Volume 626 Week 90 - Wednesday 1 June 2005 
Volume 626 Week 90 - Wednesday 1 June 2005 
[Volume:626;Page:20871] 
Wednesday 1 June 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
China—Human Rights 
1. ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Was freedom of speech one of the human rights issues she discussed with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during her meeting with him this week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: Yes. 
Rod Donald 
: Was it a mark of the high regard in which the Prime Minister is held by the Chinese Government that it censored her answer to a question about human rights in China during a live CNN broadcast or was it indicative of the intolerance of that oppressive regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As we all know freedom of expression in our sense does not exist in China. But it is probably true to say that things are better now than they were when my old friend Keith Locke was an enthusiastic supporter of the Chinese regime. 
Keith Locke 
: I wish to make a personal explanation with regard to the statement the Minister has just made that I have been a supporter of the Chinese regime. At no time have I supported the Chinese regime. I have always pushed for multiparty democracies. I have defended Chinese dissidents over many years. The Socialist Action League a political organisation to which some people in this House sometimes refer to and that I belonged to over 20 years ago was as the Minister will know a very strong critic of the Chinese regime because that regime was undemocratic. The Minister is implying that I was in some ways a Maoist and was supporting that regime and I object to that totally. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw and apologise. I do correct myself. The member was not indeed a Maoist; he was a Trotskyite. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: When a member withdraws and apologises no other statement is to be made. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Government’s concern for freedom of speech extend to the situation that occurred before the private dinner hosted by Madam Speaker last week when I was taken aside and cautioned by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff that I should not raise any topics relating to Taiwan during that dinner with Chairman Wu Bangguo and can the Minister advise whether that direction came from the Prime Minister’s office or the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade or whether it was just something dreamt up by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot advise on that. I do not have that information. New Zealand like every other Western democracy recognises only the regime in Beijing as the legitimate Government of China. 
Rod Donald 
: Why is the Prime Minister negotiating a free-trade agreement with a country that continues to occupy Tibet and oppress its people and what was Premier Wen’s response when she raised the issue of Tibet with him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no information about Premier Wen’s response. Obviously there are still issues around Tibet. I notice that recent statements from the Dalai Lama indicate that even the Dalai Lama is no longer pushing for Tibetan independence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister see any great distinction between communist regimes such as that which invaded Afghanistan and that which was involved in supporting Pol Pot—two regimes heavily supported by Keith Locke; if she does can she pray tell us what it is? 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I was anticipating the point of order. 
Keith Locke 
: In the past members in this House have been required to withdraw and apologise for calling me a supporter of Pol Pot. I have never been a supporter of Pol Pot or of his crimes against the Cambodian people. In light of that previous ruling I think Mr Peters should withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That was not the previous ruling. The fact of the matter is that a number of members have tabled in this House two sets of documents both of which emanated from one Keith Locke an MP in this House—not that he was an MP when he wrote them of course. The articles support the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the emergence of Pol Pot. That is a fact and if he wants to deny it then I am happy to table the documents all over again. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence at the comment that was made and it is the normal practice in these instances that the member withdraws and apologises. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am ruling on a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: This is fairly important. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sure it is very important. Would you please sit down. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker you asked me to withdraw and apologise and I do. I seek leave now to table these documents. One is “Cambodia Liberated: victory for humanity” edited by Keith Locke. [ 
Interruption 
] Sit down. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Speaker will say who is to rise and who is to sit. Members will sit when another member is on his or her feet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is my point. I was on my feet and the member was rude to interrupt me. I also seek leave to table an article regarding the rightness of the invasion of Afghanistan by the heinous communist regime of the Soviet Union. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. By way of personal explanation the article the member has just tabled does not mention Pol Pot or state that I support Pol Pot. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I note however that the supplementary question bore little relation to the original question which related to China. If the member wishes to put his supplementary question again could he please relate it to China. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It cannot be right that a person can come to this House years after having written articles in support of a regime and then expect us to believe his word that he did not do so. He may want to recant and say that he was sorry stupid and naive and we may accept that he has changed his mind. But he cannot deny that black is black and white is white when these articles clearly set that out. That is what he is expecting us to do. He is using the Standing Orders in an abusive way to get away with it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. I ask the member to restate his supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When we look at despotic undemocratic regimes is there a great difference between that of Pol Pot the Soviet Union at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan or for that matter communist China—the new-found enemy of the Green Party? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is fair to say that all known communist regimes have been repressive regimes to a greater or lesser extent. But of course that has been matched by any number of oppressive regimes at the far-right end of politics as well. 
Keith Locke 
: How bad does China’s human rights record have to become before the Prime Minister would think again about giving preferential trade access to that regime? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If we were to choose with whom we traded purely on the basis of total support for every action Governments took we would be confined to a very small range of trading partners indeed. It would not even include Australia and the United States. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Prime Minister recall her own passionate opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa and the sanctions that she supported to help bring down that regime does she recall accusing that former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley “prefers to build links to oppression while democratic voices are silenced in jail” during her speech to the 1998 Labour Party conference and does she accept that her own behaviour towards China leaves her open to that same accusation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes yes and no. 
Iraqi Immigrants—Investigation 
2.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: With respect to the three men named in question No. 1 in the House yesterday what investigations if any has he conducted into their applications to enter New Zealand and does he have any concerns arising from those investigations? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The department is looking into allegations made in Parliament yesterday by the member. However one of the concerns I have is to ensure that the information provided is both accurate and sufficient. For example the department will need a little more to go on than “a man named Jazwan”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That being the case what information does the Minister lack with regard to the Ali family on 16 fraudulent applications into this country all of which were given to his Prime Minister in April of this year and which he said had been handed on to the Serious Fraud Office yet as of today no one from any official office has seen them; is that the kind of reaction one gets when the information is provided with specific detail—relationships and all? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I said that they had been handed to the fraud unit in the department. I am advised that that matter has been followed up and I am also advised that contact has been made. I will say that the problem with getting accurate information—for example correct spelling and other matters—leads to the case whereby a man who thinks that he has been attacked has felt the need to come forward and reject the allegations that were made in the newspaper yesterday. The critical point is that virtually everybody apart from New Zealand First knows what this is about. It is trying to get a few cheap points in election year and casting a shadow across our immigration communities. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the light of that explanation can he explain the reluctance of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 
and others to ask the Ali family why they will not take a DNA test which will conclusively prove that they are lying; and why have we had 7 days of deafening silence from those people who are happy to print the Prime Minister’s photograph with this family of crooks but without any investigation taking place? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It is the same old formula from the New Zealand First Party: attack immigrants and attack the media. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We are not having that indolent Minister getting up and giving that as an answer. I asked him a specific question with regard to that family and the fact that he is reporting the media’s views of it yet he gets up and makes a contemptuous answer both with regard to his duties and to his obligations to the House. Can we please now have an answer. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The last part of the question required the Minister to make some comments on the acts of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Luckily he has no responsibility for the  
New Zealand Herald. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I need no further assistance. The Minister is not responsible for the  
New Zealand Herald. 
 Perhaps rephrasing would help the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Dr Cullen gave you some assistance when he said “the last part” which presumes there was more than one part. Can I have the answer to the first part? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member repeat the first part. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister why there has been no inquiry by him of this family as he has taken the view of others that somehow a longstanding MP is lying and that they are as pure as the driven snow. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Unlike that member who seems to be the one who will be leading the hit squad through the country I leave those investigations to the Department of Labour. 
Dianne Yates 
: How has the Government demonstrated its commitment to improving border security? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: It has done so in a range of very very good ways. The Government has allocated more than $30 million over the past 2 years to strengthen border security. We have established a fraud unit which was not available at the time when that member was Treasurer. We have introduced the advance passenger profiling system. We have set up a review over 2 years of all applicants from the highest-risk countries and started the process of bringing back to New Zealand decision making in applications starting with the highest-risk countries. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree with Iraqi community leader Dr Umara in this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that Mr Peters’ allegations are smearing the 3000 to 4000 Iraqis living here and that some of them are so distressed they are talking about leaving New Zealand; and will he reassure the person he referred to earlier—Mr Amer Salman—who has denied completely Mr Peters’ scandalous claims? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I do agree with comments from a number of community leaders who are saying that the attacks now coming out are smearing the good name of a range of people in those communities. Of course as most people know the reality is that Mr Peters does not care about that because he is after a few cheap points in the poll. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I must insist you do your job here. He is not going to get away with that in this House— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That’s not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is a point of order—because he has gone way outside the question. He is now attacking a member of Parliament and imputing motives— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please be quiet while the member is making his point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
:—and he should be stopped. It is the third time he has done it. I know he is having difficulty in answering the question properly— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence. Would the Minister please stick to the answers and now withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I withdraw and apologise and— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And that is all that is required at this moment. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister advise the House when his department met with the Ali family as he answered previously to a supplementary question; and would he describe what he understands happened at that meeting? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have simply been advised that contact has been made. Of course that is a matter for the department and I do not get myself involved by getting in a car and going around streets trying to collect up names—as apparently that member from New Zealand First does. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister understand the irony of the person he is seeking to defend today being quoted as saying that he has been mixed up with “the real bad people” who are in this country today; and what would the Minister’s response be if he were to know that that man has been responsible for sending massive sums of money out of this country to Iraq—how does he do that? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I think it is: “See all of the above.” but in answer to the question the reality is that that man considers he has been besmirched so needs to come forward. The irony of the matter is that when names are mentioned in Parliament that may or may not be accurate potentially innocent people get offended by it. 
Kenneth Wang 
: Why has the Minister not expelled these three men without more investigation when last month he expelled the wrong person in a panic reaction to Mr Peters? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Perhaps the member was referring to the revoking of permits. No one has been expelled yet. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister name now which person in New Zealand First has named in this House a person the Minister regards as having been improperly named and who should have been given the defences of Parliament from the lists of those named for Lianne Dalziel and the ones I have given to him—which ones is he talking about when he says they have been improperly named? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am referring only to someone who has felt the need to come forward after allegations were made in the paper yesterday. I am saying that investigations are under way but the point of the answer to the member’s question is that one needs a little more to go on than for example “a man named Jazwan”. 
Sexual Health Campaign—Minister's Statement 
3.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she stand by her statement last year with reference to the No Rubba No Hubba Hubba campaign that “A sexual health campaign aimed at young people is not going to work if it doesn’t get buy-in from young people.”; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. 
Judy Turner 
: Is she concerned that $630000 more funding on top of the $1.3 million already spent on her No Rubba No Hubba Hubba campaign is simply throwing more money into gimmicky slogans that fail to give teenagers substantive information about the risks of sexually transmitted infections let alone question whether sexual involvement is even appropriate for them and will she commit to implementing a more realistic programme given that a recent evaluation of the campaign stressed that a more multifaceted approach is needed to produce meaningful changes in teenage sexual behaviour? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. If the member is talking of the survey that was on television last night I think that survey was undertaken before the commencement of the No Rubba No Hubba Hubba programme. I can tell the member that an evaluation has been carried out on the programme and it showed that 97 percent of respondents were aware of the campaign 65 percent had discussed it with their friends and 49 percent indicated that the campaign probably had increased the likelihood of their using condoms in the future. The number of respondents who said that they would still have sex if no condom was available had decreased from 46 percent pre-campaign to 36 percent post-campaign. There were also other results from that evaluation. I would prefer to rely on that evaluation than on a survey that—although it may have been perfectly good—was taken before the campaign on which the member based her question began. 
Lesley Soper 
: Does the Minister agree with Dr Sue Bagshaw’s comment on  
Close Up 
 last night that education alone will not make a difference in young people’s awareness of the need to use condoms? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I do agree because I agree that education needs to go alongside the development of other life skills including learning to negotiate in a relationship which in some cases is learning the skill to say no. 
Judy Turner 
: Has she read the study released yesterday by the Otago University school of medicine that showed that only 44 percent of sexually active teens use condoms and then only because they fear pregnancy rather than contracting a sexually transmitted infection; if so does she agree with the view of the author that advertising campaigns and sex education in schools are not enough to change students’ attitudes towards sexually transmitted infections? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes and that result is a worry. That survey was taken before the campaign that the member mentioned in her first question. As was pointed out on television last night—and I agree as I said in my previous answer to my colleague—the issue does require more than education. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the fact that the latest No Rubba No Hubba Hubba advertisements on bus stops feature only the cartoon character and the slogan mean that her Government thinks teenagers are not smart enough to absorb more informative messages and does she think the slogan gives the impression that being in possession of a condom is the only consideration needed when contemplating sexual involvement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No and no. 
Education System—Performance 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he think the education system has got worse during the time in which he has been Minister of Education as indicated by 44 per cent of respondents to a survey by the 
 New Zealand Herald 
; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No. New Zealand has a very good education system. Our students are among the top in the OECD at reading and maths. Students are staying at school longer and are leaving with higher levels of qualifications. More children than ever before are participating in quality early childhood education. More people than ever before are completing postgraduate degrees. We have nearly 140000 people involved in industry training and Modern Apprenticeships. Our Government is committed to further raising the standard of education. We know we can do better but unlike the member I am not willing to go around the country running down our polytechs our schools our teachers and our students. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain to the House his role in the following problems that have affected public confidence in education: the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) and New Zealand Scholarship shambles the wananga being out of control dodgy tertiary courses millions more in fees for parents of children at State schools multiple reviews of every public education agency sackings of senior bureaucrats and board members in education agencies and a ballooning bureaucracy that starves schools of funds; and given that all those things have already happened why should the public have any confidence in him or the Labour Government in their stewardship of education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a long list and I will deal with the first item. I will quote Chris Haines the president of the School Trustees Association who is well known to the member. He said about the NCEA: “It is clear that the former system had long outlived its usefulness as a fair measure for student learning. We now have a system which more fairly recognises student achievement.” That is why the previous National Government decided to introduce it and why I agreed with the member. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What is the Minister’s explanation for the result that 44 percent of the people who were polled believed that the education system has got worse under his watch? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Probably the habit of the Minister of getting on with improving things rather than talking about it. I think I should change and public relations campaigns in the future would be a very good idea. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Can he tell this House what evidence he has seen to suggest that the Government’s policies are resulting in students staying at school longer and leaving with higher qualifications? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The number of students leaving school with no qualification has dropped from 18 percent in 2002 to 13 percent last year. For Maori those leaving with no qualifications have decreased from 34 percent to 26 percent—[ 
Interruption 
] That failed woodwork teacher had just better be quiet or his records will come out. In terms of retention the number of students staying at school right through to the end of year 13 has increased from 57 percent in 2002 to 61 percent last year. There is a lot more to do and this Government will take at least the next 6 years to do it. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is the Minister aware that during his time as Minister of Education the average student debt has got worse rising from nearly $12000 to over $14000 and would he consider United Future’s policy to reduce a portion of a caregiver’s debt when he or she has had a child for 2 years in order to relieve the burden of student debt on young families? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: They don’t have to pay it back. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Minister of Finance has pointed out that if people who are caring for children do not have income they do not have to pay their loans back. I must say that we have a dilemma. The idea has superficial appeal but what we in fact do for people in that circumstance is to extend their loans at no cost to them—something that is very generous and costs the taxpayer a lot of money. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that despite the fact that he has increased education spending by over $3 billion per year or by about 60 percent a poll by the  
New Zealand Herald  
found that 84 percent of the public believed that education was “worse” “the same” or did not know; and what responsibility does he take for being regarded now as a failed education Minister? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
First Home Ownership—Government Assistance 
5.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: How will the Government be assisting people to become first home owners? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Budget 2005 has provided the resources to assist 8000 Kiwis per year to get their first home. This will be done by extending the Mortgage Insurance Scheme from 1 July this year allowing 2000 Kiwis to acquire their first home in the coming year then rising to 5000 per year. Through KiwiSaver individuals who join KiwiSaver will become eligible for a deposit subsidy of $1000 for every year they save with KiwiSaver up to a maximum of $5000. We expect a further 3000 homeowners to arise from that scheme making an overall sum of 8000 Kiwis per year reaching the Kiwi dream. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister advise what the risks are to the success of this package of homeownership assistance? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can. There is only one threat and that is the threat to axe the KiwiSaver programme and deprive thousands of Kiwis of the chance of attaining the Kiwi dream of owning their own home. The package that has been offered is one of tax cuts by 2014! I predict that well before then John Key will U-turn on the KiwiSaver as he has already U-turned on the “Cullen fund”. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other options for homeownership assistance has he seen? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen one scheme which is opposed to the measure in this year’s Budget that will see 8000 Kiwis per year reach the dream of owning their own home and that is the scheme that prevailed in the 1990s which saw $3.6 billion worth of Government mortgage portfolio sold off and plaques to commemorate the selling off of those houses—like the $900 million one I am holding. Kiwis will need to get used to the notion that National intends to sell their houses. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the latest building permit figures which show the biggest drop ever in the records of building consents and the number of houses being built as a consequence of the Government’s Building Act. 
Document not tabled. 
Taxation—Consumer Price Index 
6.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Following his confirmation that the carbon tax will have an inflationary impact what is the best official estimate of the combined impact on the consumer price index since December 1999 of all Government sector increases in taxes duties levies or charges? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 That calculation is not available from Statistics New Zealand data. The data include local government charges also and they show that the two together had no significant impact on inflation over the period. However those data do not include excise duties as being separately calculated at all—they are included within the price of the goods that they refer to. The data also take no account of the deflationary impact of strong operating surpluses particularly by transfers into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Minister accept that inflation would be lower if the Government did not increase petrol taxes and that future inflation would be lower if the carbon tax was canned? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes all else being equal. But it is equally true that if increased funding was borrowed to pour into roading without an increase in excise duty that would also have an inflationary impact via interest rates because of the Government running a looser fiscal policy. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister accept given the inflationary effect of the carbon tax that no regrets - type policies to deal with our Kyoto commitments are a better solution—like United Future’s proposal to be announced on Friday in our environment policy to replant a riparian strip of bush along our streams rivers and lakes that will filter the runoff from agricultural land use—because policies like those would mean we would be doing something positive for our environment as well as earning carbon credits rather than punishing our economy with a tax that may or may not be effective? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Although I am sympathetic to the notion of planting along riparian strips— 
Shane Ardern 
: It’s already happening. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes it is already happening in part. Indeed I have done some myself as we happen to have a riparian strip at the back of our place. But apart from that unless the Government is going to pay for it—and I am afraid United Future has already committed too much in tax cuts to have money left over for that—there will be demands as a cost upon homeowners and farmers and then presumably Mr Copeland will argue that there has to be compensation for that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister continue to believe that when he spends New Zealanders’ money every dollar is well spent and it is not inflationary but when New Zealanders spend their own money they always waste it and it is inflationary; and is he starting to realise that many New Zealanders do not share his views? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have not argued that. What I have argued—and the member should understand this as a former Minister of Finance—is that the looser the fiscal policy is that the Government runs the greater is the inflationary pressure that is created by the Government and the greater is the likelihood therefore of high interest rates. The ACT party of course has the very strange view that one can basically abolish taxation and still continue with expenditure and that somehow that will be non-inflationary. I suggest that a long period of discussion with a former Governor of the Reserve Bank might disabuse him of that strange idea. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why does the Minister not accept what the evidence shows: that it is the explosion in Government spending that is driving inflation and interest rates and that the best remedy for that would be to reduce taxes and spending not to increase them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: For the last 3 years that member and every member on the Opposition side of the House have attacked me for running too contractionary a fiscal policy. They have suddenly decided sometime out from an election that we have been running an expansionary fiscal policy. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why does the Minister not accept that giving taxpayers back their own money would be no more inflationary than the Government taking that money and spending it for them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is absolutely right with this one proviso: as long as basically for every dollar reduction in revenue there is a reduction in expenditure. That of course is precisely the point that we have been making on the Government side of the House for the last week with I think some impact on commentary from outside the House. 
Genetically Modified Corn—Unapproved Presence in Food 
7.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: Is food made with the unapproved genetically modified and insecticide-containing Bt10 corn on sale in New Zealand; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 As I have advised the member in a series of responses to her recent questions for written answer food derived from unapproved GM varieties may not be legally sold in New Zealand. A recent survey by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority found no unapproved GM food or ingredient being sold in New Zealand. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Can she confirm that Bt corn has never been approved and therefore is illegal in our food supply and has the Food Safety Authority ever conducted any tests to establish whether this illegal genetically engineered corn is or has been in our food supply or instituted a recall of corn products; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Bt10 corn is not allowed to be sold in New Zealand. It is not legal for it to be sold in New Zealand. It has not been approved for sale in New Zealand. As I said in my primary answer the Food Safety Authority recently conducted a survey and found no unapproved GM food or ingredient being sold. That includes Bt10. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked whether any tests had been conducted. I would appreciate it if the Minister would answer my question. I did not ask about surveys; I asked whether any tests had been conducted. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot inform the member as to whether a test had been undertaken. However any test can be undertaken should there be a view that the product is in New Zealand. There is no reason to believe that it is and therefore as far as I know there has not been a test but I will find out for the member. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How would the Food Safety Authority know whether it was in our food supply without undertaking any testing and why when other countries like Japan and those in the European Union require all shipments of corn from the United States to be tested or certified to ensure that they do not contain the illegal Bt corn is New Zealand not doing the same thing and testing all imported corn from the United States to ensure that it does not contain the illegal unapproved corn? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because a very small amount of Bt10 corn was grown in the United States—0.01 percent—and it was this unapproved Bt10 variety which was never intended for commercial production. That variety was either destroyed or put in quarantine for destruction. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why do other countries such as Japan and countries in Europe take this issue seriously but our Government does not and why given that the Government instituted a major recall of unapproved genetically engineered Starlink corn in the year 2000 is it doing nothing about this unapproved Bt10 corn—not instituting a recall and basically turning a blind eye to it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because there is no evidence that it is in New Zealand; what would we recall? 
Health Services—Waiting Lists 
8.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she continue to stand by her statement that “people are not culled. They are sent to their general practitioners to be monitored”; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. The principles of the booking system were put in place in the mid-1990s with implementation commencing in 1998. One of the principles is that people must be told if they are going to get an operation and when. People whose condition meets the priority criteria must be either booked for an operation or given certainty for an operation within 6 months. If a person is not operated on within that time he or she is placed on active review. Under active review a hospital specialist assesses the patient’s condition at 6-monthly intervals. If the patient’s condition changes he or she will be booked or given certainty. If a person does not meet the priority criteria that person is returned to his or her general practitioner. That is how the system has worked since 1998. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why does the Minister continue to think patients culled from the waiting list like Mrs Peggy Griffiths are monitored when despite my bringing her case to the attention of the House 2 weeks ago Mrs Griffiths told me yesterday that she still remains in agony hardly able to walk across the floor and nobody has told her how when or by whom she will be monitored? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can tell members why I think that the system is working as the previous Government envisaged. I am informed that Mrs Peggy Griffiths whose case the member raised in the House recently will have confidence in the system because she has been reassessed and she has been given certainty of an operation. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that the current booking system should be or would be changed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. Although Dr Hutchison makes a lot of noise about elective operations he has not proposed a single change to the current system because members opposite know that the system is fair that people who need operations get them first and that people whose conditions do not enable them to get access to publicly funded services are not misled into thinking they have a chance of an operation and spend years languishing on a waiting list like the case that Dr Hutchison sent to me of a person who had waited 12 years. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that the hospital system in Christchurch cannot deal with routine cases because its emergency department is frequently inundated with hundreds of waiting-list patients seeking urgent attention who have to be stabilised and who are then sent home to resume waiting; if so does she consider that that state of affairs is acceptable? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am informed that over 65000 people go through the emergency department at Christchurch Hospital and that there are many people who need urgent attention. I have been told that about 1200 of those people were on a waiting list and it was concluded that maybe 400 of them had something related to their condition when they turned up at the emergency department. The department is required to manage that and the staff must also see those people who have had an accident or are having a heart attack. They do the best they can. There are troughs and flows of people—sometimes there are many sometimes there are not so many and the staff do very well. This happens around New Zealand and around the world. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why are things so bad under Labour that Mr Leon Draper a patient with a serious deteriorating arterial condition has after over a year of waiting been notified that he cannot even have a first specialist assessment when he has written to Counties Manukau District Hospital Board saying: “You do not have to go through constant pain and clutch for support when walking to the shops only 100 metres away.” and he also has no formal monitoring? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am advised that Mr Draper was referred to a vascular specialist at Middlemore Hospital by his general practitioner. His general practitioner said in a letter to the specialist: “I would be grateful for your assessment and advice regarding further management of Mr Draper.” Based on this information from the general practitioner the specialist decided based on his clinical assessment that the patient should be referred to the general practitioner for monitoring. So the member is not being quite straight with the House. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister has just said that I am not being quite straight. Fourteen months ago when Mr Draper was first assessed he could not walk 200 metres without having severe pain in his legs. Today he cannot walk 100 metres without severe pain in his legs. I am being absolutely straight; this is right from Mr Draper’s mouth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am speaking from the general practitioner’s letter. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister tell me whether Mr Anthony Russell of Harrybrook Road Green Bay a case that has just come to my attention was culled from the waiting list; he was assessed in early 2000 as in need of operations to ease his feet and ankle problems and waited only to be told in May this year by the Counties Manukau District Health Board that although he would benefit from an operation there are limited resources and there are others whose needs are greater and therefore he has been taken off the waiting list—has he or has he not been culled? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot speak about an individual patient in that way although if the member is prepared to give me the name and I am aware of the case I can then look into it for him and give him the information. However in principle I would say that if the patient has been told that he does not meet the criteria for priority for an operation at the moment that is correct. He will be under the care of his general practitioner until such time as his condition changes and he is entitled to an operation. Everybody knows that not every case has the same priority and that everybody cannot get an operation at the same time. 
