welcoming to and respectful of the submitters and on this issue I think that is critically important. That is important on every issue but on this issue it is particularly important. 
I acknowledge every member of the select committee and also the officials. They have done a very good job of looking at the submissions making some changes to the legislation and bringing it back to the House. They also gave us a very good report of the select committee proceedings. I also acknowledge the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power. The Minister is well regarded for his personal commitment and the respect with which he deals with other members of the House. He has a considered approach to issues and he has demonstrated that again tonight. I thank him and acknowledge his response. 
I am not sure what “active consideration” means under National but I assure the Minister that I will be reminding him of his phrase on a regular basis. I am puzzled that these issues needed further active consideration actually given the rigour with which they were considered previously but obviously the Minister was alerted to some concerns. I give him an absolute assurance that when he introduces those four issues to the House Labour will be supporting their progress and I give him an equally confident assurance that I will be regularly reminding him of his consideration until his consideration is ended. 
Some time ago I gave a maiden speech in this House; it was actually on 24 March 1994. That was quite some time ago. It was probably not long after the time that Simon Bridges was born. 
Hon Member 
: And “Chippy”! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: And Chris Hipkins. The member is right. In that maiden speech—that speech is one that we all take very seriously—I raised the issues that were of most concern to me. In my maiden speech I said this: “Security in the home is an issue that received deserved attention and prominence this week.” I said that nearly 20 years ago I had been in a violent relationship and I explained to the House that I therefore spoke with understanding of and personal commitment to the issue. I said: “I know the confusion of emotions that are linked with women involved in domestic violence.” I mentioned the United Nations adoption of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and drew the attention of the House to article 4 as having the most relevance. I spoke with pride of New Zealand’s leadership on this issue and reminded the Government that there was still a lot of work to be done. I am very pleased that since that time—tragically 1994 is a long time ago—both main parties have done a lot about this issue. But it remains a blight on our society that we have people particularly women and children who become victims of abuse and violence in their own homes the places where they live and should feel the most secure and the most loved and often end up seriously injured or dead. That is something that members in this House should be ashamed of as leaders in our community. The speeches that members have contributed throughout this debate show that across every single party this House is ashamed of that behaviour and determined to make progress against it. 
The issue of domestic violence still remains one of the most important ones for our country to make progress on 15½ years on from my maiden speech. I remain as committed as I was then to doing everything I can to rid our society and our communities of that scourge so that every single member of our families can go home in the evening and be safe for the entire night. We are taking a step forward now and it is a good step. I commend this legislation to the House. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the third readings of this legislation. This legislation enables police to issue on-the-spot protective orders for a period of up to 5 days. This will ensure the safety of victims and protect them from offenders depending on the situation as it is assessed on the spot. The legislation will also repeal criteria for arrest without warrant for breach of protection orders and will also amend the structure and penalties for offences of breach of protection orders. This Government is working hard to bring down the level of violence in our society. This legislation is a significant step in making our society safe. 
Domestic violence is committed not just against women. It is also committed against men children senior citizens and disabled people. During the select committee process we heard many submissions from the representatives of elderly and disabled victims. These people suffered not only from physical trauma but also from mental trauma. There were submissions from disabled people who had undergone physical and mental trauma on a regular basis. There were also submissions from the representatives of ethnic communities. They mentioned that there was a lack of awareness of the law and there were cultural sensitivities. Therefore there has been an increase in family violence in ethnic communities too. Whatever legislation we may pass it will be ineffective unless everyone contributes to it. It will be ineffective until people take responsibility for their actions and until they start reporting any misconduct or family violence in their neighbourhoods or in their families. 
Violence is not just the actual act of physical assault against a person which is unacceptable; psychological and emotional violence is equally unacceptable. We need to stand up and raise our voices against any violence. We need to make our fellow New Zealanders aware of the legislation. In this country of 4.4 million people New Zealanders have close to 80000 domestic violence incidents every year which is a shocking statistic. 
I will conclude by appealing to all New Zealanders to stand and raise their voices against domestic violence. We should all be proactive and be models for all New Zealanders. I say to members let us stand against this behaviour. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Bills read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 8.05 p.m. (Wednesday)