Volume 664 Week 47 - Thursday 1 July 2010 
Volume 664 Week 47 - Thursday 1 July 2010 
[Volume:664;Page:12383] 
Thursday 1 July 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Viet Nam—Delegation National Assembly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam led by His Excellency Uong Chu Luu Vice-President of the National Assembly is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will lift today for a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 20 July for a 3-week sitting the House will go into Committee to consider the Appropriation (2010/11 Estimates) Bill as well as considering a range of bills including the Electricity Industry Bill and the Infrastructure Bill. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that update and I wish him well as he calls into Timaru on his skiing holiday over the adjournment. I am sure that he will be warmly welcomed in that town. We are looking forward to progressing the bills that he mentioned. The only point that we would make this afternoon—in a genuine way; these things do happen from time to time—is that we notice that a number of senior Ministers are not available today to answer parliamentary questions in the House. That does happen from time to time but it would be useful for the Opposition if when the Government is giving leave to its Ministers it could try to make sure that there were still a reasonable number of Ministers here on a Thursday so that we could ask them some questions. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Well we do what we have learnt from the previous Government of course. I wish that member well for his first visit to Otaki during the adjournment. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 30 June 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two tables from Statistics New Zealand’s March 2010 quarterly employment survey which together show that the gender pay gap at 12 percent is unchanged since the Government took office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2010—Pacific Economic Development Agency 
1. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much money if any was appropriated to the Pacific Economic Development Agency in Budget 2010? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: As announced on Budget day the Budget provides $4.8 million over 4 years for Pacific youth training and job opportunities. The intention is for this money to be used by the Pacific Economic Development Agency for those initiatives subject to the negotiation of a purchase agreement and the usual rules around that. There is no specific appropriation to the Pacific Economic Development Agency in the Budget. 
Hon Annette King 
: What due diligence was undertaken on the one and only shareholder of the private company Pacific Economic Development Agency Ltd before Cabinet approved $4.8 million worth of taxpayers’ money to that company in Budget 2010? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Although I do not have immediate details of the specific issue raised I am sure it was appropriate. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you think it is an appropriate answer for the Minister to say he was sure it was sufficient when I asked “What due diligence was undertaken …” I did not ask whether it was sufficient or insufficient but about what was actually undertaken. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member. I think in fairness though the Minister is answering on behalf of the Minister of Finance. He indicated that he did not have the particular details needed to give a more precise answer to the member. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will the private company Pacific Economic Development Agency allocated $4.8 million of taxpayers’ funding as set out on page 186 of the Budget supporting documents be required to report to Parliament under section 32A of the Public Finance Act as an organisation like Plunket for example is required to account for its expenditure of taxpayers’ funding; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I do not have advice in respect of the section of the Public Finance Act that the member refers to. I know that a contract that is currently in the process of being negotiated will require all of the normal capacity to deliver—ability to collaborate accountability and measured outcomes—that any purchase agreement for Crown funding would. 
Hon Annette King 
: Was he aware that the author of the original Pacific Economic Development Agency proposal has stated as recently as 29 June this year that others would have to be engaged to deliver some of the proposals because “PEDA won’t be able to.”; and why would he risk allocating funding to an organisation that will have to hand funding to a third party where it will not be accountable to the taxpayer? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have quite a number of questions to ask the Minister. I seek leave to hold them over because the Minister obviously has not come prepared to answer any of my questions. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: First of all perhaps the leave should have been put before the question was asked. Secondly the first part of that question asked whether I was aware of such-and-such. The answer to that question was “No.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not—[ 
Interruption 
]—I am on my feet and members will be silent. The Minister has pointed out that he did answer the question that was asked. But leave has been sought to have the questions deferred. The member is perfectly entitled to seek that leave. Would the member like me to put that leave? 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know how good your memory is. You will recall that his answer was “No.” He is answering on behalf of the Minister not on his own behalf. So if he has information that the Minister is not aware of that statement then he must have other information that he has not been able to provide today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly fair point in pointing out that the Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister so therefore the answer means that the Minister of Finance is not aware. Unless the Minister wishes to correct the answer that is how the House will take it. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: As far as I am aware no. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Even then he did not get there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled that he has answered and the honourable member may wish to ask further a supplementary question. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did he discuss any proposals from the Pacific Economic Development Agency Ltd with the Prime Minister or Georgina te Heuheu after the Prime Minister met with Mr Pereira Michael Jones Inga Tuigamala and National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga in June 2009; if so what was the outcome of those discussions? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am sorry. I do not have that information with me this afternoon. 