Stephen Franks 
: Can the Minister tell the lay people in this Chamber why she says that the sick people who have been “sent back to their general practitioners to be monitored” are wrong to think they are waiting and what sort of list made up of waiting people is not a waiting list? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No they are not told they are waiting; they are told that if their condition deteriorates they will be assessed to see whether they need an operation. This is different from taking everybody who ever came into the health system and putting them on a list—89000 of them by the mid-1990s many of whom never had an opportunity to get an operation. This system is much more open honest and transparent. I challenge the Opposition to give us one policy that tells New Zealanders it would change a single thing. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister tell us what is happening to the 15 people who have been waiting in the active review category? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This was raised in the House last week I believe. These are people who have been waiting for 5 years. First of all the national reporting database is a relatively complex system and one cannot always assume that each number actually represents a person. The 15 people actually turned out to be 12. Of those four had received operations one no longer needed an operation three had had their conditions reassessed and four had conditions below the treatment threshold and were returned to their general practitioner. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister deny that senior Ministry of Health officials have informed district health boards and orthopaedic surgeons that they must manage their waiting lists by culling patients or risk not receiving funding for the orthopaedic initiatives and that the reason orthopaedic surgeons are deeply concerned by this unethical coercion is that they do not believe that suitable protocols are in place to monitor the culled patients safely? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all priority for an orthopaedic operation is given by the orthopod himself or herself. So if a case is a top priority the orthopaedist has said that that case is a top priority. Health officials are not telling boards that they must cull people and that if they do not they will not get the extra orthopaedic money. The whole programme is based on doing additional operations. So if a board does 1000 hip replacements this year it must do 1000 hip replacements and it will get the extra money when it reaches 1001. We will not do what was done in the 1990s when waiting time money was put in for extra operations but no extra operations—over and above the normal number—were done because the money went into operational costs not operations. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Has the Minister received any feedback on the current booking system from Age Concern? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. Age Concern believes that the current system—which to be fair it knows was started by the National Party—is much fairer more transparent and more honest because people know when they will get an operation and how long they will wait. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No they get deferred forever. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes they do know that because they are either booked given the certainty of an active review or returned to their general practitioner. They know exactly what is happening to them. Compare that to the old system—which the previous National Government rejected because it knew it did not work—under which people did not know whether they would get an operation and many people were still waiting for their operation years after they had been put on a list. Some of them would not even take a holiday in case their name was drawn out of the hat and they missed out. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister deny the recent  
New Zealand Herald  
survey that stated that 73.8 percent of people think that the health system is the same or worse under Labour when she has created a system that culls patients such as Mrs Griffiths and Mr Draper from waiting lists to make her waiting lists look good? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will first of all say that the Labour-led Government did not devise the system. I must give credit to the National Party for not only devising it but for implementing it. With regard to the second part of the question—that 73 percent of people think that the health system is the same or worse—I remind members of the TV3 poll of 1996 in which 75 percent of New Zealanders said the health system was seriously worse under a National Government. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table some documents that outline the circumstances around Anthony Russell which the Minister said she was interested in. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Mr Leon Draper to Chris Fleming general manager of surgical ambulatory care in which he states: “You are writing me off as a human being in the great hope that this condition will kill me and you will get a pat on the back for saving the country another pension.” 
Document not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
New Zealand Herald 
. It outlines that 73.8 percent of people think that the health system is the same or worse under Labour. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table the TV3 Gallup poll of 1996 which showed that 75 percent of New Zealanders thought the health system was seriously worse than it had been before. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] I remind members that they would have all been excluded from the Chamber for talking during that point of order. Can we please settle down. 
Meningococcal Disease—Vaccination 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made on the roll-out of the meningococcal vaccination programme? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am delighted to report that as of 15 May 820000 doses of the meningococcal B vaccine have been given to our children and young people in the largest immunisation protection programme in recent New Zealand history. Over 390000 of our children and young people have received their first dose and over 185000 now have the protection of the full three doses. A further 2 million - plus doses of the vaccine are planned to be delivered in the next 6 months. The programme is now live in 17 district health board areas and will be rolled out in all districts by the end of the month. Parents are supporting it in droves with consent rates for school-aged children at over 90 percent in most district health board areas. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Have there been any unexpected outcomes from this programme? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. Nurses have responded magnificently to the call to help with the campaign. About 120 extra nurses came out of retirement—or out of the woodwork—to help vaccinate in the Wellington region alone. That is a tremendous response. It has been the same in other regions. In the Auckland region 180 additional nurses were recruited for the programme. They came from far and wide they got out from behind their desks they took time out of their motherhood duties and they came out of retirement. We have seen a huge response from nurses in helping with this programme as well as from our general practitioners. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister now accept that the delay of the flu vaccination campaign could have been avoided if Pharmac had ensured greater security of supply by way of a split tender and that the meningococcal roll-out has made it very difficult for South Island health workers to manage two vaccination campaigns at the same time? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have been fortunate enough to visit some of those who are rolling out the programme in the South Island. They are incredibly pleased with what they are doing. They were waiting for it to happen. They are not whingeing and moaning like that member who wants to make a political point. In relation to the first part of his question it is all very well having hindsight about whether we should have a split tender. If we should have had a split tender this year why did we not have one for all the years that we have had this programme—from the time it started 7 years ago? 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is a breach of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights to coerce or put pressure on people to have a medical treatment; is she therefore concerned at reports that some children are being left with the impression that they will die if they are not given the vaccination and will she take steps to put an end to that sort of pressure from enthusiastic people who are rolling out this vaccine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is correct. Nobody should be coerced into a health treatment. However I have had no such reports. I wonder whether that question reflects the member’s opposition to any immunisation. That is not the view of most New Zealanders. 
Rescue Helicopter—Coordination with Police 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for Transport Safety 
: Has he listened to the recorded conversation between the Rescue Coordination Centre and police the night the  
Iron Maiden 
 sank and what is the reason it took nearly 2 hours to launch the rescue helicopter? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Yes I have listened to the recorded conversation between the National Rescue Coordination Centre and the police on the night of the sinking of the  
Iron Maiden 
. The rescue helicopter had been launched by the time control of the incident was formally handed over to the Rescue Coordination Centre. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister accept from the recordings that the New Zealand Police stood the rescue helicopter down and sent the pilot home 26 minutes after the Mayday from the stricken ship because the police wrongly believed that the Sikorsky S-76 did not have the capacity to reach the two men whom the Rescue Coordination Centre believed were adrift in a life raft with limited time before they would be capsized over Pandora bank; how can New Zealanders have any confidence in the rescue services of New Zealand when the police can get it so tragically wrong over the rescue helicopter’s capacity? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: On the face of the recordings as the members says it appears that that is the case. But there are a large number of factors that came into this. Obviously any delay in the dispatch of rescue services is grossly unfortunate but not always avoidable. However there was certainly some understandable confusion in the Northern Communications Centre perhaps due to two rescue incidents happening simultaneously. It is likely that even if the helicopter had been dispatched earlier the men may not have been rescued. It is unfair for the police to be held responsible when people put to sea in the following circumstances: the crew were not sufficiently familiar with the vessel before attempting the trip; the stability of the vessel was in question; there were extremely rough weather conditions—in particular gale-force winds and 4-metre swells; the skipper decided not to seek shelter once faced with those condition after rounding Cape Maria van Diemen; the vessel’s life raft was in a position that made it difficult to access in an emergency situation; and sadly there was possible drug use by the skipper during that period. Additionally the Northern Communications Centre had to be sure that the helicopter crew themselves were not in danger by going out to rescue the men and even in the event of the helicopter being at the scene it is doubtful with the equipment that the helicopter was then fitted with that a recovery would have been possible—particularly in 4½-metre swells gale-force winds driving rain and darkness. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the National Rescue Coordination Centre is able to handle such searches to give the best possible chance of saving lives? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am entirely satisfied that the National Rescue Coordination Centre acted efficiently to coordinate the rescue operation from the time it was finally upgraded to class 3 and staff there assumed control. I am very confident that this situation cannot occur again in the future because on 15 September last year the Rescue Coordination Centre of New Zealand and the police agreed on procedural changes to strengthen communications between the two during search and rescue incidents. I am advised that those changes were implemented in September last year. So the Rescue Coordination Centre is fully informed and involved from the outset when appropriate. I think this addresses the issue that Mr Hide raised in terms of the confusion of communication that obviously occurred. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the rather long earlier answer the Minister gave us will he tell us what portion of the tape recording gives any sort of indication that those factors had any bearing on the decision not to launch the helicopter? It comes across to most New Zealanders—and I think indeed to the good member himself—that there was a lot of confusion and that would be the honest answer to give the House. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I certainly do not wish to give less than an honest answer to the member and I can assure members that I am as concerned as he is about the communication issues and the confusion that occurred. As soon as I heard of the circumstances surrounding the situation I immediately asked for a review after I had had the verbal briefing from the Secretary for Transport on 15 March this year by the New Zealand Search and Rescue Council of the search and rescue classification system. That review was completed on 15 April and has recommended further changes: one to reinforce existing polices about who does what; two to strengthen communication procedures; and three to investigate alternatives to the current search and rescue classification system. These changes are currently being implemented. As I said before to the member I have taken this issue extremely seriously. Two lives were lost in these circumstances but sadly it might not have been possible to save them even if the helicopter had been dispatched earlier than it was. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the Minister had an explanation from the New Zealand Police as to why the police search and rescue liaison officer based in the commissioner’s office Geoff Logan assured the National Rescue Coordination Centre three times that the helicopter was on the way to rescue those two men when in fact the helicopter was not launched for another 58 minutes; if so what was that explanation and if not why has he not sought an explanation as to why the police can so grievously mislead the Rescue Coordination Centre? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I have asked for an explanation of what occurred in this case. There was certainly some confusion in communication between the Northern Communications Centre and the police liaison officer. I do not believe that the police liaison officer misled anybody; I believe he reported what he thought was the correct situation. If the member has questions for the Minister of Police on the operations of the police I suggest that he raises those with the Minister. I can assure the member that since I was first aware of this circumstance I have taken every step to ensure that the search and rescue side of things has been sorted out. I can tell the member that maritime and aviation incidents will not now be subject in the way they have been to some sort of decision part-way through the process before the Rescue Coordination Centre is in the loop. It will be in the loop from the beginning of the issues and that action has already been well agreed and put in place. 
Rodney Hide 
: Having listened to the recordings of communication between the Rescue Coordination Centre and the New Zealand Police does the Minister agree with Superintendent Tony McLeod who only last week said: “I am very comfortable with how the coms centre responded to the incident.”; if so why does the Minister accept that the communications centre handled that incident appropriately and if not what is being done to stop that botch-up occurring ever again? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I will answer the last part of the question first: I can assure the member that a botch-up cannot occur again because the Maritime Operations Centre and the National Rescue Coordination Centre take charge of the issues from the beginning and then a decision is made during the process as to what resources are appropriate. That is a different situation from what we had in the old search and rescue class 2 class 3 system. However I am not sure whether the police officer involved and I were listening to the same tapes if that is his view. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a transcript of the recordings between the Rescue Coordination Centre and the New Zealand Police on the night of 16 August 2004 when the  
Iron Maiden 
 sank. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the official report of the Maritime Safety Authority into the foundering of the vessel  
Iron Maiden 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Early Childhood Education—Possible Policy Change 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to the Government’s policy of 20 hours per week free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As part of Budget 2004 the Government announced that all 3 and 4-year-old children in New Zealand would be entitled to 20 hours per week of free early childhood education. Immediately after that I saw a report pledging to abolish the policy. Then I saw another report retracting that pledge. Now I have another report that in fact confirms that Bill English wants to slash the free early childhood education policy. Now we know where some of the money for the tax cuts for National’s mates is coming from. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen any report suggesting that early childhood centres should commit fraud or adopt dishonest practices—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interupt. There was an intervention during the asking of this question. I have been very tolerant with chatter throughout this question time but that was an intervention. Who was the member who made it? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will leave the Chamber please because that is normally what happens to those who intervene during the asking of questions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen any reports suggesting that early childhood centres should commit fraud or adopt dishonest practices in order to increase the amount of Government funding they get? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. I was there at the conference and I have seen a report—in fact an email—suggesting that early childhood centres should fraudulently fill out forms in order to claim for funding for qualified teachers even if they are not there. I have already had feedback from people in the sector that they do not intend to follow Bill English’s suggestion. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister is lying. When he was there I did not say that and he should not mislead the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave to table a document that states: “I also want to say I was appalled at the advice given at the ECC conference that we falsify documents. The majority of us are honest professionals and we would never dream of doing such a thing.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is; the document will not be tabled. In dealing with the first point of order I ask whether the member has taken objection to what was said. 
Hon Bill English 
: Absolutely. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the member wish to speak to the point of order? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No not to that one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister then please withdraw and apologise? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: How can I withdraw and apologise for saying I received a document that I did receive which was totally accurate? 
Hon Bill English 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that the Minister has made a direct claim that at a forum we were both at I got up and advised early childhood centre operators to operate in a fraudulent manner and to falsify Government returns. That is absolutely untrue. Those words were never said. In fact I said that operators were telling me that they were not always as detailed in filling out the forms as they should have been. I absolutely never said that and the Minister is lying. If he keeps on doing that it will bring the House into disorder. He is lying. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The matters raised by the member are matters for the debate. However the member in the course of saying that has accused the Minister of lying and that is unparliamentary. Will he please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is very very clear what happened then. You asked the Minister of Education Trevor Mallard to withdraw and apologise. He then stood up and contested that ruling. He does not have the opportunity to do that under the Standing Orders. He had an opportunity to speak to the ruling and he did not take that opportunity. When asked to withdraw and apologise he then contested the ruling with you. You allowed that to happen and I am still waiting for him to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. The member is contesting my ruling. The Minister did speak to it by saying he had that document which he said contained what he had said. I have ruled on the matter and I do not want there to be any more discussion on it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is very rarely that I disagree with you and agree with Rodney Hide but I think you did order me to withdraw and apologise. I do withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You may do so if you wish although my understanding was different from that. But if everyone wants to withdraw and apologise that is fine and I would then ask the member to sit down 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is it a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. I take grave exception to your suggesting that I got it wrong. It was very clear—and I think other members will back me up—that you asked Trevor Mallard to withdraw and apologise. At that point he had to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And he has. Would the member please sit down. The point has been taken. 
Rodney Hide 
: No my point is that you then attacked me. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please sit down. The matter has been resolved. 
Rodney Hide 
: Actually I would quite like you to apologise to me for your attack on my integrity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member does not sit down he is challenging the Chair. The matter has been sorted. Both members have apologised. I accepted the point you have made and I accepted the Minister’s apology and withdrawal. Can we now please move on. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister not realise that when families are choosing an early childhood centre they have to take into account the practicalities in terms of their lives—like whether the centre is convenient what it costs whether it has parking whether they like the teachers what its opening hours are and whether they match the jobs that the parents have—and that all those things matter a lot more to working families than his politically correct view of who should be allowed to run a childcare centre? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have been involved in that area for quite a long time and I do know that people who currently have their kids in kindergarten will be appalled at the fees that would be imposed as a result of National’s policy. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister describe the response of the delegates at the conference to which he refers whose members deliver 50 percent of early childhood education to the Government’s policy of 20 hours free early childhood education per week? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mixed. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Will the Minister consider extending the Government’s policy of 20 hours free early childhood education per week for 3 and 4-year-olds to all early childhood education centres as per United Future’s education policy; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government will consider anything. A higher priority for me would be better quality and cheaper early childhood education for younger children. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister take the chance to repeat to the House his explanation to the conference as to why he wants to discriminate against 40000 children and their families depending on who the landlord is at the early childhood centre where he said to the conference that Labour just believed the State should do more of it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is not what I said. I said that there is always a trade-off between the quality of service and profit and that this Government puts children first. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that the Minister has said that there is a trade-off between quality and profit is he willing to go to the 40000 working mothers and fathers who send their children to privately owned centres this week and to say that they are making the wrong choice and are sending their children to low-quality profit-making centres and that he knows better and thinks that those parents should send their children to non-existent Government-owned and community-run centres? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government believes in having quality centres. That has always been our priority. I remind that member that the vast increases in funding that have gone in have gone more into private centres than other centres to help them to improve their quality—and they are very grateful for it. The member opposes quality and he votes against it every time it is offered. 
Refugees—Criminal Charges 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is it possible for a person facing serious criminal charges to be granted refugee status; if so why? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 It depends on where the criminal charges are laid. I am advised that if they were laid in any country other than New Zealand then article 1(f) of the refugee convention states that a person who has committed war crimes crimes against peace or humanity or serious non-political crimes outside the country of refuge or who acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations can be denied refugee status. I am also advised that if criminal charges were laid in New Zealand then refugee status could be granted but it would not automatically lead to the granting of residence. A refugee can be deported if the person is considered a danger to the community as a result of criminal convictions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How does he explain to law-abiding New Zealanders the fact that a foreign man with serious criminal charges pending for threatening to kill two New Zealanders can be granted refugee status by an appeal authority that knew of these offences? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: My advice would be that this has been around since probably the convention was introduced and certainly during the period of the 1990s when that member was a Minister in Cabinet. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Will the review of the Act consider issues relating to refugees? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. The Government has already indicated that it will honour its international obligations. However the review will consider matters relating to refugees and refugee status. For example the issue of refugees who have come from a third country in which they could have applied for refugee status but who failed to do so will be addressed. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did no one from his department go to the appeal authority hearing to try to get this man out of New Zealand when the department knew about his crimes? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is a matter for the department. But the member will know that part of the convention is as I outlined in my original answer. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can this man come to New Zealand on a student visa and after being held in prison as an overstayer later be accepted as a refugee with no one from the Minister’s department appearing before the appeal authority to stop that from happening? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: What the department does or does not do is a matter for the department but what I can say is that the whole issue around the status of refugees is one of the matters that will be addressed as part of the review of the Act. It has been around since that member was actually a Minister in a previous National Government. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the Refugee Status Appeals Authority ruling in refugee appeal No. 75081. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What on earth does the Minister think he is doing in his job if he cannot supply a satisfactory answer to the question that was just put to him by the member from the National Party? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: On the contrary I thought my answers were fabulous. 
Privilege 
Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
Buchanan  
v 
 Jennings 
—Question of Privilege 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege referred on 21 July 1998 concerning  
Buchanan 
 v  
Jennings 
.  
The Privileges Committee has many matters referred to it and all are important but this matter I would suggest to the House is possibly more important than a number of others because it deals with a fundamental issue of the House and that is the question of free speech in the House the protection of that free speech and what should be the responsibility of members outside the House. 
The question of free speech in terms of the New Zealand Parliament is often built around article 9 of the Bill of Rights which was passed in the latter period of the 17th century in England. Dr Cullen will explain whether it was 1688 or 1689— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: 1689. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: —but it has been there for quite some time and flowing from that has built up the privilege that has meant that in the New Zealand House of Representatives what a member says even if it could be actionable for defamation outside is privileged and no defamation action should take place. 
In the case of  
Buchanan 
 v  
Jennings 
 it is possibly useful for this House—in fact I would say that it is useful for this House—just briefly to look at how that arose and why the matter then came before the House. In 1998 Mr Jennings a member of the ACT party in this House made reference to officials of the Wool Board and they considered that what he had said was defamatory. When he went outside the House he was asked by reporters basically whether he stood by his statement and he used the words: “I do not resile from the statement.” He did not say any more; he did not say any less. The matter was taken by the people concerned to be defamatory and it went to the High Court. At that stage the leader of the ACT party the Hon Richard Prebble went to the Speaker of the House and submitted that in his opinion there was a breach of privilege—the breach of privilege being that a member of the House was being sued for defamation for something that he had said in the House. Members should bear in mind that at that stage there was no repetition of the words “in the House”—nothing more than “I stand by my statement.” The Speaker referred the matter to the Privileges Committee in 1998. This case was not like  
Jarndyce  
v 
 Jarndyce 
 in  
Bleak House 
; it did not go on for decades but it did go on in terms of legal action for 6 years. In 1998 the Privileges Committee decided it would wait until the legal action had been finished. It finished in 2004 which is when the present Privileges Committee took up the matter. 
The Privy Council upheld the judgment of the High Court of New Zealand and the Court of Appeal that the matter was actionable even if a member only said: “I stand by my statement.” One judge at the Court of Appeal Justice Tipping dissented and upheld the view—which is largely the view of the academic experts who submitted to our committee and I will name them in a moment—that the privilege as had been understood before the various court actions was that merely saying that one stood by a statement did not make it a matter that could be actionable. 
The report I believe is very very clear on the key issues and I will move straight to the recommendation then mention some of the key aspects of the report. The recommendation is from the whole committee: “The Privileges Committee recommends that the Legislature Act be amended to provide that no person may incur criminal or civil liability for making any oral or written statement that affirms adopts or endorses words written or spoken in proceedings in Parliament where the oral or written statement would not but for the proceedings in Parliament give rise to criminal or civil liability.” That was the recommendation of Professor Joseph which was adopted by the committee. The two other legal experts who gave advice on this issue were Professor Burrows who is well known for his work on defamation in particular but also is a legal expert on constitutional matters and Mr Geddis of Otago University. All three were in unanimity that it was a privilege for the greater public good and that for constitutional reasons that should stand. 
The key issues are set out on page 5 of the report and the first issue that Parliament should become apprised of is that what is being looked at is whether the courts should adjudge parliamentary proceedings. It is a very longstanding constitutional provision that there is separation between Parliament and the courts. Historically if we go back to the Tudor period I believe the courts were often seen as the instruments of the King. The struggle was between Parliament as the representative of the people—or at least at that stage in the nascent parliamentary democracy that was developing the very small class of people who could vote; it took it upon itself to represent everybody else as well—and the King. It was a very fierce struggle. There was nothing academic about it. For instance King Charles II taking exception I think to the Speaker of the time paid a group of ruffians to slit the Speaker’s nose when he stepped outside the House from one end to the other. Members of Parliament thought that that was something they did not want to happen all the time and that they would prefer to have their free speech protected both inside and outside Parliament. 
We have moved on since then and we have developed wider democracy universal suffrage and the role of the media which is important. But the key issue is that the constitutional provision in New Zealand is that the courts will not then adjudicate on the proceedings of Parliament just as Parliament is not adjudicating on what happens in the courts how decisions are arrived at etc. 
The effect on free speech itself had to be taken up by the Privileges Committee because what has evolved is a doctrine of “effective repetition”. It is a fiction and much of the law of course is built on fiction. Just as a company although not really a person is considered a person because it helps to say it is a person similarly what the court has held is the fiction that although one did not say outside Parliament the words that are taken to be defamatory they would be taken as then allowing the court to say that well the actual defamation was what was said inside the parliamentary Chamber and it is going to look at those words. Once the court looks at words said inside the Chamber it is taking part in and evaluating the merits or otherwise of the debate inside Parliament. 
We could give a more current example. Yesterday a New Zealand citizen was claimed by a member of Parliament to be somebody who was connected to the murderous Saddam Hussein regime. That was said inside Parliament. If the member who said it then stepped outside Parliament and talked about it that could be seen to be actionable. If for instance a press statement is issued that repeats those words and it is found to be actionable the person then can have under this doctrine the right to sue for defamation. So it is a matter of degree; it is a matter of whether the words are repeated whether they are actionable. So it is very important to members of Parliament. 
Without this proposed amendment there can be a chilling effect on debate. The media too if they carry the “effective repetition” can be sued as well and become a party to the defamation. What it means in effect is that members of the media if they follow up on a member’s statement and ask whether the member stands by the statement—because the public by then are interested—and ask whether the member has any more evidence etc. they can be also “effectively repeating” what was said in Parliament. On page 14 of the report—I do not have time to read it out—Professor Burrows has helpfully set out how journalists could be drawn into this. 
Finally I wish to say that the Privileges Committee deliberated long and hard but not I would say as members of Parliament looking after themselves. That is why three academic experts were brought in—so that we could have the benefit of advice on this matter from people outside Parliament with expertise in constitutional matters. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to talk on this issue not from a parliamentary point of view—and of course I am not a lawyer—but from a layman’s point of view and to talk about the possible impact it could have on the freedom of speech of the general citizen of this nation. That is to my mind the most important issue. The issue is not about parliamentarians actually although it does impact on us. If that were all this issue was about it would be a much less difficult issue for us to deal with. But the fact is that this decision could well impinge on the freedom of speech of a citizen who wishes to come and make a comment to Parliament in a select committee under what is considered to be a privileged situation. Indeed it is important for us to recognise that this decision actually reaches out beyond Parliament and may well impact into the courts. That to me is also awfully important—that this decision could impact both on our parliamentary system and on our court system. 
I will give an example relating to a member of the public—and let us remember that most people are not as familiar with matters of privilege litigation and defamation as members of Parliament are. A person could well be called as a witness in a court case and go into the court to make the statement: “I absolutely and genuinely believe this is what I saw.” in a murder case for example. The Mona Blades murder case is a classic one that has come up again recently. A witness could tell the courts what he or she saw. That witness could then step outside the court and a reporter could ask whether the witness stood by what he or she said in the court. Of course the witness would not deny what he or she said in court. The witness would not say that no it was a lot of baloney a lot of nonsense or a lot of silly hoo-ha. The witness would say: “Yes I stand by what I said. I do not resile from what I said.” 
Having made that comment in the context of a court case the precedent has been set by this decision of the Privy Council to allow the accused person—in particular if the court case then gets thrown out and it may be thrown out if there is not enough evidence to convict the person who has been accused—to then say: “That person defamed me because he or she made a public statement about his or her comments outside the court.” The reporter of course would have taken the note that the person did not resile from what he or she had said. Under this precedent it would be deemed that the person could well have repeated what he or she had said in the court publicly outside of privilege. The person who was accused but who was found to be not guilty because there was not enough evidence in that case then could potentially have the right to have the person who gave evidence up for defamation. It worries me that that then starts to impinge if you like on the right of people in court to give evidence without fear or favour and nothing we do in this Parliament must ever stop that from happening. It is absolutely imperative that people have the right—and indeed know that they can do this without any concern—to give evidence fully and freely as they believe they saw events happening in a court case. 
Similarly the public must have the right to come before Parliament and give a point of view on an issue whatever it may be. It may well be again that a person who gives evidence in a select committee may not have the situation right but from his or her perspective that person genuinely believes that what was said was absolutely true—from his or her perspective. Then when the person goes outside a reporter may ask: “Mr Jones did you say X Y and Z?” and he may say: “I don’t resile from what I said in the select committee.” Again under this decision that person could be deemed to have repeated what he said in the select committee. Such a person’s privilege under this case is now gone and then if he or she has made a statement that is defamatory—maybe innocently because people in this land are not as familiar with the laws of defamation as members of Parliament are—he or she could well be liable to be sued. That could well mean that the citizens of this nation are suddenly fearful of coming before Parliament to give a point of view. It could actually impinge on their ability to give this Parliament the knowledge that we need in order to make decisions. 
It goes even one step further than that of course. We then start to ask about the fourth estate and its role in repeating or writing about a statement made by somebody in a select committee who then makes the statement: “I don’t resile.” If that person has been deemed to have repeated the statement he or she made in a select committee or in a court case then surely it follows that the representative of the fourth estate who made the statement: “I don’t resile.” and then talked about the story has actually repeated the story outside a privileged area as well. Logic has it that it would be so. Therefore the media could possibly also be liable for defamation. Although the fourth estate and journalists particularly are well aware of the issue around defamation—and they often have far more resources than the average citizen to fight against it—nevertheless we have to be mindful that we do not want to curtail their ability to report the activities of this Parliament. We do not want to limit the fourth estate’s ability to have the right to report what happens in a court case although there are always some restrictions deemed necessary by the court of course. 
But generally this issue to me is about an absolutely fundamental and basic tenet of our democracy: the freedom of speech. If it were about only Parliament and parliamentarians then quite honestly it would be an issue that we may well have to live with. But it goes well well beyond us the 120 parliamentarians. This issue goes to the fundamental right of a citizen of New Zealand to be entitled to come and give a point of view in this Parliament on a particular issue or matter or to go before a court and give evidence as that person genuinely believed he or she saw matters without fear or favour. That is why I think it is absolutely imperative that this Parliament today corrects what has happened as a consequence of the Privy Council’s decision. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think this is probably the most important Privileges Committee report for many years and it concerns clearly as members have said already the proper scope of parliamentary privilege and the implications of that for the workings of our kind of democracy. 
That parliamentary privilege of course is affirmed in article 9 of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 or to give it its formal title 1 William and Mary Sess. 2.c.2. passed on 16 December 1689. As I have said many times unfortunately lawyers keep repeating a mistake made by one of their own in the 18th century and at the end of my speech I might explain how that mistake arose. What article 9 does is prevent proceedings in Parliament from being impeached or questioned in any court. It is part of New Zealand law. It is a privilege jealously guarded by Parliaments for over 300 years. 
In the  
Jennings 
 case as Mr Robson rightly pointed out although what Mr Jennings said if he had repeated it outside was undoubtedly defamatory he was caught in terms of the rulings by the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council simply by the fact that he said he did not resile from his statement. This was taken to be “effective repetition” although clearly not actual repetition of the statement made in the House. So the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council ruled against Mr Jennings and in so doing despite what I have said about Mr Jennings’ statements ruled against the interests of Parliament and at the end of the day of free speech because of course the essence of arguments about free speech is not defending free speech when what is said is undeniably true and incontrovertibly so; it is defending the right of free speech of people who say unpopular things and even occasionally things that are incorrect. Even in this House on occasions we have seen attempts to shout down members whose views are not popular with the majority of those within Parliament. 
There was clear evidence of the chilling effect that that will have on free speech from the leading constitutional lawyers who appeared before the select committee. Firstly because of this as the report rightly says the court begins to directly challenge the quality of parliamentary proceedings and that is an inappropriate extension of the court’s powers in relation to Parliament. I do say however that sometimes within this House we had better be more careful about some of our comments about court proceedings and court judgments as well because this is traditionally a two-way street and not a one-way street. Secondly the judgment renders nonsensical the right of free comment within the House because in effect all it enables a member to do outside the House with safety is to say “No comment.” in response to any question. If a member of Parliament is placed in that position then it renders stupid the ability to make statements within the House and indeed is not in the interests of free debate. That chilling effect does then as Mr Carter has explained in more detail extend to public debate including debate within the media. The final point made by the witnesses to the select committee which I think was the important one was that the nature of the ruling was such that it could well extend beyond defamation to other matters and that would further add a chilling effect on the ability to operate free speech within Parliament. 
I cannot allow this occasion to pass without allowing some small piece of self-indulgence because our own statute book refers to the Bill of Rights 1688 and historians remain continually baffled as to why lawyers have kept repeating that error for now something like 250-plus years. The reason is quite simple. The bill was introduced into the English Parliament in February 1689. The fact that it is 1 William and Mary should tell people immediately that it could not have been passed in 1688 as James II would scarcely have given the royal assent to the Bill of Rights. But in 1689—indeed until early in the 18th century—the New Year did not begin until Lady Day and that is March 24. So in the old style February 1689 actually would have been reported at the time as February 1688. Somewhat lazy lawyers in the 18th century read the introduction of the bill in February 1688 and ever since lawyers have referred to it as the Bill of Rights 1688. However it was not passed until 16 December 1689 so it is incontrovertibly the Bill of Rights 1689. I hope that some day a future Government will take the opportunity via a Statutes Amendment Bill to correct that error within our own legislation. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Anyone who listens to this debate will think that parliamentarians are taking their responsibilities very very seriously except that anyone who understands the background to this debate will know what an indictment it is on doublespeak doubletalk and worse when it comes to this Privileges Committee. The reality of course is that we have a decision of this committee that is not unanimous and those members who were on the committee—and I am one of them—knew from the word go that I was opposed to the  
Buchanan  
v  
Jennings 
 thing being considered by the committee because I believe that Jennings was guilty and I will tell members why. 
 Effective repetition as a test is a very serious test but it is totally different utterly different and utterly opposite to say the following as opposed to the last thing I will say and that is this. To say “It is true that I said that in Parliament.” is nothing like saying “What I said in Parliament is true.” All the same words are there but the reality is that the meaning is utterly different and those members should know it. 
Mr Jennings said that what he said in Parliament was true. He said: “I don’t resile from anything I said.” In short he was affirming and reaffirming his belief that what he had said was correct. That is utterly different from someone saying “It is a fact I said that in Parliament.” or “It is true I said that in Parliament.” 
Why those members of the committee should be brought to account is to explain how they have had a Damascus experience on this matter. What makes the Jennings case special when he was as guilty as sin for repeating his allegation when in fact another member of Parliament—namely myself—went to this committee and those arrogant sods had the effrontery to say: “Well why don’t you suck it and see.”? 
Pita Paraone 
: Is that what they said? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is what they said. If members look at the decision of the Privy Council appeal with regard to the case of  
Jennings 
 v 
 Buchanan 
 the first reference to  
Peters 
 v  
Cushing  
is on page 18. It is dealt with in a short paragraph that states: “For his first cause of action”—that is Cushing—“based on these defamatory remarks”—that is what he claimed—“the plaintiff could not succeed with relying on the naming of him in the House. This was held rightly in the opinion of the board to be impermissible.” So tell me how come I got sued and how come I had all those cases all the way up to the Court of Appeal where I was recommended to get a strike-out at the District Court? I went to my parliamentary colleagues and they would not raise a muscle. The Privy Council is saying that I am innocent and people like Mr Robson his party Labour and National— 
Edwin Perry 
: Hidden agenda. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: They did their best to bankrupt me. What do members think of that? They talk about lofty principles which they are forever going to be fighting for for the rest of their parliamentary life! If people believe that they will believe anything. This is what the Court of Appeal said about that case: “Thus the defendant had to be free to name the plaintiff in Parliament if he judged it right to do so without fear of adverse civil consequences. Such a case is however to be distinguished from a case such as the case of Jennings a precedent case where the extra-parliamentary confirmation followed the parliamentary publication.” 
How do members like that? What will Mr Robson say about that or his colleagues the Labour Party and people like Mr Caygill who sat on that committee and told me to suck it and see and $250000 later they sit there with that precious lazy look on their face as though they are men of honour? What a disgrace! 
I shall tell members what I see in this judgment. I shall go back to it because it is very pertinent. This is the matter I brought to the Privileges Committee on 11 June 1996. This is what the committee said amongst other things: “Mr Peters seeks to distinguish  
Hyams 
 v  
Peterson 
 on two grounds—first that in that case identification in the House occurred before any defamatory statement was made”. What does the Court of Appeal state right there? It states that I am right on that matter for a start and that illustrious little committee should not be given any respect whatsoever when it comes to doing a thing that is honourable and right or upholding the law. 
The committee went on to state: “first that in that case identification in the House occurred before any defamatory statement was made and secondly that no member was a party to the action and hence the member’s statement was there called into question.” It stated: “Judge Willy”—this is a District Court judge I might add not a High Court judge a Court of Appeal judge or a Privy Council judge—“has rejected Mr Peters’ argument” and that I therefore had invited the committee to intervene. It is a great committee when one thinks about it. It goes on: “What this committee has to determine is whether to recommend that the House should seek to intervene as amicus curiae.” What did it do? It could not wait to try to bankrupt the member and they would not raise a finger. 
Here is what it went on to state: “A decision to intervene should never be made lightly and only when it is in the public interest to do so.” Where is the apology for the disgraceful victimisation of a member of Parliament simply because he did not hold to their views about flogging off all the State assets to every foreigner and every one of their friends and hiding every bit of corrupt action in this country and that is how the case started in the first place? 
The decision goes on to state: “The House’s role is in an appropriate case to protect its privileges if a case of sufficient importance arises and if it appears that the court can profit from arguments adduced on behalf of the House.” Tell me how was Jennings’ case more meritorious than mine? It was not was it? 
Dail Jones 
: He lost. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Of course he lost. I had to appeal all the way back to the High Court. There were two courts. I had already been to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal said to me: “No Mr Peters we think that a District Court can decide this issue on a case such as a strike-out.” and then a bum at the District Court was saying that the Court of Appeal does not know what he is doing. That is what was going on and there was a Privileges Committee with experienced members of Parliament saying: “We’ll ignore the Court of Appeal. We’ll just go out there and see whether we can get this guy stiffed up as hard as we can.” That is what happened. 
The committee went on to state that it “does not consider that the conditions for the House to intervene are satisfied here.” No they rushed off to defend Prebble in London even though he was not a member. He was just plain Richard Prebble citizen. They rushed to the Privy Council at all that expense and paid for it themselves to defend him but they could not raise a finger for a member who had a meritorious case. 
Then of course they joined this action. At all points they made sure that they were represented. Is that not amazing. There is a word for that that starts with “h” and it stinks. 
There was a clear attempt on the part of one of the litigants to question the motives behind statements. Members should listen to this. They were distinguishing my case: “In Prebble’s case there was a clear attempt on the part of one of the litigants to question the motives behind statements that members had made in the House. There is no evidence that such a question will arise in the present case.” Members should look at the District Court judgment against me. I did not turn up of course. I knew it was a contempt of this Parliament. I knew that it was a breach of my civil rights. I knew the Bill of Rights 1689 was being held in contempt by that court but not one of those flash Harrys over there or behind me in that committee was prepared to raise a finger. Therefore I am utterly opposed to this report because it goes far too far. They seek to usurp to themselves a right that no other citizen can have. 
If one says: “It is true I said that in Parliament.” one should be safe as I was eventually proven to be safe. But if one says: “What I said in Parliament is true.” one should not be. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 People who listened to the Rt Hon Winston Peters might have assumed that this report is not unanimous. In fact it is unanimous. The Rt Hon Winston Peters sits on the Privileges Committee— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it very clear that if a member was not there silence is not consent in any part of the law as I understand it so you should stop the member right now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that that is a debatable matter. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a unanimous report— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a unanimous report. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it’s not. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is very interesting is it not that New Zealand First wants to call out that somehow it is Rodney Hide’s report. No it is a report of the Privileges Committee which the Rt Hon Winston Peters sits on. I think we met about 10 times on this matter and I think that Mr Peters turned up twice.He had plenty of weeks— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Wrong. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That is a debatable point. I tell Winston Peters to sit down. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No no. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yeah yeah the member should give up. Mr Peters had every opportunity to object to this report. We had several weeks in which to get back to the chairman on it. The Privileges Committee met several times. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Peters’ brother calls out saying that Mr Peters has objected to the report. I have been across the Chamber and spoken to the chairman of the Privileges Committee Matt Robson who says that not once did Mr Peters object to the chair about this report. Mr Robson is over there nodding his head and saying that that is right. It is quite a surprise to us having had Mr Peters on that committee that he has come down to the House—[ 
Interruption 
] No he is not right because he is saying that it is not a unanimous report when it is. His name is on it. Mr Peters is on the Privileges Committee he did not object to the report and he did not write a minority report. 
I have to correct quite a few things that Mr Peters had to say about this issue. The committee took its work very seriously and that is why we got the help of Professor Burrows—[ 
Interruption 
] If the New Zealand First member wants to sit beside me in order to try to chip in and say that Professor Burrows has got matters wrong I suggest he stand up and take a call. Any honourable member would do that rather than sitting on one side and chipping in. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a public debate that Mr Hide is making that statement in. I would ask him to withdraw now and I will then continue my speech and enliven this debate again. What we are hearing now is just total drivel and rubbish. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I do not think Mr Hide was offering to yield. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No I was not offering to yield. I was suggesting that Mr Jim Peters take a call to speak rather than sit to my right and chip in. Professor Burrows Professor Joseph and Mr Geddis came to the committee. They had prepared reports for the committee which are appended to its report. 
Professor Burrows made this point—and I will accept from the history professor that the year is 1689 and that there is a principle—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I have never had to apologise to TV3 for 2 hours and offer a correction as the Acting Prime Minister has had to—not once. I accept that the year is 1689 and the principle is that the courts cannot look into Parliament. That is the principle that has been overridden here. Although Mr Peters may say he can go out and say: “Oh well it is true that I said that in Parliament.” I do not believe that Mr Peters would actually be safe if he said that. I do not think he would be safe if that went out on the media. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Of course I would be. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He may be but the court case would be very interesting because the advice we had is that if Mr Peters said that he would not be safe at all. We have a very interesting situation. When someone says as Mr Jennings said: “I don’t resile from what I said in Parliament.” none of those words are defamatory. Not one of those words is defamatory. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes it is. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No it is not. Not one of those words taken on its own is defamatory. What we then have to do is to get the  
Hansard 
 and find the bit that is defamatory and when someone goes out and says: “I don’t resile from that.” the decision states that he or she is actually repeating the whole speech. That cannot be right because it is not a repetition and we can see that in the language used. The decision states that it is an “effective repetition”. An “effective repetition” is not a repetition in the way that I understand the English language. 
The decision has an immediate impact as John Carter pointed out. If a member of the public comes along and makes representations to a select committee and if that person is then called out of the meeting and asked about them that person can be pinged immediately for what he or she says outside the select committee and be up on a defamation charge. Interestingly I remember going on  
Morning Report 
 with Mr Peters. He would not stand by what he had said nor say that what he had said was untrue or anything like that on  
Morning Report 
. Sean Plunket put this question to Mr Peters several times: “Do you stand by what you said in Parliament?”. Mr Peters dodged all over the place and said he would not answer it. The interesting thing is that if Mr Peters had said: “Yes I do.” Radio New Zealand would have been in the cart as well as Mr Peters. Radio New Zealand could have been subject to a defamation proceedings. If someone stands up and says: “I don’t resile from what I said in Parliament.” and a newspaper prints that under this ruling that is defamation by the newspaper. There is no parliamentary protection applying. 
We can imagine the impact of that. The impact is that politicians who get up and exercise the privilege of this House cannot then go out and talk to journalists and journalists cannot report what politicians were talking about afterwards. It is not because what they are saying outside the House is in any way defamatory; it is because if they say anything outside the House that has any possible link back to Parliament then they can be pinged. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is not in his rightful seat. He cannot interject from there. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That has a huge impact on the conduct and business of this House. It is interesting that this ruling will have a potential impact we heard on our courts. This report does not address that issue but if someone is appearing in a court and he or she makes representations in the court sure that person is protected by privilege. But what happens when that person goes outside the court and is interviewed? What happens when a judge says something outside a court? In fact the understanding we have of the law is that judges too could be in trouble following the principle that was established in this court case. 
This is not an easy case to deal with. The committee took its duties very very seriously. I think it is a shame that Mr Peters did not turn up and hear the various arguments and the debate that took place in that committee. I certainly appreciated the efforts that Professor Burrows Professor Joseph and Mr Geddis went to and I certainly appreciate the efforts that the chairman Matt Robson went to in giving the opportunity for all members of the committee to have a say and giving extra time for them to take this report back to their caucuses for their opinion to feed back into the committee. I am just very very sorry that Mr Peters did not avail himself of that opportunity. This is a difficult issue. I think the report is a good one. We support it. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I am also a member of the Privileges Committee. First I want to thank the chair and the select committee staff the other members on the committee and particularly the Clerk of the House who provided the committee with exceptional advice and assistance in dealing with such a serious issue. 
This report concerns the extent to which members of Parliament can affirm outside the Parliament potentially defamatory statements made inside the Parliament. Parliamentary privilege is a very old principle established to protect the freedom of speech of members of Parliament in the House. It derives from article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 which prevents proceedings in Parliament from being impeached or questioned in court. This right ensures that MPs are able to explore debate and investigate within Parliament any relevant issues and concerns without fear of legal proceedings being brought against them. This privilege plays a crucial role in what we like to think is our open and transparent democracy. 
The issue before the Privileges Committee arose out of legal proceedings taken against Owen Jennings for a statement he made in the House. While in Parliament Owen Jennings made a defamatory comment about the actions of an employee of the Wool Board. That statement was protected by parliamentary privilege but later Mr Jennings said to a reporter outside Parliament that he did not resile from his claim about the official’s relationship. The employee took an action in defamation against Mr Jennings on the basis that because he said to the reporter he did not resile from the defamatory statement he was effectively repeating it. 
Mr Jennings pleaded the protection of parliamentary privilege but eventually the Privy Council agreed with the employee that by saying he did not resile from his statement Mr Jennings had effectively repeated his statement outside the House and therefore his statement was not protected by parliamentary privilege. Now the law is that if members of Parliament say they do not resile from what they said without repeating the defamatory words in any way they can still be held liable in defamation proceedings. 
John Carter is quite right in raising the concern that this ruling will also now apply to members of the public who come before select committees. For many people outside this House parliamentary privilege is an unjustifiable protection that allows MPs to get away with saying vile defamatory and inflammatory things in the House without suffering any consequences. Those who are the subject of those comments suffer the most as they have virtually no ability to force a retraction or apology from the MP. They do not always have access to the media and are not necessarily able to tell their side of the story to the public. Their reputations can be seriously and permanently impugned with their having no recourse at all. 
The Privileges Committee did consider Parliament’s internal controls on the abuse of freedom of speech. It said that such persons can comment on any accusations and that the provisions in the Standing Orders strike an appropriate balance. But I want to consider in more detail those internal controls. There is no doubt that parliamentary privilege comes with a responsibility. It should not be used to incite ethnic tensions. It should not be used to make personal attacks for political purposes that serve only the interests of the MP and not those of the community. Many MPs are careful and measured in their use of privilege but many are not. 
Just this week New Zealand First has named various individuals and impugned their reputations suggesting that they are part of the Saddam Hussein regime. The truth of those accusations will come out in due course but we must remember that those accusations were made under the protection of parliamentary privilege. We must ask whether those individuals are being named their places of residence identified and their families exposed to xenophobic abuse for legitimate community purposes or simply to drive up ethnic tensions and to use those people and their families as scapegoats to justify a draconian election immigration policy that is even worse than the dawn raid crimes committed against the Pacific Island community. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member’s speech but Winston Peters to her right and New Zealand First members all around her are interjecting continuously. 
Dail Jones 
: That’s not true. I didn’t say a word. Neither did Winston Peters. 
Rodney Hide 
: Now they interrupt on points of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that points of order are to be heard in silence. 
Rodney Hide 
: When the member giving a speech has people behind and beside her interjecting continuously it makes it very very difficult for her to speak and it is against the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I do not really need any help but I will hear the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: First of all Mr Hide’s complaint is not correct with regard to a number of the members about whom he made it. I am happy to say that I was interjecting. If that member gets on her feet and starts accusing people of raising xenophobic expectations and all sorts of racism she will get bounced around this House because she is not telling the truth and is saying something highly inflammatory herself. She is bound to get that reaction. That is what previous Speakers would have ruled on these Standing Orders. Why should that member not have the same treatment? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. The second part of your remarks on the point of order actually got into debating material. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 57/5 which states that back-benchers should not interject when they are in close proximity to the member speaking. It is a longstanding convention. The reason is quite simple: it muffles the microphones. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Are those people being used by some parties as scapegoats to justify a draconian immigration policy—a policy that rivals the unjust dawn raid crimes that were committed against the Pacific Island community in the 1970s? Are the actions of New Zealand First a highly irresponsible use of parliamentary privilege? How are MPs to be held to account for pejorative prejudiced statements made within Parliament? 
One mechanism is that under the Standing Orders a person who is impugned may respond to the allegations recorded in  
Hansard 
. While that may be useful it does not hold the MP himself or herself to account. An MP may take a complaint to the Privileges Committee if it fits into one of the established grounds but again the person impugned does not get an effective defence. 
The Green Party has been a strong advocate for the establishment of a member of Parliament code of conduct to be incorporated into the Standing Orders setting out the standard of behaviour that we and the community expect in this House. This code would be enforceable as an internal control within Parliament. It would assist in controlling the currently very high level of unpleasantness aggression and verbal abuse that simply would not be tolerated in any classroom playground workplace or home in this country. 
Of course the community has other opportunities to hold members of Parliament to account for their irresponsible misuse of parliamentary privilege—at the ballot box. New Zealanders expect a much higher standard of behaviour from their highest and most privileged representatives than for example that demonstrated by Winston Peters who used the term “Ying Tong” to refer to Asian members of the New Zealand community. That sort of intolerant vicious extreme abuse is not acceptable. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect you ask us not to interject but when a member and a new member at that gets to her feet and starts talking about parliamentary standards—she does not say of course whether that includes pot smoking marijuana and every other illegal activity— 
Dail Jones 
: And what else she does over the holidays. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: She does not say what else she is going to do with her holidays—going around universities and cursing and swearing using the foulest language. If that is the standard of Parliament now— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will come to the point of order. This is debating material. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Then she makes an allegation with regard to “Ying Tongs” and Asians. That cannot be correct can it? Asia goes all the way to Turkey and only certain people in the whole of Asia would have that sort of name. Of course that member would not know that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member again to Speaker’s ruling 35/3 which deals with misrepresentation. If the member feels that he has been misrepresented then he does not take a point of order now; he waits until the end of the speech. He should also look at Standing Order 106. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That sort of intolerant vicious extremist abuse is not acceptable in this community and it is not acceptable for members of Parliament to espouse. 