Roading Auckland—Waterview Connection Progress 
2. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What recent progress has been made on the western ring route in Auckland? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 This morning I was pleased to have the opportunity to be in Auckland for the announcement of the start of the tender process for the construction of the Waterview Connection. The New Zealand Transport Agency process will run in parallel with the consenting process using the provisions of the Environmental Protection Authority to save time and money and to ensure that the views of the local community are heard. This is a significant milestone towards unlocking the benefits that the completed western ring route will bring by providing relief for Auckland motorists. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What progress has been made on the rest of this road of national significance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The New Zealand Transport Agency also announced today that the board of the agency has approved up to $2 billion to complete the remainder of the western ring route including the construction of the Waterview Connection. Once finished the western ring route will create 48 kilometres of continuous motorway as an alternative to State Highway 1 through central Auckland. It will also contribute to better links for businesses and freight between key industrial hubs in the cities of Manukau Auckland Waitakere and the North Shore—or as they will soon be different parts of Greater Auckland. 
David Shearer 
: Given that he announced in May last year a cost of $1.4 billion for the project using a cut-and-cover option then in December last year $1.4 billion covering the cost of two tunnels then in January this year $1.65 billion for the project and now today’s $2 billion figure at what point will this project be finalised and the costs cease to go ever up? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The numbers the member quotes are incorrect. The $1.4 billion price tag was in relation to the Waterview Connection as scoped by the previous Government for its cost of $2.8 billion. It was also done in 2009 dollars. The $1.65 billion relates to the full length of not only the Waterview Connection but also the remainder of the western ring route as I mentioned in the answer to the substantive question in 2009 dollars. The estimated up to $2 billion is full out-turn costs which was recorded in the statement that was released in January 2010. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How are these projects delivering value for money for road users? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This is the largest and most complex roading project ever embarked upon in this country and there has never been a better time to let the contracts given industrial capacity both domestically and internationally. I also note that as large as it is it is not quite as large in one aspect as first proposed by the previous Government. The previous Government’s $2.77 billion price tag in 2009 dollars for the Waterview Connection has been replaced with a cost of $1.4 billion in 2009 dollars for the same scope project and a total of $1.65 billion in 2009 dollars—or $2 billion out-turn costs I point out for the member opposite—for not only the Waterview project but also the widening of almost the entire length of the north-western motorway from St Lukes Road interchange to Westgate. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to defer this question until the Minister of Finance is back in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Budget 2010—Effect on Families Accessing Early Childhood Education 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 To the acting Minister of Finance how much would someone earning the average wage of $50000 per annum— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My understanding is that this question has been put down to the Minister of Finance not the acting Minister of Finance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is quite correct. The member should direct his question to the Minister of Finance. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: After the previous performance it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to get to ask his question he will desist from that carry-on and just ask the question of the Minister of Finance. 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much would someone earning the average wage of $50000 per annum with two children in an early childhood education centre with 80 to 100 percent qualified staff be better or worse off by December 2011 after Budget 2010 tax changes inflation and if the full cost of early childhood education subsidy changes is passed through? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: The question has actually two parts. Taking the first one in terms of the tax impact the taxpayer would receive reductions in income tax and increases in Working for Families payments of $32.38 per week. The taxpayer will also face extra GST on spending. The question does not tell us about the household’s spending patterns but assuming they are typical the additional GST would be $20.74 per week leaving the family $11.64 per week or $605 per year better off. In terms of childcare costs it is impossible to answer as the question does not specify either the age of the children or their hours of attendance. The Minister notes however that the Government has continued to support the 20 hours’ early childhood education scheme for 3 to 5-year-olds and the restriction on charging compulsory top-up fees. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When he claimed yesterday that it was not logical to include all price increases when determining whether Kiwis would benefit from the tax cuts did he mean that it was not in fact convenient for him to show that most New Zealanders would be worse off? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: What the Minister of Finance meant was what he said. The figures show that the family in the case put forward by the member will be significantly better off as a result of these tax changes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can the Minister claim that the vast bulk of New Zealanders will be better off under his tax switch when he has given them only half the story with New Zealanders being left out of pocket from trying to cover increases in early childhood education power petrol and car registration costs? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The tax package that comes into effect on 1 October represents the most significant tax changes in this country in over 20 years and in fact sees 73 percent of people having a top marginal tax rate of just 17.5c in the dollar. That is a huge improvement on the situation currently and will leave significant numbers of New Zealanders substantially better off than they are at present. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is superannuation pre-funding due to recommence when the Government’s Budget returns to surplus as he had previously promised; if not why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is well away from the primary question which talks about a particular family. If the Minister wishes to answer I do not want to deprive him of the opportunity but that question is well away from the primary question. [ 
Interruption 
] No it is too far away from the primary question. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister understand that the $2 billion accident compensation surplus now projected for this year is close to $500 for every New Zealander and shows that the steep increases in accident compensation levies pushing up car and motorbike registration fees by between $30 and $200 per vehicle are plainly excessive and cancel out any tax cuts? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: That question is also well outside the original question and frankly it is not one that I am briefed to answer. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Affordability of Public Transport 
4. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Will the Government be making buses and trains more affordable so that New Zealanders have options to avoid higher petrol costs introduced by the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am pleased to report to the member that the Government taxpayers and ratepayers are already doing what the member requests providing public transport fare subsidies around the country to the tune of $1.2 billion over 3 years. This equates to an average 54 percent subsidy of public transport fares around the country. The long-term target that the New Zealand Transport Agency is seeking to achieve is an average fare subsidy of 50 percent to strike a balance between subsidies per service and further expansion of the range of services available. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Why has the Government introduced a policy that will force regional councils to raise public transport fares when according to a New Zealand Transport Agency paper this will result in fewer people taking public transport? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I will repeat part of my answer to the first question which is that the challenge with all of these subsidies is to strike a balance between the amount of subsidy per service and the number of services available. The current subsidy is about 54 percent of public transport fares. The subsidy has increased in the last 7 or 8 years. The long-term target out to 2018 for the Transport Agency is to achieve a balance of a 50 percent subsidy which I think is fair and strikes a balance between the subsidies per service and further expansion of the range of services available. 
Gareth Hughes 
: If fewer people take trains and buses and instead drive their cars will this increase or decrease our greenhouse gas emissions from transport? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Obviously it would decrease them but I think the member is arguing against the emissions trading scheme with that question. Presumably as a member of the Green Party he seeks to see the emissions trading scheme introduced to raise the cost of fuel to encourage people to use more public transport. To suggest that that will somehow reverse the situation is I think unfortunate logic. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Did I hear the Minister correctly just then? Does he believe that if fewer people take trains and buses and instead drive their cars it will decrease our greenhouse gas emissions from transport? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It all depends on the fuel efficiency of their cars I would have thought. The emissions trading scheme is designed to encourage fuel efficiency. We have continuing improvement in fuel efficiency in this country. If the member believes that he will solve the world’s problems by shifting people away from their private forms of transport permanently on to public forms of transport I say that I genuinely think he would be better to focus on improving fuel technologies and improving the fuel efficiency of private vehicles as this Government is doing. 
Gareth Hughes 
: How can New Zealanders ever have other realistic choices to get around when his transport policy is skewed towards more motorways more cars and more carbon? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I simply do not agree with that assertion for a couple of reasons. Firstly as I said the Government is investing huge amounts of money not just in public transport subsidies but also in the development of public transport services in Auckland and Wellington with the current projects in improved passenger rail services in those two cities carrying a price tag of around $2 billion. The reality remains that according to the last census roughly 83 percent of New Zealanders travel by personal vehicle to and from work and another 1 percent by motorcycle with much smaller numbers travelling by train and bus. Given that that is the reality of our transport choices we want to invest to improve public transport but also we must invest in improved roads for the country. 