Parliamentary privilege is a very important constitutional protection and responsibility. The Privileges Committee which has considered the issue in great depth recognises both the freedom of speech principles and the public interests in the fair and responsible use of privilege. The committee recommends that the Legislature Act be amended to return Parliament effectively to the situation that existed prior to the Privy Council ruling. 
The Green Party agrees with the principle of free speech. Should such legislation come before the House the Green Party would give it very serious consideration in light of the mischief it is designed to remedy and the public interest in retaining freedom of speech and protecting members of the public from unjust unfounded intolerant and extremist personal attacks. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who has just resumed her seat seems to be in some uncertainty. The first dawn raids were made under the Kirk Government in 1974. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 It is a privilege for me to participate in this debate concerning the report of the Privileges Committee on this very very important landmark decision of the Privy Council in  
Buchanan 
 v  
Jennings 
. Had the Hon Peter Dunne the leader of United Future been here today he would have been making this speech because he would have liked very much to contribute to the debate. He has been a member of the Privileges Committee in the many years that have elapsed since this matter first went to the committee in 1998. I have had the privilege of a briefing from Peter Dunne which has been very very helpful but the words that I will use in this speech nevertheless I claim as only my own. 
First of all I agree with the recommendation of the committee. I think the actual wording of that recommendation is extremely important because it does not give carte blanche in any shape or form for members of Parliament to repeat outside this House statements they have made under privilege inside this House. The proviso is: “but for the proceedings in Parliament”. In other words if members use words outside this House that are in themselves defamatory then they remain open to the possibility of an action for defamation. I think it is very very important to discuss that point absorb it and take it on board in relation to what Owen Jennings a member of Parliament at the time actually said. He said outside the House that he “did not resile from his claim about the official’s relationship”. Even if the recommendation of the committee is acted upon which I support a member of Parliament who uses those kinds of words in the future could still be open to a defamation action. Since I have been here I have heard a number of members quote Owen Jennings as having said that he “did not resile from” his remarks. That is only a partial quotation of what he said. He went on to say in terms of those remarks that they were about “his claim about the official’s relationship”. That second part of his quote would not be protected by the recommendations made by the committee. I think that is an important point to make. 
However let us go back to the implication of this whole question of “effective repetition”. As I have said I very much support the right of Parliament to ensure that the traditional understanding of its privileges is maintained into the future. But we would of course have a quite ridiculous situation if the opinion of the Privy Council were interpreted to say that for example if a member after having spoken in the House under privilege says to a journalist that what was said is on the record in  
Hansard 
 that member could be in trouble. It is not clear from the Privy Council report that even those remarks would not get a member into trouble in terms of a defamation case. It is completely ridiculous for a member not even to be able to say: “Well what I said is recorded in  
Hansard 
.”—in other words simply to point a journalist to the public record of this House which is all that would be being done there. There would be no repetition whatever of any defamation statement contained in that yet according to the decision of the Privy Council we could be caught in that regard. It is very very important that that kind of uncertainty is removed. As other members have said even the words: “I do not resile from what I said.” should in my view not be the cause of a defamation action. 
That is in terms of the privileges of this House but as other members have pointed out the decision also has implications in relation to the privilege that is contained in court actions. Let us consider a person who is a witness in a case before the court; in that context he or she may be deemed to have defamed somebody. If that person were to go outside the court and say to a journalist—who had said that the evidence was very interesting and had asked the person to elaborate—that what he or she had said is in the record of the court then under the Privy Council ruling even that may land that person in trouble because he or she had referred back to proceedings in the court. In my view the Privy Council has even risked restricting the privileges of information given before a court of law which is an extremely serious matter. That is plainly something we should not allow to happen. 
When we think about it there are also implications arising from that situation—where privilege relates to statements made in Parliament and also relates to statements made in court—for there to be a blurring of the line of the separation of powers that we have always had between Parliament on the one hand and courts on the other. That separation of powers is a cornerstone of the whole Westminster tradition on which the parliamentary and democratic system in virtually every genuinely democratic country in the world is based. We would be risking the undermining of that by allowing in both situations statements made under privilege to become the subject of a defamation action. We cannot and must not allow that to happen. 
As the member Rodney Hide has pointed out there are also implications for the press. If the press was subsequently to print for example exactly what Owen Jennings had said then it also would come under the “effective repetition” principle and also would open itself up to defamation proceedings. In fact Mr Buchanan could have taken to court for defamation not only Owen Jennings but also all the media that repeated the statement. That would really threaten the whole role of the fourth estate in our democracy. 
Really this is an amazing debate. We are talking about the privileges of Parliament and the privileges of the court and also about the freedom of the press to make its important contribution to the functioning of a free and open democratic society. In one fell swoop the Privy Council looks to have impeded all three and really has completely upset our traditional understanding of what privilege means and what is and is not the possible subject of a defamation case. 
The other thing I will mention is that I was flabbergasted in reading the report of the Privileges Committee to see that the Privy Council made such a mishmash of its interpretation of our Standing Order 396(1). That Standing Order states: “Subject to this Standing Order permission of the House is not required for reference to be made to proceedings in Parliament in any proceedings before a court.” 
Dail Jones 
: Have you got the right one? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: If Mr Jones does not think I have the right one then he can take a call later and dispute what I have said but I am quoting from the right Standing Order. [ 
Interruption 
] OK but I am still quoting from that Standing Order. 
Dail Jones 
: 2004? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Yes the 2004 version. [ 
Interruption 
] OK but I do not think that Standing Order has been changed. But I am open to correction on that point. I say to Mr Jones that that is not really central to my argument if he will just let me finish it. 
I make two points about the Privy Council decision. First of all no evidence was presented to it on behalf of this Parliament as to the interpretation of that Standing Order and secondly it made no reference to Standing Order 396(2) which specifically states: “Reference to proceedings in Parliament is subject always to article 9 of section 1 of the Bill of Rights Act 1688”. That seems to me to be an amazing oversight on the part of what we have always regarded as being a very very fine court. On this occasion I think the Privy Council clearly did a less than stellar job in terms of coming to its decision. 
In summary United Future strongly supports the recommendation on this matter made to the House by the Privileges Committee. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 The recommendation of the Privileges Committee does not really offer any clear or silver bullet to members of Parliament who speak outside the House following comments made inside the House that subsequently may prove to be untrue and thus defamatory. What can be said outside the House that does not adopt the words spoken in the House and thus becomes able to be litigated is not clear. I think that if we look at what “effective repetition” and defamation really mean we can get a clearer guide on the effect of the Privileges Committee report. 
“Effective repetition” is a key concept to explain the effect of publication. Every time a defamatory comment is published that creates a separate cause of action. So when someone goes outside the House and adopts the defamatory words that he or she said in the House it is the comment made outside the House that is the subject of the publication and thus the defamation. The way that the Privileges Committee unfolded and came to its very prudent decision was simply by saying that the words used by Mr Jennings by themselves amounted to nothing that could amount to defamation. They could be found to be defamatory only by going to the words used in the House which Mr Jennings adopted by his comments made outside the House. Any court case—as in fact did happen—would be a litigation as to the truth of what was said in the House. 
That brings into play the privilege of Parliament. It is one of the few absolute privileges we have in our law. It has been suggested by some members in this debate that this decision of the committee usurps to parliamentarians a right that no other citizen has. Privilege in Parliament is an absolute privilege but it is not an absolute privilege that sits on MPs; it is an absolute privilege belonging to the institution. Whilst MPs are members of the institution then the privilege extends to them. But it is a privilege that protects freedom of speech in this House and thus the freedom of expression challenge and robust debate. 
Of course there is a tension between that and the equally important rule of law and principle that no man’s reputation will be sullied without some factual basis. Each of us is entitled to go about our business without having our reputation attacked. The law of defamation essentially protects that. As the advisers to the committee identified there is a very uneasy tension between the right to free speech and the right to a good reputation. The right to free speech was considered to be of greater public interest when it came to the parliamentary situation because in Parliament members are entitled to raise any matter they are interested in and to make any allegation they think will advance the matter they are arguing. They should do so without fear of subsequent recrimination or litigation. Of course effectively the media convey to every New Zealander what is being said in Parliament. It is part of that process that the media will engage with a member of Parliament and seek some comment. 
 Of course every time a member of Parliament is engaged by the media every person who votes tries to make an assessment on the veracity or reliability of that member. If that then puts a member in the position whereby he or she prevaricates or tries to avoid the issue that member is in the very difficult position of having made a statement that he or she believes should be made in the House but that can then reflect badly on his or her public persona outside the House. 
If the member remembers that the “effective repetition” is to protect the second publication that is outside the House and if the member does not elaborate on what that publication was but simply says that he or she accepts or adopts what was said in the House then this rule will protect that second publication under the rule of “effective repetition”. It is a very restrictive finding of the select committee. It is a finding that goes beyond the law of defamation—it extends to criminal law and perhaps to other civil liabilities—but it is still a very restrictive law. I have some difficulty in grasping the concept which has been enthusiastically bandied around this Chamber that it should extend to courts of law. A witness in any proceeding is supposed to be a witness as to fact not an advocate. We as members of Parliament speak as to fact and opinion but essentially we are advocates for our cause. So we must take positions whereby we break eggs we break ground and we push the envelope in the effort of challenging what has been going on or of leading to a greater insight into what really should happen. 
That is a different position from a witness in a court of law. I would hesitate before we gaily say that this also applies to a court of law because a witness as to fact should not feel any obligation when confronted by media outside to make any statement about what was said under oath in court. It may well be that it could extend to that but I think the committee’s recommendation should be looked at very carefully before it is extended to a court of law. 
The real beneficiaries of this recommendation are not parliamentarians but all New Zealanders. This is because the immediate beneficiary is the press. Members of the press can approach people outside Parliament and speak to them about matters in Parliament and enable the public to see how those people respond to that—whether they are prepared to stand their ground or prevaricate or resile from the matter. If members remember that they are not elaborating on what they have said in Parliament or repeating out of Parliament the words used but that they are just confirming their position then they are committing no greater sin that will lead to any defamation and the public at large can debate issues that are often overlooked not heard and not read about by what is actually said in Parliament. That gives the press an opportunity to link in the public space that which is discussed in Parliament. 
Of course that is how voters can decide who they should elect to Parliament. This is the extent to which I disagree with my friend from the Greens Metiria Turei when she advocates a code of conduct. The privilege that we all have as members of Parliament carries with it a responsibility. One cannot have a privilege without a responsibility. But a responsibility is a personal thing and we make our own decisions as to how we accept that responsibility. The public at large can make their decision on how we conduct ourselves under the privileges afforded to us as members of Parliament by what they read in the media and watch on TV. This is a channel for the media to portray to the reading public and the television public what goes on in this House. It is a method for those who vote to assess the veracity and character of those who appear in the House. 
Although I would hesitate to limit the right of free speech in this House I think the sense of responsibility that most of us carry means that we can speak to what has been said in the House without elaborating and the matter can be taken to the public at large by way of this recommendation of the Privileges Committee. 
The experts advising the committee spoke of the tension between the right to a good reputation and the right of free speech. That is fundamental to this country. It is also fundamental to the separation of powers as referred to by other speakers. The separation of powers is important because courts cannot attempt to curb the way Parliament does its business. It is not a question of the supremacy of Parliament versus the supremacy of courts. It recognises that what is said in this House can be said without hindrance and control except that of good sense and a sense of responsibility. 
I endorse the recommendation of this committee. It proposes to amend the Legislature Act rather than the Defamation Act. It does that because it will enlarge the privilege to cover acts other than those of defamation. But it does not give members of Parliament free licence to act irresponsibly in the House and it does not give them free licence to elaborate outside the House on any untrue statements that may have been made in the House under some guise of extended privilege. All of this is a sensible carry-over to the second publication—that is when speaking to the media—of what is being said in the House. As long as what is said is not elaborated on then the “effective repetition” remains privileged. 
This is a very thoughtful recommendation of the Privileges Committee. It was well assisted by three experts who are acknowledged as such in this country. I believe this will lead to a sensible amendment and will be a shining light in our Commonwealth countries—our common law countries. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The heart of this issue is undoubtedly freedom of speech and democracy. Although it would be very easy for the issue to be characterised as parliamentarians claiming some privilege for themselves beyond all else it is in fact about the protection of the nation’s freedoms. 
Parliamentary privilege exists for two basic reasons. The first reason is that if it did not exist courts would be able to intervene in the proceedings of parliaments on a regular basis. I ask the simple question of how on earth this Parliament would be able to conduct its business if that were the case. It would set up a continuing clash and contest between Parliament and the judiciary whereby each was trying to judge the other all the time. That would not be good for our democracy. 
The second reason is that parliamentary privilege enables parliamentarians to deal with issues of public interest and to discuss the major issues in a forthright and direct manner. Frankly sometimes that discussion will be defamatory. I had only to listen to Metiria Turei who was defamatory in calling another member a racist. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not at any time use the word “racist” in the speech that I just gave. I would like the member to apologise for that misrepresentation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 35/3 and Standing Order 106(1). If she is claiming misrepresentation there is a time and place to do it. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: If those words were said then quite clearly that would be defamatory. Yet the member would certainly not expect to be sued for that and indeed neither should she. This is a robust Chamber and people have to have freedom to speak in it. 
But more than that sometimes not every single statement that a member of Parliament might say will be accurate. Even if a statement is broadly accurate one has to be wrong only in some minor aspect to be in breach of the laws of defamation and of course that would mean the issues could not then be discussed. I acknowledge for instance the whole issue around the wine box and the difficulties that Mr Peters found himself in in regard to that issue. Without those documents being tabled there would never have been a commission of inquiry. We have only to recollect the number of court proceedings that were undertaken to try to stop that process. I say that because I myself in terms of legal advice was quoted in that report some years ago so I am quite conscious of the importance of that issue. 
 A fundamental truism is that the law should not be so difficult that one has to be an expert in defamation law to be safe. Surely that is sensible and I would like to refer to Professor Burrows who stated in the report: “It is harmless to say ‘Yes I did say that’ but not apparently to say ‘Yes I did say that and I still believe it.’ ” The first statement would not have breached the  
Buchanan  
v 
 Jennings 
 rule; the second statement would have. The expert in defamation law would of course understand that difference but a large number of people would not understand it at all. 
As Professor Burrows said when the courts provide such fine distinctions it makes it extremely difficult not just for parliamentarians but also for members of the media to operate. When one is asked whether one stands by a statement one has just made it is a natural response to say yes. It is a normal thing for anyone to say and the law should not trap people for saying normal things or for simply acting as in the normal course of events. That is the problem that the Privileges Committee was fundamentally confronted with and that is why we had to deal with it. 
The solution is to change the Legislature Act. Members might question why there should be a change to that Act and not to the Defamation Act because after all the Defamation Act would cover courts local authorities and all commissions of inquiry and the like where privilege would be normally expected. Our Privileges Committee recommendation is essentially a recommendation for the Government. It has to draft law and put it before this House to be debated in a select committee. It may be that through that process and after a full debate and discussion people will conclude that parliamentary privilege ought to be extended. In the space and process of the Privileges Committee we were not able to deal with that issue directly but through the legislative process—through the select committees themselves—we will be able to deal with it. 
I mentioned that it is not just a protection for parliamentarians but that it is also a protection for the media. I note that just 2 or 3 weeks ago a radio journalist tried to trap a member of Parliament into saying that he stood by what he said in the Chamber. It was put to Mr Peters three times on National Radio but I also note that he was far too wily to be caught out by that ruse. What surprised me was that the journalist was attempting to trap not just Mr Peters but also his own employer—and indeed himself—because that would have been the effect of the repetition and I suggest that Radio New Zealand probably has somewhat deeper pockets than Mr Peters has. So the media themselves will be protected now because they will be able to ask reasonable questions like the common-sense question: “Do you stand by what you said in the Chamber?”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It was fair range. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Fair range—well there we are. [ 
Interruption 
] That is interesting. So it is a broad protection of the public. 
The final group to be protected is the group referred to by Mr John Carter—members of the public. Every member of this Parliament knows full well that large numbers of the public come to select committees. Some people say some quite amazing things particularly in the course of inquiries or petitions. Which members of the public if asked by journalists outside whether they stood by what they said would not say yes? It would be the natural human course to say precisely that. The change to the Legislature Act will protect the citizens of New Zealand who exercise their democratic rights. 
I think that this is one of those issues—and we have had a lot of them in recent times—in which once again Parliament and the courts have a bit of a tussle going on and members of Parliament find themselves having to defend their privileges. The only one way in which they can do that is through legislation. The courts being the independent branch of Government that they are obviously have their methods through their decisions. We have seen plenty of examples in recent times where quite a tense constitutional tussle—if I can put it that way—is happening between our courts and Parliament. I guess that this is not the last time we will have to deal with that issue but at some point there needs to be a better understanding of the relationship between our superior courts and our Parliament in order to reduce that level of constitutional conflict. We need to think very seriously about how we go about that. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 106 and Speakers’ rulings I want to correct a misrepresentation by Mr Mapp of what I said in a previous speech. Mr Mapp said in his speech that I had called Mr Peters a racist. In fact in describing a number of comments made by Mr Peters I used words such as “xenophobic” “extremist” “intolerant” “vicious” and “derogatory”— 
Dail Jones 
: Mr Speaker the member is abusing the privilege. She did not say he was a racist and that is where the matter should end. Instead the member is abusing the system. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No the member may make a correction. This is similar to the issue we are debating in the House now. The member may not repeat what was said but may simply give her explanation for it. The member may indicate what her explanation relates to and then refute it and give the correct version. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: That is what I was doing. The correct version of my description of Mr Peters’ statements included the words “xenophobic” “extremist” “intolerant” “vicious” and “derogatory” but did not include the word “racist” which he himself used in an interjection. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This debate is about the extension of the right to exercise free speech in Parliament which we call parliamentary privilege to outside Parliament as well. As members of Parliament we currently have the right to say things within Parliament about people outside Parliament without being sued. However currently if we go outside Parliament and make a statement such as: “I do not resile from the statement I made in Parliament.” we can be sued and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council can find us liable for damages. 
Some members of Parliament do not like that. New Zealand First takes the view that we should restrict the right of parliamentary privilege to what is said in Parliament and that when we are outside Parliament all we should be able to say is: “It is true that I said that in Parliament.” The other parties in this Parliament want to go further than that. They want to go into greater detail about how they can extend that right of parliamentary privilege to outside Parliament. But that would not be free speech; that would be an abuse of free speech. Those members who support the Privileges Committee report want to extend the right that exists in Parliament to abuse people—if I can put it like that—to include the ability to abuse them outside Parliament without being sued. That is what this report is all about. 
There was a member of Parliament who made a defamatory statement inside Parliament. He went outside Parliament but he did not just say: “It’s true that I said that in Parliament.” He threw on a bit of salt and pepper and a bit of garnish. He built it all up and said: “I—big man; macho man—don’t resile from any of that.” It was real macho stuff. But he did not realise that he could not do that because it was an abuse of his position as a member of Parliament. 
I am in New Zealand First and we do not want to be able to do that but other members and parties—Rodney Hide Metiria Turei of the Greens Labour and National—want to be able to go outside Parliament and repeat in a broader way the defamatory abusive statements they make in Parliament. That is what this is all about. That is what Mr Jennings did—big-noting—and he got caught up in it. Those Labour members and the Greens want to keep on big-noting outside the House. 
Well New Zealand First says no. We as members of Parliament have the privilege to be able to make those statements in the House. Our judgment day comes on election day. If we abuse those rights we are out on the street. We will be turfed out. That is when our judgment day is. If members want to make those statements outside the House their judgment day should be in court. That is where their judgment day should be. They cannot have it both ways. United Future ACT National and Labour members want to have it both ways. They want to be able to say defamatory things in Parliament and be able to repeat them in a way outside Parliament. Well they are two different arenas. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Not true. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is absolutely true because Dr Mapp said that Mr Jennings should have been entitled to say what he said and not be sued. Well Mr Jennings should have been sued. The Privy Council said he was defamatory. It does not matter what Dr Mapp says about what the Privy Council said; he should read the judgment. What the Privy Council said is correct. It is as if someone were bowling to Geoffrey Boycott and say Mr Peters were the umpire. Someone comes in and bowls to Geoffrey Boycott and hits him on the pads. Winston Peters says: “You’re out Geoffrey.” and Geoffrey Boycott says: “No I’m not out. You can’t give me out.” We would tell him to look at the scoreboard and if it said he was out he was out. When the Privy Council says that one is defamatory one is defamatory. That is all there is to it. The Privy Council is the referee and the umpire. 
The other parties in this House want to be able to be defamatory inside the House and outside the House but we in New Zealand First do not support that. Listening to the Green member was quite amusing. We have just heard her repeat words about New Zealand First. But effectively what she is doing is allowing members of Parliament to repeat statements outside the House. In supporting this report that is what she is doing. To take up the Green member’s comment the Privileges Committee’s decision will effectively enable any member of Parliament to make unjust intolerant extreme or racist statements outside Parliament. A member can be asked outside Parliament whether he or she stands by the racist intolerant xenophobic etc. etc. statements the member has made and the member can say: “Yes I do and I don’t resile from them.” We should not be allowing that to happen. That is quite wrong. 
New Zealand First is opposed to the committee’s recommendation: “… to provide that no person may incur criminal or civil liability for making any oral or written statement that affirms adopts or endorses words written or spoken in proceedings in Parliament where the oral or written statement would not but for the proceedings in Parliament give rise to criminal or civil liability.” MPs should not be allowed to big-note outside the House without paying the penalty in the courts. If members big-note in the House and make a defamatory statement or even a not so defamatory statement their public—the voters—will decide the matter for them. 
Dr Mapp was saying how grateful the media will be for the Privileges Committee’s decision. Of course the media will be grateful because it will extend their right to be more and more defamatory. At times there is nothing so unctuous as newspaper reporters. They say how dreadful the behaviour in Parliament is and how members of Parliament should not say this that or the other thing but they splash it all over the newspapers. They love dwelling on it while at the same time saying how bad it is. The committee’s decision will enable the media to get a member outside the House and put him or her on radio or TV in order to relive the whole experience all over again without the media being liable in any way for the consequences of the statement given. 
I say to members of the House that it will be very very dangerous to try to live within that new rule. We know what the present rule is. It is very clear. As a lawyer I would advise a member of Parliament who may have gone over the edge in a debate one night or day and said something that perhaps was defamatory and who was then held up by a reporter outside and asked whether he or she would repeat what was said inside the House not to say a thing—not one thing at all. This particular decision if it is given effect will encourage some members to try to say something and that would be an absolutely tremendous trap. There would be an awful lot of litigation to decide what Parliament meant by allowing parliamentarians to say some sort of thing outside the House. It is best to say nothing at all. This particular provision if it is ever given legislative effect in any particular way will be an absolute trap for members of Parliament. We will create a real problem for ourselves if we adopt this provision. 
The situation is quite simple as it stands at the moment. As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in his speech—and the point was confirmed by Dr Mapp—the simplest thing to do currently if one is asked about what one has said in the House is to say: “It is true that I said that in Parliament.” That is fine. However if one says: “What I said in Parliament is true.” then one is in trouble. That is exactly what the Rt Hon Winston Peters said at the opening of his speech and the point was confirmed by Dr Mapp. But my advice to any parliamentarian is just to not say anything at all because otherwise one starts to get too subtle. In the heat of the moment with the microphone under the nose and some TV interviewer having a go one is never quite sure of what one is saying let alone of remembering what one has said afterwards. I cannot really understand why parliamentarians would want this amendment but they think it will help them. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s also for the public. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is not there for the public. It is there only so that those members of Parliament who make a mistake outside the House have a better chance of not being sued for damages. That is all it gets down to. The Labour National ACT United Future and Green members of Parliament just want another safety net in case they get into trouble by saying too much on the radio or the TV. New Zealand First does not want a bar of it. 
This Chamber is where we speak. If we say something here the electors will decide for us—we should just keep our mouths shut outside the House. Those are the simple rules. We do not want to go outside the House and start abusing people. That is quite the simplest way of it even though Ms Turei said that we should be able to go outside and do that. She made an extraordinary speech; she did not really understand what she was saying. 
When the  
Independent 
 says “Parliament strikes a blow for free speech” it is not striking a blow for free speech; it is striking a blow to save millions of dollars in legal fees and damages for the newspapers and the backsides of those members of Parliament who just have not been able to control themselves when they have walked outside this Chamber. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege referred on 21 July 1998 concerning Buchanan v Jennings. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Motion agreed to. 