Gareth Hughes 
: How can his transport policy be balanced and equitable when only 1 percent of the transport budget is spent on walking and cycling even though 10 percent of New Zealanders walk or cycle to work? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It does not necessarily follow that just because a certain number of people walk or cycle they then need special infrastructural improvements. Currently to my knowledge there is not a capacity constraint on footpaths and cycleways whereas there is a capacity constraint in a lot of areas used by personal vehicles. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Can the Minister confirm that he could have spent several million dollars making walking and cycling safer and more enjoyable in every town and city across the country for far less than the $2 billion he is about to spend on only 4 kilometres of motorway which will ruin an established community in Waterview? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I point out to the member that the Government is investing approximately 50 percent more in walking and cycling facilities in the current 3-year period than was invested by the previous Government in its last term. I refer the member again to the realities of transport in New Zealand. Frankly the Government has elected to represent the interests of all transport users and approximately 83 percent of them in this country are road users through private passenger vehicles and motorbikes. They are entitled to a level of investment in the roading system which I have to add they pay for. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When the Government decided to change the farebox policy for public transport and thereby increase the proportion that the travelling public pay for public transport fares did he consult the National Party manifesto on transport policy at the last election which made no reference to changing the farebox policy—a change that is adding another increase to the cost of living for ordinary New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think that if the member researches he will find that that part of the manifesto did not make mention of many aspects of our transport policy. Regardless of that it is important to point out to the member that there must be an equitable contribution between ratepayers and taxpayers—that is road users—and fare-paying passengers for public transport. After consultation the Transport Agency has determined that that contribution would be about 50 percent in 8 years’ time which is down slightly from the current 54 percent. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a document from a New Zealand Transport Agency board report that shows that requiring higher fares will result in a $64 million congestion reduction benefit to the Auckland region and only— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I seek leave to table another page from the same New Zealand Transport Agency board report which states that a fare increase— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before we go any further I ask the member whether these documents are all from the same report. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Only two of them are Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This habit of extending the tabling of documents by tabling one page and then another page from the same report—if the member wants to table a report that is fine; he should seek leave to do it. But let us not have endless pages. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate your concern Mr Speaker about misusing the tabling process but my colleague has said that of the three documents he intends to table only two from the same document. It might be wise advice for the House as a whole but my colleague has sought leave Mr Speaker. I suggest that it is wise or at least right to put that leave at this stage. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not denied putting leave to the member; I am just pointing out for the future—and for that member’s attention too—that I am not happy about the process of taking more time of the House to try to score more political points through tabling individual pages. Leave to table documents relates to providing information to the House. If the document is vast then it is reasonable to seek to table pages and I apologise if this is a vast document. Could the member please describe the second item he would like to table. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table another page from the same New Zealand Transport Agency document that states that a fare increase means that patronage will decrease. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I seek leave to table a report from the Greater Wellington Regional Council that states that farebox recovery has nothing to do with efficiency and the New Zealand Transport Authority provides no evidence to support its fairness objective. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold my question over until such time as the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs is ready and available to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Pacific Economic Development Agency—Minister’s Involvement in Process 
5. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: Is she satisfied with her level of involvement in the processes prior to her announcement on 20 May 2010 that: “The Budget provides $4.8 million in operating funding over the next four years for the Pacific Economic Development Agency”? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Pacific Island Affairs 
: Yes. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Is the purchase agreement between the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and the private company the Pacific Economic Development Agency ready and finalised by today 1 July as she said it would be in her written answer 09338 dated 28 June; if not will that funding be open to other more established organisations with a much longer and more successful track record of delivering outcomes for Pacific peoples in Auckland? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The advice I have is that this money was provided for in the Budget. The Pacific Economic Development Agency has submitted a proposal which is now the subject of negotiations towards a formal purchase agreement which has yet to be signed. Until that happens no money will be transferred to the Pacific Economic Development Agency. 