Budget Debate 
Debate resumed from 31 May on the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I want to continue this speech on the theme that I finished with last time when I was asking the National Party whether it had any policies it could put up as a Budget. We occasionally see the Leader of the Opposition on television and he says he is not going to mislead the country. Dr Don Brash a man known to be very frugal who survived on corned beef and peas for so long and kept his pyjamas from childhood knows for a fact: “You can’t spend it if you don’t make it.” He knows that much. So how would a National Government give tax cuts but continue to fund the 2700 extra teachers that Labour has employed the 3300 extra nurses we have employed the 398 extra social workers at Child Youth and Family Services the 138 extra probation officers the 820 extra prison officers and the 1080 extra police? How will Dr Brash—the man who is frugal who knows that if the money comes in one can spend it but if the money does not come in one cannot spend it—be able to give tax cuts and keep all those other things? How would National continue funding early childhood education for our young children if it is going to give money away in the form of tax cuts sometime in the future? 
Those are the questions we want answers to. We want to hear answers from any National Party speaker among the huge array of members opposite. What sort of economics allows a Government to give tax cuts and still spend money on teachers nurses early childhood education police officers and so on? We are looking forward to those answers from the Opposition and New Zealanders are seeking answers too. 
This is a great Budget. It puts money where it is needed. It builds on all the wonderful things that this Government has achieved over the last 5 years. We have seen State houses rebuilt and income-related rents; we have seen more spending on defence the police the health sector and the elderly. We have seen visionary policies enacted by this Government to make sure that the baby-boom generation knows there will be a superannuation scheme for them. We are also saying to some New Zealanders: “We’ll give you a hand to buy your first house.” We have to start in a relatively small way because the previous National Government sold all the mortgages and the State houses. We want to ensure that the people of my generation whose parents bought their house with a 3 percent State Advances Corporation loan can look to Labour to reintroduce policies of that sort with a mortgage insurance policy and a KiwiSaver loan. 
That is the sort of visionary Budget that New Zealanders need not some nebulous policy that says to people: “We’ll give you a tax cut some Christmas in the future.” But nobody in the National Party said which Christmas or how big or how small the tax cut would be. Dr Brash the man who knows about economics realises that if he gives the big tax cuts he is promising everybody he will also have to give those with a mortgage a whopping great increase in their interest rates. Is that the sort of thing New Zealanders are crying out for? 
The Australian Government learnt all about that. That is the policy it suggested the Labor Party would be following. How are National members opposite going to answer that one? Do they have any answers? Is anyone capable of standing up and explaining what a National Party Budget would look like? We are looking forward to those answers but I do not think we are going to get many. This Government is proud of its Budget but National runs and hides when it comes time to pronounce any policy. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 If there is anything certain about the last Budget delivered by Michael Cullen it is that in its dying days the Labour Government gave up on aspiration for New Zealanders and pronounced that the mediocre approach to life was the best any New Zealander could hope for under a Government led by Labour. The message was that people should not think for themselves. The message was that people should not have aspirations for themselves; they should have just whatever Helen Clark Michael Cullen and the rest of the Labour cabal are prepared to allow. That is what Labour said in its Budget and that is what New Zealanders heard overwhelmingly. 
I can tell all those Labour back-benchers who are going to brush up their CVs soon after the election that I knew they were in deep trouble when just a couple of days after the Budget I was in a supermarket unloading a grocery trolley on to the conveyor belt and the very nice lady on the checkout said to me: “There won’t be much in that lot for 67c will there?”. I said: “You’re dead right.” I have to confess that she did not actually make a connection to which party I came from; she just knew I was from Parliament. She said: “I can’t see why you boys couldn’t have done better for us.” I was pretty keen to explain that I was not part of that Budget and that that was not my party. It was Labour that said that 67c in 3 years’ time is what that checkout operator could expect to receive in her pay packet—67c a week one year after that person has had to pay at least $4 a week in “Kyoto tax”. 
I can tell members that that woman was adamant she would not vote for Helen Clark again. That is the truth of it and that was very soon after the Budget. [ 
Interruption 
] I could take that member over there—what is his name again? He is the guy in the shiny suit the guy who has brown hair today. It was blond last week and next week it will be blue because he will be trying to associate himself with a winning party. I could take that member to the supermarket and introduce him to that checkout operator and he could find out for himself how deeply in trouble his party is in the electoral sense. 
The other nonsense that Government members talk about is what they are doing in housing and what they are going to do to help people get into houses. Well I ask that member this. In those few years when people can get their $1000 a year grants and are saving their money in a vehicle or account yet to be nominated—probably one of those 1.5 percent Kiwibank accounts—what will be the value in the meantime? Because the problem is the ability to repay. That goes right back to the issue of income again. National has said that we are going to lower taxes. We get this argument from Mr Gosche of all people the great union economist telling us that if we let people keep more of the money they earn it will push up interest rates. Well is he prepared to go down to the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and tell them that if they get a 5 percent increase that will also push up interest rates? Oh no he would be silent on that because he knows that under the current tax regime if the average worker in that union gets a 5 percent pay rise it will equate to about $5 a week with about twice that much going out of his pocket in increased tax. Mr Gosche is silent on that because it is another great tax grab by the Government. 
We are simply saying that it is time to meet in the middle. Yes wages have to rise. Incomes in New Zealand self-evidently have to rise if we are going to stop the flow of 600 talented young people a week across the Tasman. But the way incomes can rise surely has to be a mix of paying less tax as well as earning more. The Government argues that it is best that it looks after people’s money spends people’s money and makes people’s choices for them because otherwise interest rates might rise. That is utter nonsense and it is an argument that certainly will not be sustained. 
I heard also Mr Gosche bringing up the old Labour trick of saying that National sold all the State houses. Well I am very proud of the fact that we sold 4000 of them. 
Hon Taito Phillip Field 
: 4000! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and who bought them? I can tell this House that the people who bought them were the people who lived in them—the tenants who had paid for them over years and years. I have a question for Labour. If Labour builds one new State house tomorrow and puts a tenant in it and if that tenant pays the rent for 30 years is there any point at which Labour would be prepared to say that that rent has covered the capital cost and that the tenant probably on a low income should get some benefit from the asset? No they are all shaking their heads. The answer is no. Labour does not like the idea that New Zealand is a property-owning democracy. New Zealanders like to own houses and if Labour were prepared to admit that it would be able to admit that its pathetic home buyers’ scheme is in the Budget for that very reason. 
Labour members are a very confused group of people. I bet that after the caucus meeting last Tuesday—prior to the delivery of the Budget—they walked out of the caucus room feeling smug. They thought they had the winning Budget. They thought it would propel them into a third term of Government. But the Budget fell flat. It fell flat all over the show. The issues poll in the  
New Zealand Herald  
published earlier this week showed that higher taxes is the second-biggest issue. The biggest issue is health and that is where the current Government has failed most miserably. Is any Labour member silly enough to stand up and suggest that more elective surgery procedures are being performed this year than last year or the year before? [ 
Interruption 
] Well that just proves how silly they are. They are wrong. The numbers have fallen but the funding is way up. Where has the money gone? It has gone to pen-pushers not those who are actually delivering health services. 
When it comes to the issues that New Zealanders have outlined then every time they consider the 6 years of a Labour Government they will see the situation getting worse. Do members know what the great irony for me is in that  
New Zealand Herald  
poll? The great irony for me is around the issue of police and police services. I am very heartened to know that New Zealanders are still great people. New Zealanders do care enormously about their community and for the society the live in and they have great respect for the police. And despite the absolute debacle that George Hawkins has presided over and the terrible situation the police have been put into New Zealanders still have great confidence in them and I think that is a wonderful thing. But that may well be—no thanks to the Labour Government—the only thing that has been preserved and is unchanged during the term of the current Government. 
It is clear and obvious that the Budget is a disaster for the Labour Government. It has given up any prospect of giving New Zealanders a message that is inspirational. Labour has shown that it is returning to being the kind of Government that Labour has always been—that is inserting itself deeply in the daily lives of people and telling them exactly how things are to be and when they are to be. The Government’s remaining time in office is very short. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 We can tell there was nothing in this year’s Budget for Mr Brownlee. What a bitter bitter speech. I say to the people of New Zealand: “Let National and ACT anywhere near the Treasury benches and their first Act of Parliament will be to cut taxes for high-income earners in order to line their own pockets.” National has done this every time when in Government and this time will be no different despite the rhetoric. 
I am happy to stand and take a call in this debate on Budget 2005 and in doing so I would like to congratulate the Hon Dr Michael Cullen on what was a very important Budget for New Zealand. It was a Budget that finally attacked some of the long-term issues facing New Zealand that Governments of all stripes have put in the too-hard basket for far too long. I would particularly like to draw attention to the new funding in this year’s Budget which will continue to support regional New Zealand and rural New Zealanders. This Labour-led Government has a proud history of achievement for the regions in New Zealand. Anyone who lived in regional New Zealand under the National Government’s reign in the 1990s saw first-hand how the National Government sucked the lifeblood out of regional New Zealand. One could measure it week by week by the increasing number of empty shops appearing on the main streets of regional New Zealand or by the increasing number of students leaving high school and going to university knowing they were unlikely ever to return to their home towns or measure it by the increasing number of unemployed workers as business after business shut their doors. 
This National Government’s legacy has not been forgotten despite the leaps and bounds that rural New Zealand has made under this Labour-led Government. Many of my colleagues have highlighted the enormous benefit that will flow from increased spending on health education police and small business and in other areas. But I would like to outline a few of the announcements from Budget 2005 that have not been as high profile but will be of particular interest to the regions. Under Budget 2005 $36 million annually will ensure that thousands more rural New Zealanders will be eligible for assistance when accessing specialist health services thanks to the Government’s new travel and accommodation policy. This policy will significantly improve rural people’s access to specialist services. Currently about 30000 people nationwide get assistance under the current policy but this number will exceed 100000 under the new scheme. 
There are existing travel and accommodation subsidies but eligibility reimbursement and administration do vary between different regions. The new policy will standardise this service across the country and target those who have to travel long distances and those who regardless of their income incur high travel costs as a result of frequent specialist visits. It will also continue to support those who have a community services card. This is particularly important in regions like Opotiki where the previous National Government closed the hospital and promised such a scheme but true to form never delivered it. So what would the National Party do now? Would it scrap this assistance in order to pay for tax cuts for its mates? We do not know. 
The $137 million being spent to establish a new drinking water subsidy scheme will help to improve drinking water systems in small New Zealand communities and allow them access to the good-quality drinking water that people in urban areas take for granted. The Drinking Water Subsidy Fund will provide funding to councils and suppliers for technical advice and direct capital assistance which would otherwise have had to come from rates or water charges. This is great news for many small rural communities. 
The fund is one of a number of initiatives in this area that have been established by the Government to ease the burden of basic infrastructure demands on regional communities and ratepayers including $133 million appropriated in 2003 to help councils pay for sewerage systems and a $10 million fund appropriated last year to help communities to cope and position themselves for rising tourist numbers. These initiatives are helping rural New Zealand to cope with infrastructure pressures that come with the increased growth population base building developments and tourism which have underscored the recovery in the regions under this Labour-led Government. Would a National Government cut this funding to pay for tax cuts for their mates? We do not know. Maybe it would simply drive us into another recession in the regions and hope that as many people leave as they did last time National was in Government in order to reduce these pressures. 
These are just a few of the initiatives that will be of direct benefit to regional New Zealand and continue the fine tradition of Labour supporting rather than ignoring the regions. I welcome also the announcement in this year’s Budget of the extension of paid parental leave to self-employed women. The Labour-led Government introduced paid parental leave fronted by the Hon Laila Harré for the first time in New Zealand in 2002. Since that time 45000 people have accessed the scheme. The scheme was extended last year to cover more parents and the duration of the payment was increased from 12 weeks to 13 weeks and will be extended again to 14 weeks in December this year. The extension of the scheme to self-employed women will be of great benefit to many rural mothers and addresses a glaring gap in the scheme. I pay tribute to the Hon Ruth Dyson for the work she has done over the last few years to ensure we have a robust scheme for self-employed rural women and their families. 
 This poses an interesting dilemma for National Party members who oppose the scheme in principle but know that it is not a popular position to take so have been using the lack of provision for self-employed women as an excuse to oppose the bill thus far. What will they do now? Will they scrap this scheme to support new families to pay for tax cuts for their mates? I suspect not given that one of their MPs took leave on full pay from her job as an MP in order to have children. I have no issue with her doing that as I believe she has a lot to offer this House as a talented young woman and I am pleased she has managed to combine her family life and her career so effectively. It is the inconsistency that is hard to take. 
Increased funding to support trade negotiations has also been welcomed by local primary producers. Budget 2005 allocates a further $31.1 million over the next 4 years to conclude trade agreement negotiations and ensure we are better placed to access key markets for our goods and services. This goes hand in hand with a huge amount of new spending in biosecurity which has also been welcomed by this country’s primary producers. This Labour-led Government has boosted baseline funding of biosecurity every year since we have been in Government. Will the National Party cut this funding to pay for tax cuts for their mates? We do not know. Maybe National members think we do not need any biosecurity funding because in the event or threat of a biosecurity outbreak Dr Brash will just not tell anyone. I suspect that the National Party might have to drastically increase funding for trade negotiations once it starts being less than 100 percent honest with our trading partners. 
Regional New Zealand has suffered from three one-in-100-year national disasters in the last 18 months. Civil defence emergencies used to be a rarity but are now an annual occurrence. I welcome the extra $19 million in funding to help communities prepare for such events and thereby minimise their impact. I have no doubt that the National Party which has shown no commitment to civil defence in its time will scrap this money to fund tax cuts for its mates. The National Party has criticised the Government’s response to the recent floods in the Bay of Plenty. It has criticised the Government departments that are doing their best to ensure that evacuated families are looked after and has sniffed at the $250000 cash donation from the Government. National is a party that when in Government was asked to provide assistance to the people of Wairoa and Nuhaka in the mid-1990s after a series of weather-related natural disasters. In fact the district had endured so much damage to its roading system and had so much work to do that its roading subsidy that year which was normally 60 percent was at nearly 100 percent. 
The National Government under Prime Minister Bolger offered 30 Task Force Green workers and $15000. The money was not enough to cover the cost of the fence posts so that the Task Force Green workers actually had something to do. The then National Minister of Transport also refused to extend the roading subsidy past 1 July when it was due to drop back to 60 percent so that repairs on the roads could receive the higher subsidy in light of the huge amount of money that that small rural council had had to pay out over the year for roading repairs. Apparently it was tough luck that the national disaster happened to occur in the month of June right before the cut-off date. And how many National Ministers and members of Parliament went to Wairoa and Nuhaka in the wake of the natural disaster? Not one and when the issue was finally raised in the House they sent Katherine O’Regan—2 weeks after the event. 
The National Government with its “market will provide” blind ideology sucked the life out of regional New Zealand and given half the chance it will do it again. The transformation of regional New Zealand under this Government has been staggering. A guest speaker at a Gisborne Chamber of Commerce event commented on this change saying that during the 1990s a colleague of his had visited Gisborne and said that he felt physically unsafe. The guest speaker told us he had urged his friend to come back and be prepared to be amazed at the turn-round. Our unemployment rate in Gisborne is nearly at the national average which it has never been before the rate of Maori unemployment has plummeted and tourism is booming. We do not want to go back to the failed policies of the 1990s when it was the regions that paid the most harshly for the tax cuts for the rich mates of the National Party. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Dr Cullen’s election-year Budget says little and cares less about the many children and adults in this country who are still living in poverty. All the talk in the world about future savings schemes and minor tax cuts makes no difference to all the people who are right at this moment struggling to survive from one end of the week to the other. 
The pride of this year’s Budget appears to be the new KiwiSaver scheme. Although I do not want to knock that excellent initiative to try to open up the possibility of work-based superannuation savings for a whole lot of people I must say at the same time that the KiwiSaver scheme does not address the real issues of wages and benefits that are not enough to live on or deal with the fact that people on low incomes will not be able to put away 4 percent—much less 8 percent—of their wages anyway. As Auckland University economics professor Tim Hazledine said in a speech the day after the Budget: “Low wages not low savings are New Zealand’s real economic problem.” The Green Party agrees absolutely with that analysis. As long as the minimum wage remains at the ridiculously low level of $9.50 an hour and benefits are often not enough to sustain people without their sinking even further into debt we will continue to trap a large number of adults and children in a trans-generational mire of poverty with all its attendant ill consequences. 
I realise that Labour’s response to that will be to say that the Working for Families package is the answer. However as a number of us have been pointing out ever since its introduction last year Working for Families is firstly a massive taxpayer bail-out of employers using Government funds to top up wages that remain consistently low and secondly a conscious push by the Government to entrench the structural discrimination against beneficiaries that National started in the 1990s. That is not good enough. Professor Innes Asher a well-respected Auckland paediatrician who supports the excellent work of the Child Poverty Action Group spoke last week about a family in Porirua who had no furniture in the house and who recently had to spend $80 for an evening visit to a doctor and for medication after one of the children had an asthma attack. That $80 was the family’s entire food budget for the week—gone in one fell swoop. All the family had left to eat for the rest of the week was bread and butter. For families like that the 2005 Budget offers no hope of an improved standard of living now or at any time in the near future. A family with at least one adult in paid employment will have benefited earlier this year from the Working for Families package but of course no more is on offer from that quarter until next year. However beneficiary families will not even have the in-work payment to help them and this Budget will have given them not one crumb extra. 
Poverty-related diseases continue to beset the children of the poor. In south Auckland meningococcal disease has struck 1 in 300 Pacific Island children under 1 year of age. Rheumatic fever pneumonia chronic lung infections serious skin infections and other conditions brought about by overcrowded and otherwise unhealthy living conditions are rife. More of our babies die than in many other comparable countries. Endless research has been done on the causes and effects of poverty on children and there is no question that income is a critical determinant of health of whether children are brought up in secure warm housing and of whether they succeed in the long term in education and employment. Without enough money to live on adults suffer but the impacts on their children all too often last a lifetime however long or short that life turns out to be. 
This Budget does do some good things. For example as the member who just resumed her seat has said it extends paid parental leave—that is great—and it increases the funding for early childhood education for out-of-school care and for special education. Also it increases the support for disability support and provides for increased uptake of the primary health care strategy. However although all that is to the good it is not enough. There are still nearly 12000 households on the waiting lists for State houses. The Government is going to build more State houses—again that is great—but the numbers they are talking about are a drop in the bucket compared with the real need right now in Auckland and outside Auckland. 
The KiwiSaver programme will not do anything for the families that are right now in overcrowded substandard or inappropriate accommodation nor will it do anything for the next 5 to 7 years or more. Not only will it be almost impossible for many people on low incomes to join the scheme—because they need every dollar they earn just to survive—but there is also a risk that people will pay out the 4 percent at the same time that they continue to incur ever-rising debt which in the long run will only make things harder for them. The KiwiSaver scheme can be used by people on low to middle incomes to put a deposit on a first home after at least 3 years of contributions. After 5 years people will be able to access the maximum of $5000. However no one will be eligible for the full $5000 until 2012. That means that families that are struggling today and that will continue to struggle over the next 7 years will not be helped until 2012 at the earliest. Others who will fall outside the 3000 likely to qualify even when the scheme becomes fully functional will continue to miss out altogether. The Government is once again holding out a pocketful of hope that will become a reality for only a tiny fraction of the people who need hope—and help—the most. 
 On top of that one of the most iniquitous aspects of the 2004 Budget unfortunately remains in force. I refer to the proposed abolition of the special benefit next year. The special benefit is a third-tier discretionary benefit that props up a lot of the gaps in the welfare system left over from the days of the 1991 benefit cuts. It is often the only way that people can get enough money to survive. Its loss will save the Government many millions of dollars at the expense of those who can least afford it: beneficiaries and their children. Labour can be as optimistic as it likes about getting beneficiaries into paid employment but I have a strong suspicion that despite the Government’s best efforts we will not see a continuing decline in the unemployment rate. In fact quite the opposite of that is beginning to happen which will leave beneficiaries and their families more vulnerable than ever. 
The Green Party believes that this Budget is simply not good enough. Too many people continue to be left out. We would have liked to see something quite different. For example Working for Families should be extended so that all families are eligible for the same payments based on income and numbers of children not on parental employment status. We would have liked to see the introduction of a universal child benefit like the old family benefit paid to the primary caregivers of all children regardless of whether they are in paid work. We would have liked to see benefit levels that are enough to live on and until they are the special benefit must remain. More money should be invested in meeting people’s real housing needs now through the State sector through local government and through the community sector. Some of the huge cost of the accommodation supplement should be transferred sideways out of the private rental market and into social housing. The minimum wage should be lifted to $12 an hour immediately. Nine dollars and fifty cents is transparently a totally inadequate living wage and the taxpayer should not continue to prop up employers to the massive extent that currently occurs through Working for Families. 
Finally in regard to a separate but related issue I take this opportunity to add my voice to those of trade unions the elderly and providers in the aged and disability care sector who are really distressed at the implications of the Budget for the work those providers do. Over the few months prior to the Budget Government people kept holding out a shard of hope that the Budget would bring relief to a sector that reached almost total meltdown some time ago. In fact what has been delivered is manifestly inadequate even though it sounds good. In a radio interview last week Minister Pete Hodgson confirmed fears that the $71 million theoretically allocated by the Budget may in fact be spent by district health boards on other services with the Minister himself saying that there is no guarantee that that money will go on aged care at all. It was also made clear that over $34 million of the $71 million is back-pay to district health boards which have been underfunded for some time in the past for residential care. Thus the long-awaited increase in funding desperately needed to boost workers’ wages and to allow providers to survive may simply be a complete mirage. I cannot understand why the Government does not take the situation more seriously when providers are closing down all the time and staff are leaving in droves for better-paid jobs here and overseas. Telling us that most people in need of full-time residential care are better off to stay in their homes is not the answer. Nor as a country can we fly in the face of the reality of an ageing population that will need more services not fewer in the years to come. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am proud to stand today to speak in support of this Budget. It is about working for New Zealand: for families for our older citizens for young people for business for workers and in fact for all New Zealanders. Unlike National’s view of the world or its so-called strategy—if we ever see one—our Budget builds on the most exciting initiative that this Government has introduced since coming into office. It continues with whopping investments in business job growth health education and support for families and superannuitants training and apprenticeships transport police and justice and savings. This Budget works for New Zealand. Under this Budget New Zealand families will be helped to get ahead and it will provide extra security for the future. It builds on the progress we have made in rebuilding our public health system and our education. There is extra support for our businesses and for families with children. 
One of the major programmes in this year’s Budget that I am particularly proud of is the Working for Families package. This package helps low and modest income families and families with children through increases in their family support help with the cost of childcare and increased assistance through the accommodation supplement. Already this year family support has increased by $25 for the first child and $15 a week for each additional child. In the coming year there are more increases in family support and childcare subsidies to help cover the costs of raising Kiwi families. By April 2007 our families on incomes between $25000 and $45000 per year will be an average of $95 to $100 better off a week. Compare that with the tax cuts that National is offering. 
In education there will be more teachers and funding for schools than ever before. Since 1999 the Government has increased school funding by an average of $348 per child—almost 15 percent in real terms. We have also increased the number of teachers by 2700 over and above the numbers required by school roll growth. From 2006 we expect to increase the number of teachers by a further 421 teachers. 
Budget 2005 continues the huge investment that we have made to make sure that more children can access quality early childhood education. We are increasing funding to existing centres and will build up to an extra 65 more centres in areas in need of those centres. From July 2007 all 3 and 4-year-olds will be eligible for 20 hours’ free community-based education per week in early childhood centres. That is great for our kids’ future and it is great for their parents. 
Whilst talking about education I have to mention that the investment of $60 million in information technology in schools is an increase of nearly 1800 percent since 1988 to 1999 when only $3.2 million was spent during that time. 
So it is all good news under this Budget and I cannot go past the KiwiSaver scheme. To incentivise saving for our families and in fact for all our citizens whether they are on benefits self-employed or working for wages this Government will kick-start savings schemes with $1000 upfront to a scheme nominated by the employee—a portable scheme that will help people to save for their superannuation and the future. But what is just as important if not more important is that for first homebuyers those savings can be put towards the purchase of their first house. To incentivise and to help that along this Government will give $1000 per year of saving. For a young couple who has saved for 5 years that means this Government will give them $10000 towards their homeownership. That is great for young people. People of my age and older can remember the start we had through the State Advances loan and I think that this savings scheme will go a long way to make housing more affordable for our young people. 
We cannot go past looking at our primary health strategy. Through our primary health organisations we are already subsidising under-18-year-olds those aged 65-plus and from July we will be increasing subsidies for all 18 to 24-year-olds. From there we will continue to roll out cheaper health-care to cover all New Zealanders by 2007. 
 I was at a family function in my electorate very recently and I talked to a young couple with their first child. They were really pleased with this Government. They had paid parental leave they were receiving $60 per week through Working for Families and their child had been immunised. Can members imagine their delight when I told them what else is to come. Under the Working for Families package there will be more money over the next few years cheaper health-care 4 weeks’ leave 20 hours’ free childcare per week $1000 towards saving and up to $10000 towards their new home. They were really chuffed about that. 
This Budget also lifts funding for older people in residential care by over $80 million this year on top of the $60 million that was announced in December and the money that will cover the changes to the Holidays Act which have added a small cost as we deliver more holidays for workers in this country. Also for our older citizens we are phasing out National’s asset testing and from next year many superannuitants will get rate rebates. 
Under a Labour-led Government we have seen a dramatic drop in unemployment. That means more jobs. There was 7.4 percent unemployment and it is now 3.8 percent. This does not happen by chance. This happens by investing in skills investing in training and investing in people. 
Lesley Soper 
: Good management. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right. It is good management. Funding for industry training overall has gone up this year to $120.5 million. That is up over 100 percent from what was spent in 1999 by a National Government. Let us not go past the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. By December 2006 9000 young people will be in apprenticeships. 
In Waitakere we celebrate job growth in boatbuilding vineyards film making and our traditional industries. We celebrate our great skills. We celebrate early childhood education our art and our music. We celebrate our young people in training. We celebrate our new hospital. All of this has happened under a Labour-led Government. 
Added to that is the huge investment in transport and infrastructure. There is more money for nurses higher police numbers and the lowest crime rate in 22 years. There is real support for business. There is cheaper and more affordable tertiary education for students. We are rebuilding our housing stock which National flogged off. We know we can afford it because we are doing it. 
All of this would be up for grabs from National with its mantra of tax cuts. Remember the 1990s? Who won then? National wants to give tax cuts and a few bucks extra—what will go? Will it make cuts to early childhood education to schools to tertiary education to training to apprenticeships to superannuation to health and to police and with that will it have more borrowing from overseas? I can see on the benches opposite those members of the National Party bowing their heads in shame. This Budget takes us forward. National is trying to drag us backwards and we will not let that happen. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I am very happy to stand in this debate and support the motion of Dr Don Brash. It is a motion that clearly shows that this is a failed Budget from Labour’s outgoing Minister of Finance. It is a failed Budget because it does not address the priorities of mainstream New Zealand. It is a Budget about the carping minorities that have captured Labour. The Government does not propose anything for ordinary hard-working people other than 67c in 3 years’ time. How do we say to a hard-working family on $40000 a year which is trying to get ahead that this Government offers it 67c in 3 years’ time? It provides hardly any incentive to work hard or to get ahead. 
This Government is presenting a Budget surplus of over $7 billion and is trying to tell the country that ordinary working people should not be allowed a decent tax cut. With a surplus of $7 billion of course this country can afford lower taxes to reward effort and create jobs. Of course with a $7 billion surplus there is enough money to lower taxes to reward effort and to create jobs. Ordinary New Zealanders mainstream families want a tax system that rewards their work and effort that gives them an incentive to get ahead. What does this Government offer? Well it offers 67c in 3 years’ time. But what does it offer to families that are trying to get ahead? It offers the Working for Families package. What does that do? It says to two households in Papamoa that live next to each other—one with two kids and earning $40000 a year and one next door with two kids and earning $60000—that the family that earns $20000 more gets to take home $40 a week more than the family earning $40000. Where is the incentive to make the effort required to get ahead? Let us lower taxes to reward effort and create jobs. Mainstream New Zealand wants a Government that recognises that the values of endeavour self-reliance and independence need to be rewarded. 
This Government’s Budget the final Budget of Michael Cullen reveals that this Government’s priorities owe more to carping minorities than they do to ordinary New Zealand families. Where is the investment in dealing with crime? Where are the extra police to go on the streets of Rotorua? 
Jill Pettis 
: 10000 extra police. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: “10000 extra police.” says the outgoing member for Whanganui. The fact is there has been no increase in the number of police based on population. I have these answers from the Government. What was the number of police per 100000 New Zealanders at the end of April 2004? It was 211. What is the number of sworn police officers per 100000 New Zealanders today? It is 211. There has been absolutely no change in the ratio of police to population under this Government. What about a commitment to dealing with those criminals in our community who keep reoffending— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Lowest crime in 20 years. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Mr Cunliffe says we have the lowest crime rate in 20 years. I think Linda Clark summed it up best on her programme when she said to the Commissioner of Police: “We can’t believe anything you say any more because these numbers are so cooked.” We now know that 17000 cases are shelved every year. We know that there are “ghost squads” responding to 111 calls. We know that this great record of the 111 centres responding to calls within 2 or 3 seconds is a joke because that is only after Telecom has got them through. As Linda Clark said we cannot believe one word of those crime statistics. 
Where is the action on the economy? Where are the tax cuts to reward effort and create jobs? Where is the extra investment in trade training? There is plenty of investment in hip-hop tours homeopathy for pets and Twilight Golf—all things that Labour defends. There is no howling from the Government on that issue. But there is no money for trade training. Why are apprentices being put off? They have to wait for next year’s Budget. What about supporting businesses? Where are the lower accident compensation premiums through competition? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Not there. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: They are not there. Where are the fewer compliance costs through a better Health and Safety in Employment Act? Where is the opportunity to create new jobs through National’s 90-day grievance-free period? 
Where is the vision in education? This Government offers no vision in education. Its education portfolio is led by a thug and that is no way to provide vision for New Zealand people. This National Party says that it wants no child left behind and that there will be a focus on literacy and numeracy in our schools. Where was talk in the Budget of national standards for literacy and numeracy? There was no mention at all. Where was there a mention in the Budget about cutting bureaucracy and paying good teachers more? There was none at all. Where was the work in the Budget to address the concerns of the Secondary Principals Association which said that bureaucracy is stifling innovation in our schools? There was nothing on that. Where was the Government’s plan to deal with the disaster of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)? Where was the plan to deal with NCEA? 
 This Government tries to hide failure. New Zealanders want an education system that does away with the “no marks no failure” culture that this Government has brought into the education system. From a Government dominated by schoolteachers I would have expected more. So there was no new education vision in this Budget. There was nothing that matches National’s vision of “no child left behind”—national standards in literacy and numeracy. This Labour Government has brought a “no marks no failure” culture into the education system. Everybody passes; nobody fails. Everybody feels good. Pupils can go to school and sing “Kumbaya” and get a pass in NCEA. That is what this Government proposes. 
Here is another failure of this Government: where were the leadership and new ideas in welfare? We know that the number of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit has simply rocketed under the Labour Government. In the Bay of Plenty the number of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit has increased by hundreds of percentage points. 
Where was the plan to deal with one law for all in this country? Where was the plan to deal with ending treaty separatism? This Budget contained no idea whatsoever on that. 
Where was this Budget’s vision for getting more investment in roading? It was nowhere whatsoever and still more of our road taxes will be siphoned off by this Government to pay for every noisy minority group that puts its hand up. 
Any noisy minority will be looked after by Labour but those who are part of mainstream New Zealand will get absolutely nothing because this Budget has no vision for ordinary people and no vision for this country. There is no hope here for the families in the middle who are trying to get ahead. Those are the families who lose out on all the family support payments on the student allowances and on every little thing this Government offers to minority groups. But those people are the backbone of this country. Mainstream families battling to bring up their kids to be self-reliant independent and proud are the people we in the National Party stand with. I can tell the people of New Zealand that when this country has a new Government—in a matter of weeks—people will see that the mainstream has taken back control of this House. The noisy minorities who fill the Labour Party’s electorate committees the noisy minorities whom this Government showers with money will be on the out because mainstream families will be back in control of this country. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 What a dour and depressing contribution that was from the member who just resumed his seat! His depression can well be understood given the pressure that that member and his party are under to come up with even one policy that outlines their vision in their attempt—bold as it may be—to lead this country. I do not think that will happen. 
Mr Ryall could refer only to tax cuts and what we ought to be talking about is what those cuts would actually mean for New Zealanders if they were to occur. They would mean that the 2700 extra teachers we have employed would quite possibly no longer be there. I will come back to the list of shame—frankly that is what it is—should the National Party find itself in the unlikely position of sitting on the Treasury benches after the next election. We would also like to remind ourselves that the dour 1990s matched the member’s dour dour speech. 
The 2005 Budget from Dr Michael Cullen is once again prudent and responsible. It maintains a strong and credible fiscal stance. It is fair and most certainly inclusive. It is helping Kiwis to build a stake in their country and that is building the conditions for growth. That leads to prosperity and that leads to jobs. We are experiencing that situation now with more jobs than one can shake a stick at at the moment. 
We can compare it to how it was not very long ago in the 1990s when through various methods the mean-spirited Government of the day the previous National Government did not assist people certainly not in provincial New Zealand. That has been talked about this afternoon by members on this side of the House—a great reminder. Moana Mackey’s speech summed it up quite perfectly. She gave some examples of the struggle the strain and the stress suffered by people who could have been regarded as being quite hard-core supporters of the Opposition once upon a time. 
Now the Opposition is going through some kind of charade for the upcoming election; it is throwing tax cuts around but neglecting to say what those cuts would actually mean for New Zealanders all over the country—including importantly rural New Zealand. Tax cuts would threaten the 3300 extra nurses we have employed not to mention the hospitals we have built since hopes were dashed in the 1990s under the previous National Government. It would just be despicable frankly to consider that situation at any time in the near future. 
New Zealanders do have a choice; it is the right choice. Under tax cuts from National we could possibly see the 950 extra medical staff we have employed disappear but Labour is trying to build capacity. Our 2005 Budget builds upon the very prudent and careful management that has cleaned up after the tattered 1990s. This Government has had to grapple with some of the grave errors of judgment made during the terrible 1990s under the previous National Government. 
This Government has taken hold of the situation and has brought the country through to the point of this present Budget with great stability and prudent fiscal responsibility. That is what New Zealanders want to see maintained. They want to see initiatives like Working for Families get to work fully because they can see that those initiatives will be of great benefit to them. 
Under the tax cuts promised by the National Party we could possibly see the 1250 extra non-clinical support staff go. I do not think anyone would want to consider that. We could even see the 398 extra social workers at Child Youth and Family Services go. 
Most certainly New Zealanders welcome the rebuilding of the capacity that was gutted during the 1990s. I can testify to that. As a mayor during the 1990s I saw unexpected conditions arise as a result of the absolute viciousness of the Budget of 1991. It stripped many people of dignity. It certainly did not enhance employment. It certainly did not address things like apprenticeships. 
I remind everybody in this House that this Government restored value to workers in trades in this country by restoring value to apprenticeships—unlike the National Party which saw fit to dismiss apprenticeships out of hand. Well New Zealand has responded since this Government brought that initiative back to the fore. It is obvious that apprenticeships are something we are most committed to and we are committed not just to that sphere but to all spheres of training. 
Under a National-led Government and under National’s tax cut proposals the 138 extra probation officers could go. We heard Mr Ryall whingeing on before about crime and such things—but here we are again a Labour-led Government restoring capacity where it was once ripped away by a National Government. 
No this country does not want to see a return to those dark days. They were dour—as dour as Mr Ryall’s speech was. He is no longer sitting there with any kind of smile of happiness on his face from his speech. He is hearing what I say— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for the dinner break. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 When it comes to tertiary education this Budget is an old dog. It is not a vicious killer dog—a pit bull or an angry Rottie. It is more like an old Labrador—the kind of scabby dog that is friendly enough but that slobbers on people’s trousers when they are seated at the table. It is the kind of dog that means people have to wash their hands after they pat it to get rid of the odour and the fur. Unlike last year’s Budget this year’s Budget did not bite tertiary students. Last year the Government scrapped the independent circumstances allowance and savaged the financial position of students who had planned their study programme around access to that allowance. Last year’s Budget was a vicious guard dog protecting the Government’s surplus. It is now well known that despite the promises of the Government that 36000 more students would benefit from the changes to the allowance system in fact fewer students receive a student allowance this year than last year. No this Budget is not like that. It does not bite students—it does not even bark at them. It comes in for a pat but leaves a pungent odour on the hand of the unwary. Then it waddles away to fall asleep by the fireplace dreaming of its past doggy glories when it still had enough puff left to give some chase. 
This Budget does contain a few good initiatives but they are totally marginal. What it provides for tertiary students would be excellent additions to a core package that did something serious about student debt. But there is no core package. There is only garnish; there is no meal here. Like the poor and like the environmentalists students have a right to feel cheated. The Budget offers them froth. Members should not get me wrong—at least the Budget gives students that. A National-led Government would have offered a much more bitter pill—a more measly allowance scheme with even more restricted eligibility and harsher implementation. National would have screwed down spending on tertiary education for our young people—for our future—in order to fund tax cuts for its campaign contributors. As Moana Mackey said tax cuts for National members and their rich friends are at the heart of National’s economic policy. That is why the Greens could not support a Government with the kind of short-sighted exclusive and self-serving approach taken by the current National Party. That is why the Greens have said that we will support Labour to be the Government after the election if we can negotiate an agreeable policy agreement. 
Student support and graduate debt are clearly areas that we take a great deal of interest in. The issue of student debt is enormously important for our country. It is not just an issue for students; it affects many people who have been through the tertiary education system in the last 15 years. In June 2004 the total number of borrowers was 418000—13.2 percent of the population aged 15 years and over. That is a staggering statistic. Further to that student debt affects our whole society. Evidence is growing about the impact of student debt on fertility rates migration rates homeownership the urban concentration of professionals career choice and study choice. 
Student debt is a time bomb for our country. According to a 2004 report from the Ministry of Education the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development forecast gross debt levels will rise from over $7 billion today to $10.5 billion by 2010 $13 billion by 2015 and $15 billion by 2020. The Greens believe that far from being 20/20 it is myopic in the extreme to allow that to continue. That is why the Green Party is advocating a debt write-off scheme for student debt. We say that for every year a person stays in the country and works the equivalent of full time whether in paid work or unpaid work we should wipe the debt accumulated in 1 year of study. 
The most debilitating thing about student debt is that for some people it never ends. Again according to the report I referred to before of those who last borrowed in 1997 only 18 percent had repaid their debt in 2000 and nearly half had a debt that was no smaller in 2000 than it was in 1997. The Government’s focus on average repayment times does not tell the real story for real students. A significant number of people on low incomes will never see an end to their debt under current policies. We believe that there should be an end to debt if people stay in the country and contribute to New Zealand society. Why do we expect people to become social workers nurses or workers in any of the myriad of professions that require tertiary education but that do not recognise that in the pay scales of their practitioners? It amazes me that anyone goes into those fields of work at all. I commend the New Zealanders who continue to study for those professions regardless of the many disincentives because they have a vocation and a real desire to help others. 
A TNS survey conducted for the New Zealand University Students Association found that the greatest impact of debt according to students was on their ability to save for the future buy a house and choose when to go overseas. Around half of those surveyed said that having a loan would affect their relationship with their partner and 28 percent said that it would have an impact on when and whether they had children. Among recent teaching graduates 41 percent considered leaving New Zealand because of debt 60 percent said that their student loan impacted on their study and 30 percent said that having a student loan would influence their decision to have children. Around half the debt was incurred to pay for living costs because of inadequate access to student allowances. Only one-third of full-time students are eligible for an allowance according to the New Zealand University Students Association report of 2004. 
The Greens recognise that the Government has made some small improvements in terms of access to allowances. We have seen adjustments to the parental income threshold and greater recognition in this Budget of the challenges when parents are separated. But we reiterate that the changes do not go anywhere near far enough. We also recognise and acknowledge the moves around the maximum allowable income. We have raised with the Government in this House the issue of how the rules around maximum allowable income are interpreted. We recognise that the threshold has been raised to $180 per week and we welcome that. We would also like a commitment from the Government that the implementation of the regulations will be in line with the Student Allowance Appeal Authority’s repeated decisions which the Ministry of Social Development continues to ignore. As I said the changes do not go far enough. The Greens will continue to call for a universal student allowance for all full-time students a cap on and a reduction in tertiary student fees and a debt write-off scheme year for year. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That this debate be now adjourned 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That th 
is debate be now adjourned. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through its remaining stages of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. 
 The motion is moved in order that the bill can be passed in time for its consequences to be considered in relation to a number of cases at present in front of the courts. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded 
. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 General provisions 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Minister in the chair Rick Barker would be so generous as to take a call to explain exactly what is going on with this bill. What exactly is the deal that has been done on it in order to give to the Government the numbers to pass this piece of window dressing only a few weeks before the country goes to the polls? We know from this bill that prisoners will get to keep some if not all of the payouts they can claim under this Government’s liberal justice system because the bill allows for some of the worst inmates in this country to keep any such prisoner payout. Even though the Government may have moved to put in some sort of sunset clause to attract the support of the Green Party it cannot be denied that criminals will still get to keep some if not all of the cash. 
Let me explain why. If an inmate such as a drug dealer does not have readily identifiable victims there is nobody to make a claim. If victims choose not to make a claim or do not come forward then there is nobody to receive the money. Thirdly if the commission involved does not think the suffering is sufficient for a victim or victims to take the full booty of cash then some of that cash can remain with the inmate. 
This bill is dangerously flawed and seriously misleading. The House is being made a party to a public relations exercise by the outgoing Government in the weeks before the next general election. Through the rest of the evening numerous members from Opposition parties will seek to take a call to explain to the people of this country that this bill should not proceed. The National Party and most of the Opposition parties in this House are agreed on one thing: prisoner payouts should be blocked stopped and wiped. 
There is no justification for prisoners to receive cash from the Government because of imagined wrongs or hurt feelings. In one situation a man who killed a young woman—he also raped her and stuffed pebbles down her throat—received a $1200 compensation cheque from this Government because of hurt feelings. That is an outrage! The only reason the payout is being appealed is that pressure from Opposition parties has forced the Government to act. In another place a payout to four criminals is being contested. Those people will each receive a substantial amount of money but they simply do not deserve or need it and they should not be given it. 
If prison officers have committed offences they should be held personally accountable; there is no reason why public moneys should be paid to some of the worst criminals in this country. We want the Minister to take a call to explain why he justifies those payouts and also to explain to the nation what the deal is that is being done to keep this public relations exercise alive. 
 If the Government has the courage of its convictions and says this is a good bill why are some of its provisions due to expire in 2 years’ time because of the amendments made in the name of Mr Goff the Minister of Justice? I bet he will not participate in this debate so I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call and explain exactly what is going on here what the nature of the deal is what the impact of the amendments on the bill will be and why the Government would agree to a 2-year sunset clause. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Tonight we are seeing an alliance between Labour and the Greens. The country is being exposed to the type of Government we would have if Labour and the Greens were in office. We are seeing legislation that is soft on law and order. We are seeing legislation that is being passed under urgency so that Labour and the Greens can urgently pay out to the most vicious criminals in society their ill-gotten gains while they have been in prison. Labour and the Greens urgently want to give them some money. What a deplorable situation! But that is what we could expect to see in a Labour and Green Government. 
Mr Ryall asked what the deal is between Labour and the Greens. Is it not significant that the deal has been struck with Nandor Tanczos? Even the Greens have demoted him. What would Mr Tanczos want in return for giving his support to the Government? [ 
Interruption 
] That is right I say to Mr Samuels—“put it in your pipe and smoke it.” 
 It is a deal whereby marijuana would be made legal if sometime Labour and the Greens ever got into Government together. It is so obvious. I know that Mr Ryall asked a rhetorical question of the Minister because the answer is just so obvious. We can see that a deal has been struck by Labour and the Greens whereby marijuana will be made legal and if it has not been made legal by 2007—which is why 2007 is the date in the bill—all bets will be off. That is the way in which the Greens want to do business of course. Either the business is done by a certain date or they will pull out their support. That is the way a Labour and Green Government would work and it is obvious that that is what Labour recognises and expects. That is how Labour intends to operate in a coalition-type system. 
The Greens are willing to operate on that basis because it is the only way. Labour is the only party in Parliament that the Greens can see would concede to their requirement to legalise marijuana—despite all the difficulties and health problems down the track that that would cause. So that is clearly why we are here tonight in urgency. United Future was tentatively looking in that direction but tossed Labour aside so Labour is prepared to pick up the Greens to do a deal with them on this issue under urgency. 
It is an eleventh hour measure; it is a desperate measure by this Labour Government. One really cannot understand why any Government would want to hand money over to the most hardened criminals in our society but that is what this bill does. It encourages criminals when they go to jail to misbehave because if they misbehave they have a chance of getting some money. That is what this bill is about. If a criminal misbehaves that criminal will get some money. That is what this bill says. Those people naturally will misbehave but now they will make the life of prison guards even harder—harder than ever before. 
New Zealand First has a number of amendments to this legislation and we want to make sure that any money lawfully obtained by prisoners who are entitled to exercise their claims in court is kept in the victims’ claims trust account and it is there for the benefit only of the victims of crimes in New Zealand. We were told in the select committee that about $51 million worth of reparation is due to victims. Anything that can be obtained under this bill would be worthwhile for those victims but the amount would never reach $51 million. We want to see that the balance of any money that comes through out of this legislation after the immediate victims have been compensated the legal aid funds have been compensated and suchlike goes only to a victims’ claims account that only victims of various crimes can possibly make claims on that money and that at no stage can those hardened criminals be encouraged to make the life of prison officers hell. That is what this bill will do. Those criminals will taunt tease and make life absolutely impossible for prison officers because we know human nature being what it is that the prison officers will break. They will just not be able to help it. They have to be tough to be in prison so their immediate response will be to respond to that disgraceful behaviour—the behaviour that Labour and the Green Party are supporting by way of the culture that will now develop in our prisons. 
It is so obvious. It is hard to believe that any party in Government could responsibly support this legislation and could even promote this legislation but that is what Labour and the Greens are doing. I can believe that the Greens are doing it; they will do just about anything in their hope to have marijuana made legal. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to debate this important bill which has been hastily put before Parliament and hastily put before the people of New Zealand as an affront to all victims up and down the country. This bill started out with a reasoned proposition which was: how do we stop prevent or circumvent the very real possibility that inmates can have any access to any compensation at all? Everybody who took part in the select committee process wanted to see a way around that. We heard time and time again from victims who made the effort to come to the Justice and Electoral Committee. By coming to the committee they had to relive their own victimhood sometimes with broken stories about their lives at the other end of very serious offending. They told us they want no part of an ongoing relationship financial or otherwise with inmates. Yet this bill forces them to do just that. 
Victims do not want to see the perpetrators of violent crimes against them profit from going to prison as a result those crimes. That is clear for all to see. I noticed in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 newspaper today a headline that states: “Appeal Court warns that prisoner compo being ‘embarrassing’ is no reason to reject it”. That is actually not true. The fact that it is embarrassing is every reason to reject it. It is embarrassing on behalf of victims it is embarrassing on behalf of anybody who pretends to feel for justice in this country and it is embarrassing that a person can profit from committing violence against another person. Nobody including the victims wants to have barbarity in prisons but there is a helluva difference between recognising those who perpetrate a barbarity in prison—the prison guards—and holding them to account for what they have done and allowing the inmates to profit as a result of crime which is what landed them in prison in the first place. It is an affront to victims in this country. 
We thought that everybody had an open mind as to how to deal with this issue and I understand the problems the Government had. The Minister of Justice also has the problem of being the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He thinks he has to uphold international accords that contradict the imperatives of our own sense of justice in our own country. So I understand the predicament the Government is in even though I disagree with it—and there will be more on that later on as the debate progresses—but it is utterly scurrilous to have the Greens tails between their legs scurrying along to try to find national relevance because they are irrelevant. They always have been irrelevant especially over the last 3 years and they are irrelevant now. They are not fighting on behalf of victims in this country; they have turned their backs on those victims. They are in favour of the offenders and the support they now show for this bill clearly shows that. They are in favour of offenders over the interests of victims. Their true colours are there for everyone to see. 
Mr Tanczos can sit there and grin or laugh at the plight of victims up and down this country but he fails to understand the fact that through this bill inmates will still be able to collect some money and that is actually against the human rights of the victims. It hurts victims and it puts them in a more invidious position. If victims want to take money off those offenders they now have to enter into an economic and legal relationship to try to do that. What sense of justice is there for them? Why is it that the offenders against those victims can have recompense in money financial gain whereas the victims they offend against can have none? Accident compensation barely covers the costs of their wounds but there is nothing for the wounds that will go on for the rest of their lives and hurt their families and themselves. This bill is a travesty and the Greens are scurrilous dogs for supporting it. They are utterly irrelevant to justice. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sure it must be out of order to call the Greens “scurrilous dogs”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is out of order. Parties should be treated the same as members. The member will please withdraw and apologise. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I withdraw and apologise. In order for the big cheese of Labour to be able to put this bill this issue to rest Labour has the Greens scurrying along like mice to try to put the bill to bed. They will not; we will not let them. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 It was most interesting to hear Mr Jones make his speech. That member must have been asleep for the past few years if he thinks that this bill is being passed by Parliament in order to allow prisoners to claim compensation against the Department of Corrections. Perhaps the member did not realise that there is a case in the Court of Appeal this week about that. The case has already been through the High Court but maybe the member did not realise that that was already happening. This bill is actually about freezing any compensation granted to inmates and making it available to their victims. Then proving that he has totally lost his grip on reality Dail Jones suggested that the matter has something to do with cannabis. The member sees cannabis everywhere even in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. I think that it really is time the member retired. He had gone he has been resurrected and it is time for him to go again. 