New Zealand Film Commission—Review 
6. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What progress is the Government making in conjunction with Sir Peter Jackson with the review of the New Zealand Film Commission? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 Oscar-winning director and producer Sir Peter Jackson has completed his review report which was publicly released earlier today. The New Zealand Film Commission Act was passed 30 years ago. Since then the face of the local film industry has changed dramatically. The Government instigated the review to ensure that the New Zealand Film Commission is best able to serve the needs of the local industry and community today and to move forward into the future. On behalf of the Government I express my thanks to Sir Peter for his work. We will now carefully consider his report and recommendations. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: What are some of the major recommendations in Sir Peter Jackson’s report? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Sir Peter was emphatic that the industry needs the New Zealand Film Commission saying that making movies showcasing New Zealand culture and character would be virtually impossible without it. Other recommendations include a more strategic longer-term vision a larger development team within the commission and some work on preserving the New Zealand Film Archive. Some of this work is already under way and I now want to talk to the commission before making further recommendations. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: When can we expect a response from the Minister to this review? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I said in my earlier answer as soon as I have spoken to the chief executive and chair of the commission I hope to be in a position to make some public announcements on where we go. Having said that I tell the member that one of the original grounds of the review was the question of whether there needed to be statutory change. On the face of it I do not think there will need to be any amendment to the current Act. 
Attorney-General—Public Confidence 
7. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Is he satisfied that he has shown the attention to detail in his role as Attorney-General necessary to maintain public confidence in the office? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 That is not a question for me to answer. I serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister and I am humbled and grateful every day that I am able to enjoy his confidence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of that answer does the Prime Minister’s comment that “he wasn’t attempting to rort the taxpayer but they are stupid mistakes silly mistakes and I wouldn’t expect my Ministers to make them.” apply to him? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Attorney-General is hardly responsible for anything the Prime Minister might have said. I invite the honourable member to try again. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he believe that the Prime Minister’s comment that “he wasn’t attempting to rort the taxpayer but they are stupid mistakes silly mistakes and I wouldn’t expect my Ministers to make them.” applies to him; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: As I said earlier I am grateful and humble to serve in the administration of such a great Prime Minister. It goes without saying that everything he says is correct. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he made any misleading declarations as Attorney-General? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I note the question states “as Attorney-General”; it does not apply to a member of Parliament. So the Minister may answer it in respect of any declarations the Attorney-General has made. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes the member has to distinguish between a declaration made by me as Attorney-General and any declarations made by me as a member of Parliament. To the best of my knowledge information and belief I do not think I have ever taken any declaration as Attorney-General. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How does he therefore explain his changing description of his relationship with Justice Wilson from “close friend” in November 2009 to “a professional relationship” in December 2009 and to someone he “worked with” in March 2010? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The documents the member refers to are documents he obtained under the Official Information Act and they are memoranda written by me to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. I did not think that life hung on an adjective. The reality of the position is that the judge and I were partners in a large law firm 14 years ago and I have very friendly relationships with all my former partners with the exception of a few—which I can assure the member is probably more than can be said about him and his caucus. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he shown more attention to detail in his official duties than he has in his personal affairs? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I think regardless of whether people think I am a good Minister people would say I have done my very best as a Minister and the implication behind that question is pathetic. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Ministers may not necessarily like questions but they should not pass opinions on them. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As I recall the question from the member it had two parts to it. The first related to the Minister in his capacity as Attorney-General for which he has ministerial responsibility and he should be answering that part. The second part related to his personal affairs as I recall the way it was put. He does not have any particular ministerial responsibility for those matters. Given the flick at the end of the question the flick at the end of the answer was perfectly justified. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear any more on this. If Ministers are not careful I might invite the Hon Trevor Mallard to repeat his question so that everyone can be quite sure of exactly what he said. I do not think it deserved the Minister saying it is pathetic. Ministers have plenty of opportunity to express a view when answering a question without doing that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he as Attorney-General sought advice on parliamentary law and procedure from a lawyer who specialises in trust and estate planning as he did in his personal capacity? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have sought no advice from any trust lawyer as Attorney-General. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is not about any of the specific answers or questions asked but about something I think we need to give some consideration to. It is the absence now of Ministers having to declare their pecuniary interests by way of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 and the reliance we now place on the Standing Orders for declarations of pecuniary interests. Previously before members of Parliament were required to do the same thing Ministers were bound by the  
Cabinet Manual 
 to declare their personal financial affairs so that they could be questioned or probed if there was any conflict perceived or otherwise with their ministerial duties and that was right and proper. The Prime Minister was responsible for it. When Parliament decided to have its own Register of Pecuniary Interests for members of Parliament a perfectly logical decision was made not to maintain two registers but to maintain just one and that register is now governed by the Standing Orders. 