Then Marc Alexander stood up and threw a tizzy because he had tried to throw his weight around and it had not worked. He is most upset. That is the real answer to Mr Ryall’s question. I will tell the Committee how this situation came about. United Future members had been supporting this bill until recently but they decided to withdraw support and throw their weight around. Their demands became more and more extreme. They started to make increasingly bizarre threats to the Government during the bill’s second reading. I do not know whether other members here remember that but none of us could quite figure out what those United Future members were on about. 
So in desperation the Government has turned to the Greens. Our opposition to this bill is on record. We have said that it may breach international conventions. Unlike some parties we do believe that New Zealand should honour its international agreements. We do believe that we as a country should keep our word. We do believe that international conventions are important and that the standing of New Zealand in the eyes of the international community is important and we do not agree that international conventions should not apply to us. That road leads to Guantanamo Bay; it is the view of the Bush administration on international conventions. The Green Party does not hold that view although United Future New Zealand First and the National Party may. 
We have agreed to support this bill for four very good reasons. The first is that the bill would have been made considerably worse if the Government had had to rely on accepting United Future amendments in order to pass it because United Future members have consistently demonstrated that they have very little ability to make rational amendments. Their position on this bill particularly is quite outside the bounds of what is acceptable in a country that gives any consideration to the rule of law. 
The second reason is that in return for Green support the Government has agreed to an independent prison inspectorate. The Justice and Electoral Committee supported that idea and members of this Parliament have supported it. It is something that the Greens have been consistent in campaigning for and finally we now have it locked down. This country will have an independent prison inspectorate as a result of the Green Party’s actions. The third reason is that there is a sunset clause on all measures in the bill except those concerning the suspension of limitations—because we do not believe that this bill is the best means of addressing that situation. We believe that it is right that the legislation should come to an end after a period of time—that is in 2007 as Supplementary Order Paper 374 states. 
The last reason is that the Government has agreed also to an inquiry into victims’ rights victims’ compensation and the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The Justice and Electoral Committee said that we should have such an inquiry but the committee is unable to make binding promises for the next term of Parliament. After the election any promises made by the select committee about an inquiry will disappear. The Greens have locked down a cast-iron guarantee that there will be an inquiry into victims’ rights victims’ compensation and the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The Green Party is very proud of that. We have done something about victims’ rights that United Future has not been able to do. For all their grand words posturing and claims to be standing up for victims’ rights those members have actually done nothing for victims’ rights. The only thing that they claim to have achieved for victims’ rights is the Victims’ Rights Act which was already due to come before this Parliament before Marc Alexander was even a member. So his impact has been irrelevant in that regard. The Greens are proud that we are to have an inquiry into the rights of victims and we are proud of the achievements we have managed to negotiate through our support for this bill. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to take a few moments to talk to the Committee about the changes the Government has brought to this bill and the circumstances surrounding those changes. The Government is moving to pass the remaining stages of this bill under urgency to deal effectively with the significant concerns the public have about prisoners receiving compensation payments for the wrongs afflicted on them in prison. The Government is concerned to ensure that this bill is passed and it thanks the Green Party for its support and cooperation in helping with that. 
The passage of this bill will mean that existing cases before the court and foreshadowed will be captured by this legislation. The payments awarded to Christopher Taunoa and others which sparked the public concern last year are currently under appeal. But if those payments are upheld by the court this bill will ensure that that money will be held in trust rather than handed over. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but perhaps the microphone is not up loud enough. We are having difficulty hearing him. My apologies for the interruption of the debate but we cannot hear from back here. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: As I can hear my voice echoing off the Chamber walls I suggest that the members of the National Party to my left stop chattering and listen and then they would hear. 
Stephen Franks 
: Although I am well away from there I was also having trouble hearing. It sounded like distortion and it was very hard to understand what the Minister was saying.  
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Can we all hear now? OK. The point I was making before the interruption was that a number of payments are under consideration at the moment. Quite contrary to the point made by Mr Jones this legislation if passed will ensure that those payments that have currently been awarded by the court will be captured by this legislation. That point is quite contrary to Mr Jones’ assertion and I want to make sure that that point is clear. 
This bill establishes a special procedures claim that will assist victims of offenders to exercise their rights in making a civil claim because as Mr Jones and others well know people can currently make civil claims for damages against those who have committed crimes against them. This bill will ensure that where payments are made in those cases they will go towards paying offenders’ fines and reparation payments where those are outstanding. But this bill will also ensure that the statute of limitations currently in place will be extended so that where the limit for hearings is normally 6 years victims’ claims can be heard well past that time. 
The bill will ensure that the process is simplified that it is legally aided and that those people who do not want to confront the offender again will not be required to do so which picks up the concern that Mr Alexander and others have expressed. However if victims do wish to participate personally in the process another organisation or person can help them file a claim etc. So this bill is making the system as friendly as possible. 
The lawyer in the Taunoa case Tony Ellis has been reported as saying that he intends to file another 200 cases and that about 40 of those have already been filed. So there is some sense of urgency to do something about this matter. Those cases and any future cases will be subject to guidelines that will greatly restrict the circumstances in which monetary compensation can be paid. 
In future prisoners will have to demonstrate that they have tried to use the prison complaints system to try to resolve their grievances at the earliest opportunity before the matter escalates to the use of the court system. They will also have to satisfy the requirement that the non-monetary remedy would be insufficient to address their concerns. Despite those restrictions any future payments ordered will be subject to the new trust and to the victims’ special claims procedure. 
The Government has agreed to the suggestion of the Greens that the passage of this bill be followed by legislation to establish a new independent police complaints authority. That was suggested by the Justice and Electoral Committee and it was a very good suggestion. [ 
Interruption 
] It is very difficult—there were complaints from members about not being able to hear but I cannot even hear myself. 
Preventing the grounds for compensation is in fact the best way to avoid having to make compensation payments in the future. While the new Corrections Act and associated regulations have to a degree significantly improved the situation the establishment of the new independent prison complaints authority will be a very good step and an additional assurance that I am sure all would agree with. Legislation establishing that new body will be passed by 2006. 
The bill deals effectively with the currently expected claims that have caused public concern. The number of any new complaints or likely future payouts will in our view be likely to fall dramatically. For that reason the sunset clause inserted by the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 374 into the bill will effectively wind down the special claims procedure in the new period after the new body has been established. The procedure will therefore apply only to those claims lodged by prisoners prior to 1 July 2007. 
The sunset clause will ensure that guidelines restricting the circumstances under which compensation payments are made will be reviewed and be made permanent. The Greens have raised questions with us about the practical application of some aspects of those guidelines. The Government expects that the guidelines will benefit from future review in the light of experience to the point that they might be amended or renewed. For example the legislation will establish the new independent prison complaints body and the sunset clause ensures that the review will take place at the same time in a broad framework. 
 Most New Zealanders find it abhorrent when prisoners are awarded compensation payments for wrongs they have suffered in prison when those prisoners frequently never pay any compensation to their victims for the harm they have inflicted. The Government remains firmly of the view that the measures in this bill are the best way to deal with cases where prisoners may be awarded compensation by the courts. The Justice and Electoral Committee having considered the issue in detail also came to the same essential conclusion. 
The select committee has recommended that there be an inquiry into the support available for victims of serious crime and the place of victims in the justice system. The Greens have expressed their strong desire for such an inquiry and the Government has agreed that the inquiry will take place. That again I am sure the Committee will all agree is a very good step forward. 
Of course there is the usual simplistic chorus from the Opposition that payments should be reversed wiped blocked or never made regardless of the circumstances that might have given rise to the claims. The Government’s legal advice confirms that ruling out any possibility of monetary compensation would clearly put us in breach of international law. None of the countries that we compare ourselves with such as the UK Canada Australia the United States and the European Union countries rule out monetary compensation for prisoners if the circumstances demand it. I just restate for members that the legal advice and the advice from all other people—despite the chorus from the Opposition—is that no other country with which we compare ourselves rules out the possibility of compensation if the circumstances demand it. While parties such as the National Party make strident statements in the luxury of knowing they will never have to deliver we consider that no responsible Government would deliberately legislate to put ourselves in breach of international law. To do so would seriously undermine our international credibility. 
National’s record in Government after all stands in stark contrast to its current statements. The case known as the  
Baigent 
 case in 1994 established in New Zealand law the provision that compensation could be paid for breaches of human rights. The National Government explicitly declined to legislate in order to overturn that precedent. That is in stark contrast to the utterings of the National Party now in Opposition. [ 
Interruption 
] That was of course the National Government in which Tony Ryall was a Minister and it is a bit rich for the former Minister the Hon Tony Ryall to now come with his National Party colleagues and express outrage at what the courts did. 
Darren Hughes 
: Crocodile tears! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: My colleague over here says they are “crocodile tears”. Tony Ryall had the chance when the issue was raised but did nothing about it. National went to the Law Commission and asked the commission for its advice and the— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Your nose is growing! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take exception to the comment made by Mr Ryall. I insist that he withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just remind members that interjections are obviously OK but the barraging is not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We fully accept that interjections should be rare and reasonable and as Mr Braybrooke used to say if possible witty. However when a Minister takes up the Committee’s time—and we know that the Government has some cooked-up deal about how long it will be before various members on its benches will leap to their feet to take closure motions—with straight-out political attacks of course you will then get the sort of response that was just forthcoming from this side. It was not excessive given the extreme nature of the allegations the Minister was attempting to put across. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That was not a point of order. The point is that since the debate began there has been considerable politicking from both sides but I most certainly remind members again that the barraging is not acceptable. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: As I was saying before it is absolutely a matter of record that a court awarded compensation in a case commonly known as the  
Baigent 
 case—compensation for ill-treatment in prison—and the National Party did nothing. It went to the Law Commission for advice and it chose to accept that. That party did nothing. Now we have a similar situation and the National Party is expressing outrage so I want to make it absolutely clear that the National Party from 1994 to 1999 had 5 years to pass legislation—and it did nothing. 
Marc Alexander 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am having a bit of difficulty following why it is that we are being given smoke and mirrors about something that might have happened sometime in the past and is not at all relevant to what is before us now. One cannot defend the bill by going after somebody else. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows very well that that is not a point of order; it is a debatable point. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The point about this bill is firstly that the issue of public concern has been raised and this Government has acted. It has a bill that will go through the House and deal with the compensation payments in a way that will not take away from those people their human rights to be able to lodge a claim before the court. The bill will set out the hierarchy of the issues that are to be taken into account and everybody agrees with the victims of crime that if there is to be compensation then the victims should get it first. I am sure everybody in the Committee would agree with that. 
Secondly as a result of this legislation we are going to establish an independent prisons authority to check on our prisons. Thirdly we are going to establish an inquiry about the rights of victims and the place for victims in the justice system. Those are three very good initiatives; I am surprised that anybody in this Committee would object to them. This legislation is good stuff. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I thought in fact it was relevant that the Associate Minister of Justice was arguing that time was significant in what had and had not been done 5 or 10 years or whatever in the past. But time is significant. The main reason for the heat around this first part of the Committee stage on this bill is not about the utterly mild anodyne or unexceptionable provisions of this bill—it is that the bill does not even start to achieve what the Associate Minister said it would achieve. The bill does not even start to achieve what people were demanding all through September and October last year. 
When we think about the time involved I just want to remind the Associate Minister now that we are in urgency tonight that the hearings on this case were in October and November of 2003 and February and March of 2004. That is when the Government became fully aware of the arguments of Mr Ellis and others on behalf of those prisoners. The judgment of Justice Young was given on 7 April 2004. He set out his reasoning in full. It is true that at that stage he had not calculated damages. Apparently the Government then did nothing until much later in the year when the damages award was given. And still it did nothing. 
By September when Mr Ellis was mentioning the hundreds of future cases to come I produced a bill that would attempt to do what the Associate Minister claims this one is doing—that is to stop the outrage of the grave offence to the victims of those criminals. The victims cannot claim compensation for the injury done to them because of the accident compensation scheme while their attackers—the people who had injured them—are claiming amounts that the victims would not even dream they would get. We produced that bill in September and still the Minister of Justice dithered. There was still obfuscation in Parliament about what the Minister would do and when he would do it. 
Finally there was a statement about what the Minister would do when he did introduce the bill—in late October as I recall. Then there was another delay. 
Quite frankly when the bill was finally introduced and people had a chance to look at it I think the media had got bored of it. I think that was the calculation of the Minister because he knew that he was not going to deliver what the people of New Zealand wanted or what the victims wanted. Throughout that time and throughout the time since when the select committee was looking at this bill this calculating Government was relying on the fact that the media had lost interest in the underlying issue. 
Well it is a shame that the bill has come back and has to be dealt with now right when the case is before the Court of Appeal. Because I think the Government will not get away with this. It might be rescued by the Court of Appeal but Tony Ellis is a very diligent lawyer for his clients. He believes in what he is doing. I honour him for what he puts into the cases. I disagree with the outcomes and I disagree with his convictions but he is doing his job properly—unlike this Government. 
This Government did not even represent the people of New Zealand properly before Justice Young. Nowhere in Justice Young’s judgment did I see that anyone made a proper defence of the behaviour management regime. We had to wait until we were in the select committee to get some timorous but quite unmistakable defence by the Department of Corrections of what had been done and an admission that as the department had been forced to “give up” on that regime it had nothing to replace it for the worst offenders. 
We have had a complete abdication of responsibility by the Government. Now it has gone to the Greens and is bringing in its “cure” for the intense outrage—and it expires in 2 years’ time. Why does it expire? I have not heard anything from the Associate Minister on why it expires. What is so horrific about it? When I read the bill there is nothing actually very wrong with it except that it purports to be something that it is not. But what it is is very mild. 
I see that half a million dollars is set aside in the Budget to run this tribunal. I would think that most of that will be used up in writing letters to people telling them why what they thought was going to be a compensation regime does not work. But there is nothing really odious about what is being done. The bill is telling prisoners they must go through the official channels first. They have to exhaust all their remedies within the prison disciplinary system before they can go to the courts and apply for human rights breaches. Then it says that if they do get something it has to be held to see whether there is a victim’s claim. The odious part of it is that after all this time it is pretending to be something it is not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 If ever a bill before the House showed just how out of touch the Labour Party is with ordinary New Zealanders this would be it. Ordinary New Zealanders have expressed outrage at the idea that someone in a prison who gets in a tangle with the authorities responsible for his or her incarceration should somehow be able to go to a court and get a monetary payment for hurt feelings or for other damage. It is just abhorrent. I point out to the Minister that we live in a country where sadly a violent crime is committed every 9 minutes. So why are we taking the time of the Parliament to look after the interests of prisoners who might get on the wrong side of their keepers when we are doing nothing for the victims of crime? That is the outrage that New Zealanders will be expressing when they hear what this bill is about. It does not surprise me that the Greens are supporting the bill. The Greens of course are a very confused group of people as evidenced by the performance of their leader earlier this week and the claim today that they are campaigning to get the votes of prisoners—who of course cannot cast a vote! 
I want to read out something from the commentary on the bill because it is worth listening to under the heading: “The place of victims in the criminal justice system—the need for further inquiry”. It states: “Many of the submissions”—to the select committee—“focused on the effect on victims and their families of very serious violent crime. The focus of victims who submitted on this bill was largely on ensuring the outcome reflected the hurt done to them which they argued was not necessarily achieved by monetary compensation. At the same time a number of submitters referred to overseas models of government-funded compensation that did not require the victims to take any direct action against the offender.” So having heard all of this from victims the select committee went on to state: “We have concluded that further work needs to be done and we consider it is appropriate to think about the next stage in the agenda that included the Victims’ Rights Act 2002.”—at some future time. So here is a bill to sort out the rights of criminals! If ever there was an example of getting the boot on the wrong foot this bill is it. 
I challenge the Minister about the outrageous statement he made earlier about New Zealand having to comply with international conventions. It is a load of rubbish. There are international conventions all over the place that this country does not comply with. So why on earth do we have to comply in this case? Why do we have to say that our system has to line up against many countries that we would not want to compare ourselves with? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Oh Australia? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister says: “Oh Australia?”. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Canada? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He can name all these countries but there will be dozens in that list that are absolute shockers. We have seen plenty of pictures of conditions in Bali jails on our television screens in recent days. 
I want him to tell us exactly what the legal advice was because the committee report does not talk about it in a specific way. It simply states that it would “likely be inconsistent”; it “could be inconsistent”; it “might be inconsistent”. Well where is this compelling legal advice that is making the Government act on behalf of criminals before victims? I remind the Minister that from time to time courts get things wrong courts make mistakes. It is the job of Parliament to fix those mistakes to correct the court’s view of things according to the way the citizens of this country see it. This bill does not do that. This bill is upholding the decision made by a judge and is then simply setting a few little things around the edges of it that determine how the judge’s decision is to be implemented. It completely denies the fact that the victims of violent crime carry the scars of those attacks those violations and those other wrongdoings for the rest of their lives. We have time taken up tonight urgency taken in Parliament to make sure that some prisoner who has hurt feelings gets his dollars. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be opposing the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. We want to rename this bill the “Screw the Screws Bill” and I am sure that most Kiwis throughout New Zealand would relate to that new title. It is what the bill is all about. It is about ways in which a prisoner can make a claim against a prison officer or the Department of Corrections and get compensation. 
This bill rings a bell; it sounds like those bills that have to have “regard for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. This is just another gravy train for politically correct lawyers. I can see that sort of thing happening right down the line with this bill. No funds should be made available to criminals. They do the crime and they do the time. Most New Zealanders will relate to that principle very very easily. If one listened to Radio Pacific and the talkback shows when this compensation was mooted and out in the media one would know that the people of New Zealand went absolutely mad. Why should this Government be settling on this bill? 
This does not mean that prisoners should be ill-treated while in prison but neither does it mean that their human rights should suddenly become much more significant than the rights of victims who in most cases were murdered. I am really surprised at the Greens’ attitude towards this bill. Quite frankly this is the dead-end for the Greens because they are supporting this bill on the basis of human rights. But human rights were taken away from the victims. Prisoners are trying to get compensation and the Greens are supporting this bill from the aspect of prisoners’ human rights. Quite frankly I am disgusted that the Greens are now the doormats for Labour to get this bill through. 
Those rights are set out in the international United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But what about the victims of those criminal heinous crimes? Several Mangaroa prisoners some years ago were paid compensation on the grounds that they were ill treated. But the interesting part about that whole claim was that there was no mention of Mr Hati Kaiwai the prison officer who was so badly beaten that his assailants stacked mattresses on top of him and left him for dead. What did he get? As a colleague from National has said he got nothing. That is what he got—zero for the beating and the scars he will bear for the rest of his life. 
There is also the case of Mr William Bell—and I am sorry to call him “Mr”; he is a scumbag—who was involved in the brutal murders at the Mount Wellington - Panmure RSA. He murdered one of the RSA members—someone who had fought for Bell’s right to live in this country and for the rights of all New Zealanders to be part of this community. Who met his end at the hands of a criminal on parole? Again in the paper recently we read that Mrs Couch is suffering the effects of being brutally beaten and shotgun whipped by that scumbag. She is having problems in trying to get help from the Accident Compensation Corporation. As Mr Brownlee said where is the help for the victim? Zero—again. 
I am sure that all New Zealanders listening to this debate tonight will be thinking: “What a lot of drivel from the Greens and what a disgusting bill from Labour.” I advise that Sam Te Hei who cold-bloodedly murdered Colleen Burrows in 1987 is now seeking compensation for a breach of human rights—an act that the Greens are supporting—and would get to keep the money. As we have heard tonight the money should not be paid out to the criminals but put into a fund and at the end of the day the victims should receive it not the criminals. Mrs Ida Hawkins mother of Colleen Burrows has said that Te Hei now wants human rights. As I mentioned earlier in my speech his rights were extinguished when he went to prison. Mrs Hawkins said that human rights are for human beings. Te Hei is a disgrace to Maoridom. He is not a human being. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 The Labour Government might think that dealing with this bill in this particular way under urgency puts it to bed and takes it away from being an election year issue. It will not because there are a number of parties here that will keep this issue alive. Not only will a number of parties here keep it in the public domain but the victims will also keep it alive. The Sensible Sentencing Trust and Victim Support will keep it alive—and there is a reason why. This bill is a huge injustice. It is a slap in the face for all victims in this country. 
The one inescapable fact is that the very act of an inmate being able to secure a financial windfall supposedly to support his or her human rights is at once a human rights violation against the victim. There is no escaping that—the point being that when we are balancing the human rights of both offender and victim they are in an inescapable relationship with each other for life from the very moment the offence took place. Anything that benefits the inmate by necessity will be a deficit to the victim. There is no getting around that. The problem this Government faces is that it is passing a bill with the Greens’ help that is championing the human rights of the offender against the human rights of the victim. 
The public will not be fooled; the Sensible Sentencing Trust will not be fooled; Victim Support will not be fooled; National will not be fooled; New Zealand First will not be fooled; ACT will not be fooled; and neither will we. The only people who seem to be fooled are the Greens. Well the Greens’ actions we can explain away. They probably thought they could get the votes of those people in the prisons. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yeah! 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Well they will not. The other point that needs to be looked at—and it is something that the Hon Rick Barker talked about at some length—is the potential violation of international law. That is an absolute nonsense. As Gerry Brownlee pointed out it is only a “might be”; it is only a “maybe”. But even more important than that is this crucial question: is Parliament sovereign or not? The laws of this country must come from this Parliament nowhere else. Some pillock can go off and sign whatever international accord he wants but unless it is ratified by this Parliament it should not be a law of the land. Justice for our own people justice for the victims of this country must supersede the interests of the arrogance of some foreign affairs Minister darting about the world signing this or that accord. 
There is no reason to assume that an international accord should have precedence over New Zealand justice. In the end that is what this is really about. I think that what is forgotten here is that this Government is not the boss. This Government is not at the top of the heap. This Government like all of us is an employee of the people of New Zealand. We are employees of the very victims we are supposed to be caring about yet this Government arrogantly puts the interests of the offender first—ahead of the interests of all people who love justice in this country and ahead of all those people who are supposed to be doing something about the victims of this country. 
People will not be fooled by this. It is a subterfuge. It is a sly attempt to get this issue out of the way before the election proper starts. This Government knows that it will be tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion for this bill. Nobody will be fooled or duped by it. This is a cynical bill that attempts to put the interests of the Government’s re-election process ahead of anybody else’s interests. It is one of the reasons why nobody in this Parliament wants to support it and I daresay that many Labour members themselves probably want to walk away from it. It is beyond me that the Greens in order to get a headline and gain any kind of relevance whatsoever have run along like little cocker spaniels to support their hopeful future masters and support this bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I shall turn to a couple of points raised by the Minister in his speech. He compared us with Australia. Well let me tell the Minister that in Australia victims get decent compensation. I know that for a fact. My sister suffered an assault in New South Wales—quite a serious assault—and she got worthwhile compensation from the state of New South Wales which I might add has lower taxes than New Zealand. So it is an issue of choice is it not? This Government would sooner spend $250 million on wananga and hip-hop tours and the like and it ignores the rights of victims. What is the Government’s promise? It has made some sort of deal with the Green Party which I could impolitely call the “Dope Dealers Party” and— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is outrageous. I request that the member withdraw that comment and apologise. It is totally outrageous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has taken offence. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I just referred to a party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I withdraw and apologise. It is on record of course that certain members of the Green Party advocate the legalisation of marijuana. Furthermore some of them have admitted using marijuana. That is the reality and no one in that party can deny that fact. 
I return to the issue of Australia. That is a clear choice. What is the deal it has done with the party that advocates the legalisation of marijuana? Has there been some kind of study into the rights of victims? In the meantime we have the wananga which has lost millions of dollars. 
The second point he raised was international law. I heard a discussion today on this issue and for some reason the Government thinks that it can comply with conventions only provided there is a monetary compensation regime. That is false. I am one of those people who believe very strongly in the adherence to international law. I believe in the various covenants and conventions that the Government has entered into. 
They do not require monetary compensation. Certainly they require remedies. In fact National has proposed precisely that in its minority report and that is an inspectorate of prisons where proper complaints can be made in cases of abuse. It is in our minority report if only the person would actually note that. So it is a question of providing a remedy. 
There is no case for monetary compensation because the distorted approach the Government and the Greens have—and it was rather well put by Marc Alexander—is to in an absurd and unreasonable way tie the victim to the capriciousness of the offender suing. Who is the type of offender who is actually likely to sue? We have the case of one of the worst murderers in New Zealand Christopher Taunoa. He is a brutal man subject to the behaviour management regime. He is the sort of person who gets disciplined within prisons. That is what initiated the claim. The Government put up some wimpy half-hearted defence in the courts and indeed I understand in the select committee to defend that regime. If it had done it properly he would not have got any compensation. Frankly a man like that with all the problems he had and caused in jail—he is one of the most difficult prisoners in New Zealand—would not have succeeded in his claim. It was a failing in the Crown case in the courts. 
National is outraged on behalf of victims at this frankly pathetic bill. It is pathetic because it does not do what it should do. It should ban monetary compensation to criminals. The Government has failed to do what it should do which is to provide a decent compensation regime for victims. There are real choices when one is sorting out priorities for Government expenditure. Surely innocent victims who suffer lifelong injuries should receive proper compensation for the hurt and injury. The accident compensation regime is in many cases simply not adequate or appropriate. In many cases it depends on having earnings. So the accident compensation regime is insufficient. There needs to be a special regime for victims. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I would like to pose a question to the Minister in the hope that he may answer it. About 150 metres away from here is the Court of Appeal in Molesworth Street. Effectively it is our final appellate court because the Supreme Court is accessible only by leave. In the last 2 days the Court of Appeal has been hearing the case that has established the so-called mischief that this Government seeks to deal with in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. It is bad practice and bad policy for the Government to seek to pre-empt whatever decision the Court of Appeal may make. 
Let me put this proposition to the Minister. One of the fundamental issues in the Court of Appeal case is whether the High Court was right in allowing the damages awards to be made. What will happen if in the next few days the Court of Appeal states that the High Court was wrong and that those damages awards should not have been made at all? This legislation will then have achieved no purpose because there will be no mischief at all to deal with. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that that will happen. This Government—in my view incredibly unwisely—has tried to head off and pre-empt the decision of the Court of Appeal by putting Parliament into urgency. 
The doctrine of the separation of powers based on what Montesquieu said—which the Minister may well be familiar with—states that government has three elements: the legislature the executive and the judiciary. This Government has plunged Parliament into urgency in order to cross a very clear constitutional threshold that it should never cross. It is quite acceptable for Parliament in the exercise of its sovereign powers to reverse decisions of the courts. That has been done on a number of occasions. But we are not talking about that in this case. We are talking about this Government pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make an effective decision in respect of the issues that are before it. That is constitutionally reprehensible. 
I was interested to hear the Minister say that what is going on in the Court of Appeal with regard to the decision currently under appeal would be “captured by the legislation”. He has not exactly spelt out what he means by “captured by the legislation” but one assumes that he is talking about the very issue about which I have underscored a concern: that Parliament in this instance is trespassing on judicial process. So the Minister should tread very carefully as he advances this bill. 
A number of members have spoken about issues relating to international treaties. Here again the Minister has been misled by his advisers. I would like to talk about the issue of international obligations for a moment. In National’s minority report on this bill we touch on that issue very directly. I believe that the officials who have advised the Minister have given him wrong advice—advice that he may come to rue. New Zealand is of course a party to a number of international human rights treaties that have been considered in the process of developing the bill. These treaties embody commitments that are binding at international law. The executive has the power and the authority to undertake foreign relations and as part of this to negotiate and enter into treaties. Where legislative action is required to give effect to obligations assumed under a treaty that legislation has to be passed by Parliament before New Zealand becomes a party to the treaty. So it is that we signed the international Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We did that on 14 January 1986 and in accordance with our treaty obligations we ratified it on 10 December 1989. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to explain why we will be voting for this bill. I think at the heart of it is that we support human rights. That seems to be a concern to some of the other members here but we support everyone’s human rights. We support the human rights of members of Parliament prisoners’ human rights and victims’ human rights. We are obliged to do that as the last speaker has indicated by international conventions such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which he has just mentioned and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which Edwin Perry mentioned and the other conventions that require us to give redress for harm done by the State to any citizen including people in prisons. This redress does not have an exclusion. There is nothing in these international conventions that states: “and not financial redress”. That is part of it. 
One of the things about a person in prison is that the forms of redress are somewhat limited by virtue of the fact that the person is in prison. We could let them out. 
Marc Alexander 
: They are supposed to be there. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I think Mr Alexander who has interjected might be a bit upset if that were a form of redress. One of the other ways is to give them financial redress which is not actually a lot of use to a person in jail but it does go some way to accommodating the mistreatment. We do see problems in this bill in that under the provisions in some cases the whole of the compensation could disappear as a result of a claim and that could be a disincentive for prisoners taking claims for mistreatment. It is not just a problem for the prisoner whose human rights we should identify with. If we want to have a disincentive for the State persecuting any citizen including those in prisons we have to have a penalty on the State. That is part of the justice system in New Zealand and internationally. 
I object to the idea expressed I think by Edwin Perry that when people go to jail they lose all their human rights. He quoted a friend of his who said that. To not identify with a human being when he or she is being mistreated to treat that person as some sort of beyond-the-pale person we cannot identify with in any way is exactly the psychology of the offender. The people who brutally killed those two old people the other day presumably were thinking that way—“We don’t identify with that old man and woman. They are not human beings. We can kill them.” That is the psychology of the offender and unfortunately that is the psychology I hear around me in this Chamber tonight from the people who are interjecting. They are being as bad in some ways as those violent criminals. 
The other concept of justice that the Greens promote—restorative justice—is the opposite. It sees both the offender and the victim as human beings and tries to get them to see each other as human beings. It also tries to get the prisoner to show genuine remorse and thereby rehabilitate himself or herself and be less likely to commit more crimes. If we are really concerned with victims we have to stop the rates of reoffending—stop people committing more crimes. We are supporting this bill not because it is a good bill; we think it is a bad bill. But if United Future had had its way it would be a terrible bill. It would not have had a sunset clause. When I say it is a bad bill I say though that it does have some good features that Nandor Tanczos will be talking about later in terms of some benefits for victims. People are saying that Victim Support is against this bill. I was on the select committee when Victim Support came and said that it was totally against this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I will take a United Future speaker because United Future has over 30 amendments and I think we should hear from the United Future members. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. By my reckoning this will be the third speech from a United Future member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: You are exactly right. 
Peter Brown 
: There have been three New Zealand First speakers and we are a much bigger party than United Future. Come the next election we are going to be even bigger. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: New Zealand First is indeed a bigger party. I am conscious of that but I call Mr Adams. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 New Zealand First may be a bigger party than United Future at present but that will shortly change. I rise on behalf of United Future which is not supporting this bill. It was very interesting to hear Keith Locke. I think that as close as this is to an election both the Labour Party and the Green Party have seriously misread public opinion not only on this bill but on a number of issues. I think the members of those parties should be very very concerned. Keith Locke has said that we have to consider human rights. I do not think anybody would disagree with that statement but let us get real about what we are dealing with. We are dealing with prisoners—people who have been put away for committing some horrendous crimes as we have already heard tonight. Then all of a sudden prisoners have been mistreated and they are seeking compensation. Their victims will have to go through all the drama and all the emotions of confronting those people again if they are to try to get any claim on the monies that are being paid to prisoners. 
But let us take this issue one step further. If prisoners whom the State is responsible for looking after have their human rights violated what is to stop two prisoners both in prison from all of a sudden staging a set-up whereby one prisoner would fight another prisoner and then say his or her human rights had been violated? Those prisoners would go through a court case be paid out a large amount of compensation and then share the takings between themselves. That happens once we set a precedent for something. Nobody whom I know of would argue that prisoners should not be looked after correctly in prison; all those things we would agree with. But once we start to bring financial payments into any type of situation unfortunately because of human nature we go across a different line. 
I think Marc Alexander has done a tremendous job in this term of Parliament. He has brought victims’ rights before people. Everybody is now beginning to appreciate those rights and to gain a little understanding of what those poor people have had to put up with and to go through. People can see the effect that victims’ experiences have had on themselves their families and their friends and can see what victims have had to go through in court cases and many other things. Now all of a sudden we are bringing in legislation that states that if victims want to have any part of a financial payment to a prisoner they have to go through a legal process again. They will have to go through all the drama and have to face the offender. 
If we are talking about human rights we are talking about two lots of people. There is a prisoner who has been locked away because he or she has failed to follow the rules of society. But on the other side of the equation in many cases there is a totally innocent human being. All of a sudden as that person was going through a normal part of his or her life somebody invaded his or her home invaded his or her privacy or destroyed one of his or her family. Yes the offender and the victim are both humans but I cannot be convinced that they can both be treated equally in terms of human rights. If we have to weigh up whether one person is likely to suffer more than the other if we proceed with this legislation I believe that the public of New Zealand would say that there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that the prisoner is the one who should have to suffer more than the victim. 
I believe that as we go through this legislation the public will begin to get stirred up again about this issue. I can guarantee they will get stirred up; they have already been stirred up about this issue. New Zealanders are a people who understand fair play but they have said very clearly that paying this type of compensation to people who have been put away for committing crime is not in the fair-play basket. The United Nations may have said that we must be aware of prisoners’ rights and human rights—we understand that. But I think we have gone much further than that. Now in New Zealand we are beginning to say that we can pay financial compensation for those types of things. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Part 1 is on general provisions and I get the feeling that members would like to get on to the nitty-gritty of the bill in part 2. I will call one member who wants a call and has not had one yet. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to comment on the United Future members’ speeches—particularly Marc Alexander’s speech but even his colleague Paul Adams made a very sensible speech. I know that Marc Alexander has been pushing this issue behind the scenes. I know his frustration and probably his anger but I have to say that if United Future had taken a more forthright position some weeks ago when this bill first emerged we might well have got the Opposition parties a bit more united and we might have been able to overturn it. We might not have been dependent on the silly Greens. Some good points have been made. Unfortunately I think United Future should have backed Marc Alexander a week or so ago. 
In this debate there seem to be some conflicting opinions around the Committee about whether we should be subject to international law. My understanding is that we are not committed to international law. Despite what the Minister said we are the master of our own destiny. As one unknown New Zealander said only a few days ago with regard to our commitment to international law: “Baloney!”. 
My second point concerns what the Minister said. This Government is well known for being soft on criminals particularly on those who have affected victims. The Minister sits there with a look of horror on his face but I want to show him a headline in the  
Dominion Post 
 of only a few days ago: “Mob man guilty of attack on police”. The article is about a guy named Gillies who has now attacked another two policemen. Some time ago Gillies attacked a policeman—a sergeant I think—called Hendrikse and virtually paralysed him with a screwdriver. The policeman has never recovered. Gillies was put in prison. The Government of its own accord—with no judicial review no judicial hearing and no hearing whatsoever—awarded five criminals $325000. That was in the Government’s last term. In this term it wants to legalise that. In the Government’s last term it did that and in this term it wants to legalise its action. The Government gave that guy Gillies $40000 and he is now back in prison after attacking policemen in a vicious manner. That is the sort of person to whom this bill gives compensation. 
Many people have spoken about whether prisoners have rights. Of course they have rights—minimum rights like the right to food. No one is trying to take that from them are they? Nobody is taking away prisoners’ right to shelter—to accommodation. We have already removed through legislation their right to receive accident compensation payments once they are in prison. We have already removed prisoners’ right to vote. What we are talking about with regard to this bill is whether prisoners should have the right to sue and whether if they take an action and win they should be entitled to compensation. New Zealand First has taken a compromise position a midway position. We understand that prisoners could have the right to sue if the Department of Corrections mucks them around. But we will not agree to their getting a cent of that money—not a single cent. As this bill is drafted—and the Greens will support this—prisoners will get some of the money and perhaps a large measure of it. They will not get all of it but they will get a significant amount in certain circumstances. Tony Ryall intimated the circumstances in which prisoners could get a considerable amount. Where there is no victim to pay out—the offender may have shot and killed the victim—the prisoner could get a residue. Where the crime has no obvious victim—I am trying to think of an example; I did have one in mind before—the prisoner can get a payout. New Zealand First objects strongly to that. 
Many law-abiding New Zealanders have spoken to me. I am surprised that those people do not talk to the Labour Party because many of them have said to me: “Peter for God’s sake stop this bill. We don’t want prisoners getting compensation.” Those prisoners are the scumbags of this country. They do evil deeds—my colleague Edwin Perry illustrated quite clearly what some of them have been up to—and they are now being given the chance to get legal aid to sue the Department of Corrections for compensation. We mollycoddle prisoners in this country to some degree. This very day I have seen a protocol signed between the Department of Corrections and the Office of the Ombudsmen yet the Greens are saying that that is not enough. That protocol almost gives prisoners two lumps of sugar in every cup of tea they want. That is not enough for the Greens; they want to have an independent prisons inspectorate. 
There should be no way at all for someone who commits a crime and who is sent to prison for it to come out wealthy. That could well happen here. Under this bill it could happen if someone who has been sent to prison for a horrendous crime gets in some sort of fracas as Paul Adams illustrated a little while ago—and there are easier ways than by fighting with another prisoner; all one has to do is antagonise a prison guard get him or her to retaliate and the prisoner will come out wealthy. That is not on. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise the fact that I have been requesting a call for some time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member will leave it to the Chairperson. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I appreciate that you had intended to close the debate on this part but the Minister might wish to consider an amendment—a technical improvement—to clause 9. Indeed I am concerned that without such a change the whole bill looks more cynical and calculating than the Minister probably intends. 
In the last line of clause 9 the term “victim’s claim” is defined by reference to “the offence” but it does not say which offence is meant. The offence that a victim of a crime is complaining about may be an offence that never resulted in a conviction. For example many burglars admit to a whole string of burglaries but may be charged with and convicted for only a representative group—three or four of them. The police can then record the rest of the offences as cleared advise the victims that they have been cleared and tell them who the offender is. But in this situation as I read this clause none of those extra victims would be entitled to claim compensation. I think the phrase “the offence” in clause 9 must refer to the offence for which the offender was convicted. It is defined as the offence for which the offender was convicted. From the definition in clause 4 it seems that “offence” is general. But I believe that when we use the phrase “the offence” it relates to the offence of the offender. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Offence as defined in the bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Yes but the offence as defined in the bill would have to be one that was established. The Minister may be right but I am not sure how the court would know which offence is referred to when the term in this clause is specific. If it said “an offence” then the Minister’s contention would be beyond all doubt. Certainly the claimant would still have to establish that an offence had been committed. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The offence convicted on. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Well if it is the offence convicted on then all those other complainants are victims of that offender but not for the offence that finally sent him or her to prison. There will be many circumstances where offenders may have confessed—certainly on a civil standard it could be established that they had committed offences—but those offences have never been the ones that resulted in the prisoner being imprisoned. I think that the word “the” is unnecessarily specific. It should not cause any trouble to the scheme of this legislation if “an” offence is used. It expands it to avoid doubt. Certainly if Tony Ellis were acting for a prisoner who was trying to hang on to his or her windfall gains he would try to require that the only claims that could be established were those that related to the offence that put the offender in prison. 
For example if a claim was made right at the end of a prison term by someone who had committed multiple offences the claim would probably relate only to the offence that had put the prisoner in prison for the longest time because his or her earlier imprisonment periods would have expired. If the word “the” is changed and accepted I do not think there will be any risk to the Crown and I do not think there will be any risk to the legitimate rights of the offender. It still has to be proved that there has been an offence but we will not get the possibility of this technical restriction that I am sure the drafter never intended. I believe that at least the drafter probably wanted victims’ claims to extend to any claim that related to an offence committed by one of those lucky offenders who managed to claim under the Human Rights Act the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or any of those other judge-invented grounds of claim. 
I suggest to the Minister Rick Barker that the officials on hand—and he has a whole bench of them—should be able to confirm to him that there is nothing malign in changing the word “the” to “an”. It is obvious that the Minister wants to kick for touch although the Government has had years to think about these issues. In this case it is very late. When I was trying to consider what the Minister said by way of explanation in envisaging the sorts of claims we would get I thought that the only way a prisoner would be deprived of one of those substantial claims would be if a whole lot of his or her victims fronted up. Very few of the victims would be likely to be able to show that they were entitled to exemplary damages. Those who could establish exemplary damages might establish them only for an offence for which the offender is no longer in prison. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Recent contributions to the debate show the importance of allowing it to proceed without being closed down by premature closure motions. I refer in particular to my learned colleague Richard Worth’s contribution to broadening our understanding of international treaty obligations and what they mean in terms of human rights. My learned colleague Dr Wayne Mapp also expanded on those international obligations. Those contributions were important and relevant to broadening the understanding of the Parliament. I like one or two others wonder how far we need to go to meet those obligations when I believe that criminals in committing offences abdicate their right to other than basic human rights—which are food shelter and reasonable treatment. It is time we became tough on crime instead of soft on crime. This bill is soft on crime. We should not allow any form of compensation and I am delighted that National opposes this bill. 
Tony Ryall has made a very sensible recommendation that we should have an inspectorate of our prisons rather than go to the extent of this bill. After all if criminals are allowed to sue for compensation then they are entitled to legal aid. A whole tribunal structure has been created to assist that process. Let us think of the costs of that. The hard-working earning Kiwis of New Zealand are paying that cost. Is there any constraint on the amount of legal aid that is allowed to be accessed? Is there a cap or any sort of limit on legal aid? I have not seen that in this bill. What would be reasonable access to any form of legal aid? Again I say I am glad National does not support what would be a considerable waste of taxpayers’ money in allowing criminals to sue and to swallow up more of those hard-working taxpayers’ dollars. 
The bill also encourages rorts on the system as has been enunciated tonight—for instance by setting up fights between prisoners whereby one would be the offender and the other the victim. There would be a very real likelihood of that because those people are criminals—they have a criminal intent. If they cannot rort the system out in the public arena they will do it in the confines of their prison in any way shape or form they can use. They have abdicated their right to expect anything other than basic rights. They will make prison a hell for prison officers and I suggest for other prisoners. They are an affront to all victims. 
There was a clamour right throughout New Zealand that prisoners should not get access to compensation—and what have we done? We have given them access to compensation. Earlier my learned colleague Richard Worth raised that amazing point about the Court of Appeal decision and about this Government pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make a decision. I find it extraordinary that by putting this bill through in urgency tonight we are putting ourselves in the position of doing that. This Government has put us in the position of pre-empting the power of the Court of Appeal to make a decision. 
My learned colleague Richard Worth said that that is constitutionally reprehensible and I completely agree. I find it an extraordinary move by this Government. However one could almost expect that type of incompetence under this current Government. Perhaps the Minister Rick Barker would take a call to explain his comment about his expecting the Court of Appeal to “be captured by the legislation”. Perhaps he might like to take a call to explain to us exactly what he meant by that. Was it the intention of this Government to make some sort of constitutionally reprehensible move in terms of the Court of Appeal being able to make a decision? Perhaps the Minister would take a call to explain that to us. Then we heard the bizarre statements made by Green members that this is bad law but that they will support it. Doh! How sensible is that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I try to be very fair. This part is on general provisions and it is my view that we have covered it quite substantially. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 3 and substitute new clause 3 be agreed to.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) all the words after the words “is to” and substitute the words “block stop and wipe compensation payouts to prisoners”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “restrict and guide” and substitute the words “prevent and prohibit”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “in order to help ensure that the remedy of compensation is reserved for exceptional cases and used only if and only to the extent that it is necessary to provide effective redress”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(1A)The purpose of this bill is to provide a temporary partial restriction on compensation to some prisoners while recognising that some prisoners will keep some if not all of any compensation payout. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
3Purpose of this Act 
The purpose of this Act is— 
(a)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2007 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and 
(b)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2007 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal before the commencement of this Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
3Purpose of this Act 
The purpose of this Act is— 
(a)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2008 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and 
(b)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2008 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal before the commencement of this Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
3Purpose of this Act 
The purpose of this Act is— 
(a)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2009 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and 
(b)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2009 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal before the commencement of this Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
3Purpose of this Act 
The purpose of this Act is— 
(a)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2010 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and 
(b)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2010 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal before the commencement of this Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
3Purpose of this Act 
The purpose of this Act is— 
(a)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2011 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the accepting of a specified claim for compensation commenced after the commencement of this Act for filing; and 
(b)to impose a restriction from 31 May 2005 to the close of 31 May 2011 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first on the awarding of compensation sought by a specified claim that has been commenced and not determined at first instance by the Court or Tribunal before the commencement of this Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit the following definitions:  
action child civil custody community-based sentence detention quarter home detention Judge Advocate General penal institution specified internal and external complaints mechanisms 
 and  
young person 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Other typescript amendments in the name of Marc Alexander to omit definitions of “account” “immediate family” “incapable” “judgment” “parent” “Secretary” “Secretary of the Tribunal” “Tribunal” “victim” and “victim’s claim” are out of order because the question has already been decided. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit the definition of  
compensation 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in its appropriate alphabetical order the following definition:  
restricted period 
 means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2007 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in its appropriate alphabetical order the following definition: 
restricted period 
 means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2008 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in its appropriate alphabetical order the following definition: 
restricted period 
 means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2009 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in its appropriate alphabetical order the following definition: 
restricted period 
 means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2010 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in its appropriate alphabetical order the following definition: 
restricted period 
 means the period beginning on 31 May 2005 and ending on the close of 31 May 2011 or until the enactment of legislation which restricts the awarding of compensation sought by specified claims in the House of Representatives whichever occurs first. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “or on behalf of”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) from the definition of  
a breach of or interference with a specified right 
 in subclause (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the definition of  
Crown 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
6A 
(1)No payment may be made to any prisoner for any breach or omission made by or on behalf of the Crown. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 8 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 371 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clause 9 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) after the word “committing” the word “the” and substituting the word “an”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(d)made by Victim Support wherein the identified victim either has not or cannot lodge a claim or transfer authority over a claim within a specified period of one month after an award of compensation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarification because the member Matt Robson was not in his own seat when he cast the vote. I wonder whether it is in order for him to cast the vote from anywhere in the Chamber other than from his seat. [ 
Interruption 
] My point of order is that the member cast a vote while standing but not from his own seat and there was also some doubt as to whether he was casting the vote for or against. I seek some clarification. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I remind members that there will be silence while a point of order is being raised. I thank the member for raising the point. I accepted the vote from Matt Robson. He did change it but I was certain as to what he wanted although I should have said before that that there is to be no talking during a vote and certainly no exclamation or assistance given to the voter. I just make that point clear. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a further point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that the member needs to be seated rather than standing in the aisle which is where the member was when he was confused about which way he was actually casting the vote. I would like a ruling on where he should have been positioned when he cast his vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is sufficient for tonight. I thank Mr Tisch for again enlarging on that matter but I accepted the member’s vote. Members should be seated. That is the requirement but it is entirely up to the Chair. I did accept his vote. I knew where it came from I knew what he intended and I will let the matter rest there. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance. Parliament is currently in urgency to consider urgent matters. I would like to know what the procedure is for the rather unusual step of the Opposition wanting to add something to the urgency motion. Can we do that by leave during the Committee stage or would we need to call the Speaker back? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the Opposition wished to pursue that the Speaker would of course need to be recalled because that is a matter to be dealt with by the House. The urgency motion has been passed and dealt with for the purposes of this Committee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek further advice. I notice that there is an urgent matter on the Order Paper that is likely to fall off in the very near future. It is a notice of motion that was lodged on 7 December 2004 and I think that notices of motion stay on the Order Paper for only a limited number of days—something like 42 days. We must be coming rapidly to a point when this particular notice of motion will fall off the Order Paper. I seek your guidance as to whether there could be a discussion with the Speaker—perhaps tomorrow morning or at some other convenient time—as to whether it would be possible to have something like this important notice of motion added to the urgency motion. Effectively a Cabinet Minister has been referred to as a traitor and the House most certainly should have something to say about that particularly since that particular Cabinet Minister was only too quick to use the word “traitor” himself about an official in his own department who has taken an important step in recent days for the public good of New Zealand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has sufficiently described the motion. I thank him for raising that issue. I have no doubt that the Speaker will be prepared to listen to the member in the morning as suggested. Members’ notices of motion fall off the Order Paper but Ministers’ notices of motion stay on it. That is perhaps the reason why that one remains on the Order Paper. The Speaker will I am sure be only too happy to discuss the matter in the morning. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. I have dealt with it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am seeking guidance on the matter as it involves a member of my party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am always happy to guide the member. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Chairperson I am not sure whether you will mention this to prepare the Speaker for a possible application for a ruling or guidance on this issue. If you do would you mind alerting the Speaker to the fact that ACT will probably be interested in whether there is some means like a leave process by which the member who is the subject of this motion could bring it up so that it is debated given the circumstances. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is almost in line with what I ruled; it is a matter for the morning. I thank the member for raising it. 
Part 2 Prisoners’ and victims’ claims 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 Before I get into any of the detail of Part 2 I want to make some general comments. This bill is an affront to New Zealanders. The Labour minority Government has brought it in under urgency—with the help of the Greens who are struggling to find some relevance because they have been totally irrelevant in the last few years. An election is nigh and the Greens are struggling to find relevance by supporting this bill. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10.00 p.m to 9.00 a.m. (Thursday)