A couple of times this week there has been reference to Ministers not having to answer questions about things that they had declared to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests because as I said they did that in their role as members of Parliament. But before members of Parliament had to do that Ministers had always been required to do so. Mr Speaker as a long-serving Minister you will be more familiar than I am with what happened under the  
Cabinet Manual 
 in those times. It was precisely to make sure that any questions about the way that Ministers were managing their portfolios and their personal financial affairs could be open to transparency and questioned. 
What I am asking you to do Mr Speaker is to think about how that change to being governed by the Standing Orders has the potential to allow Ministers not to answer any questions that they would have had to answer previously under the  
Cabinet Manual 
 procedures simply because the matter is now governed by Appendix B of the Standing Orders. My point has nothing to do with the specific thing that we have been questioning the Minister about today; it is just a general point about Ministers and the declarations they make. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has raised a serious issue and I fully accept that and there may be an opportunity to look at it. I have already indicated I think in response to a point of order from the Hon Gerry Brownlee that I think the Standing Orders Committee needs to have another look at the way that we define what is required in the Register of Pecuniary Interests. But in respect of the particular issue around Ministers questions can be asked about Ministers and any conflicts of interest that a Minister may have and the change to the Register of Pecuniary Interests does not change that; it is just that private interests of members are matters that relate to them as members of the House and they are not responsible for those matters as a Minister. But conflicts in respect of their ministerial role do relate to their responsibilities as a Minister and nothing has changed in that regard. They can still be questioned about those kinds of conflicts. I am not saying that there is nothing that should be looked at. When the Standing Orders Committee has a chance to look at these matters everything can be canvassed. I am not going to rule anything out; it is just that I do not want members in the meantime to feel they cannot question Ministers about conflicts of interest because indeed they can. Nothing has changed there. It is just their register of pecuniary interests is always as an individual as a member of Parliament not as a Minister. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In reference to the last comment you made concerning where questioning can or cannot occur in respect of the Register of Pecuniary Interests I took that what you meant was that that occurs in relation to their capacity and responsibility for those conflicts as a Minister. Is that correct? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Indeed. The actual return made to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests is made by members of Parliament. I know that it sounds a little odd when a member is a Minister to say that the Minister as a responsible Minister in his or her portfolio area is not responsible for that return and cannot be questioned directly on it. I am sure however that experienced members can find all sorts of ways round the directness of such a question as was achieved today. But conflicts of interest in respect of Ministers’ portfolio roles are matters that are very much open to questioning. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Balancing of Economic and Environmental Interests 
8. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: How does the Government’s moderated ETS balance New Zealand’s environmental and economic interests? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The moderated scheme ensures New Zealand does its fair share on climate change without imposing excessive costs on businesses farmers and households. The power and fuel price increases have been halved by the amendments that National passed last year and we have ensured that trade-exposed sectors with significant emissions are not put at risk by providing allocations that offset the cost of the scheme. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What are the thresholds for trade-exposed sectors to get an allocation to offset their emissions trading scheme costs and how were these changed by the Government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The original scheme in 2008 provided support for industry if emissions exceeded 50000 tonnes. But this disadvantaged small exporters whose emissions were high as a proportion of their costs. National’s changes mean that if any trade-exposed business has costs from the emissions trading scheme that exceed 1 percent it will be eligible for 60 percent support and if those costs exceeds 2 percent of the business’s costs it will be eligible for 90 percent support. These changes have not increased the total amount of industry allocations because some large emitters face less than a 1 percent cost impact from the emissions trading scheme and are now ineligible for support. Our approach is fairer and will ensure the emissions trading scheme does not impact significantly on the competitiveness of New Zealand trade-exposed businesses. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Is the claim correct that New Zealand is imposing costs on its businesses and consumers that are not being faced by any of our trading partners? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No that claim is not correct. Of our 10 top trading partners five have legally binding Kyoto commitments to reduce emissions: the UK France Germany Australia and Japan. The three of these in Europe have had emissions trading schemes for 5 years ahead of us and are imposing costs on energy that are more than double those of our moderated scheme. A further three countries already have emissions trading schemes in place at state level—New South Wales in Australia the seven north-eastern states in the US and the Japanese scheme that covers 455 businesses. There are also other policies like the mandatory renewable energy targets in Australia that will increase power prices by 7 percent. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand’s climate change representative said three weeks ago in Bonn that his Government has no way of knowing what the effect of his emissions trading scheme will be on domestic emissions reductions; and is his latest claim that there will be a reduction in New Zealand’s emissions of 19 million tonnes by 2012 not just another case of him making up the numbers to suit his argument? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The officials who provided the advice on a reduction of 19 million tonnes provided exactly the same evidence to the select committee last year where the member had the opportunity to question that advice. It is difficult to predict exactly how the market will behave in response to the improved incentives for planting trees and the improvements for investing in renewable energy but after Labour’s appalling record in terms of deforestation and a trebling in the amount of electricity generated from coal and in terms of almost a record increase in emissions I will not be looking to Labour’s example to see how to solve this problem. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why should householders bear a disproportionate burden of the costs of his emissions trading scheme as the Prime Minister admitted after Cabinet on Monday that they would given that those costs will simply subsidise his Government’s plans to encourage more mining the conversion of dirty lignite into fertiliser and diesel and more dairying and more roads all of which will inevitably lead to a major rise in New Zealand’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first important issue is that the balance of the emissions trading scheme costs as they fall on business vis-à-vis households has not changed with National’s amendments and is identical to that under the Labour scheme for the Kyoto period. That is absolutely correct. The changes that we have made— 
Hon David Parker 
: What about agriculture? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member who interjected did not listen to what I said. It was about the first Kyoto period under which neither the Labour nor the National scheme would have included agriculture. The second point that I find extraordinary is that Labour members complain about the impacts on power and petrol prices when they have advocated a scheme that would put prices up a whole lot more than they will be. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A member opposite called another member in here dishonest during the previous speaker’s answer. That will bring disorder to the House. I am not sure whether you heard the comment. It was made by one of the members to your left obviously. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me; I did not hear it. If a member did call someone dishonest I would ask him or her to— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not trying to repeat what I said but I am trying to gauge whether it was an error and if it was an error I will certainly withdraw. I said the selective use of dates was intellectually dishonest. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member and I think we go too far if we rule out intellectual dishonesty. I think it is a widely used term and if members take offence—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask members to be reasonable but if members want to avoid being accused of that then they should think a little more clearly about what they are saying. 
John Boscawen 
: Does the Minister agree with Arandee Industries founder and executive director Ron Greer that his business employing 13 staff would not survive the emissions trading scheme if it stayed in New Zealand and is therefore moving to Singapore; and are research and development industries not just one example that proves ACT’s point that the emissions trading scheme is costing New Zealand jobs for no environmental gain? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point in respect of the environmental gain is that the projections are that the emissions trading scheme will reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 19 million tonnes—I do not think anybody would say that was no environmental gain. The second point is that any businesses that have a significant portion of emissions—for example costing them more than 1 percent—are eligible for support under the changes that National made in order to ensure that their competitiveness is not adversely affected. I would be interested to see the figures from that specific business. 
John Boscawen 
: What does the Minister say to the 13 employees of Arandee Industries who will not be receiving this year’s tax cuts because they have lost their jobs due to National’s emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I have seen no evidence that would suggest that the specifics of that business would have been impacted on by costs to the point where that would compromise its competitiveness. If the member would like to provide me with the data I would be happy to look at it. If the emissions trading scheme has a significant impact then that business might well be eligible for an allocation on which its competitiveness would not be affected. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is it a point of order? 
Charles Chauvel 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to please use a big voice. I cannot hear a thing that he is saying. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I am sorry. I think it was the microphone. It was not on so— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member is now further down the back of the Chamber and he will need to learn to use a bigger voice. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Yes it is difficult being further from “God”; that is certainly true. 
Chris Hipkins 
: He hasn’t got a problem with that! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that it is better than what I have heard another Speaker referred to as in recent weeks. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table a 2009 Ministry of Economic Development report showing that the vast majority of new electricity project consents approved in New Zealand by the end of 2008 were from renewable resources. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold this question over until the Minister of Energy and Resources is present and able to respond. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Power Prices—Measures to Address Excessive Increases 
9. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What action other than persuasion will he take if Contact Energy’s proposal to raise prices by 10 to 17 percent in Dunedin as referred to by the Prime Minister on Monday is followed by similar rises from other power companies? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: The Government is closely monitoring power price rises. We note that Meridian Energy Genesis and TrustPower have signalled no immediate price increase for consumers and they collectively amount to over 50 percent of the market share. Contact Energy which has a 25 percent market share has announced an increase of 3.2 percent and Mercury Energy which has a 23 percent market share has announced an increase of 3.3 percent. The Commerce Commission has put power companies on notice of the risk of prosecution if they misrepresent the price impact of the emissions trading scheme and the Government welcomes the commission’s firm approach. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: How can consumers be confident that his persuasive powers will keep power prices down given that Genesis Contact Energy and TrustPower all hiked prices by between 5 and 8.4 percent shortly after his warning to the electricity industry last year that it could not continue making large price increases? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The key work that the Government is doing to constrain power prices is to increase the competitive pressure on them. I think that the huge increase in the amount of switching between the companies— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh Max Bradford all over again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: To hear Mr Mallard interjecting given that power prices went up by 72 percent when he was a Minister shows the intellectual hypocrisy on the Opposition benches. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What advice has the Minister received regarding power price rises since 2000 in particular on what impact the emissions trading scheme would have had on power prices had it not been moderated? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am advised that power prices rose by 72 percent— 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —72 percent when Trevor Mallard was a Minister. Furthermore they would have increased by 10 percent this year under the emissions trading scheme that Nanaia Mahuta voted for. Thankfully there was a change of Government and the impact of the emissions trading scheme on consumers has been more than halved. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does the Minister stand by his suggestion that Kiwis struggling to pay higher power bills should shop around; if so where does he suggest that they shop to avoid the 2.5 percent increase in power prices due to the impending GST rise? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I draw consumers’ attention to the power companies that have announced no increase in their power prices. 
Hon Annette King 
: Today. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Annette King interjects. I just remind her again that she was absolutely silent during the 9 years that she was a Minister when power prices increased by 72 percent. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I let it pass in my first supplementary question but this question was very specific and the Minister failed to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think in fairness that when members interject Ministers are at liberty to pick up on those interjections. Otherwise as Speaker I would be all the time getting to my feet to stop people interjecting. I do not want to do that; I want the House to be able to live. But that is the risk members run. If they interject a Minister may pick up on it and that is perfectly OK. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister confirm—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please show some courtesy to the member asking the question. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister confirm that residential power prices have increased since 2008 and that a disparity remains between residential and business price increases; if so what steps will he be taking to control residential power prices? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that the increases over the last 18 months are about 5 percent. That is significantly less than what they were in the preceding 8 years. But the Minister is determined to make further steps. That is why there is an important bill before this Parliament to make significant changes to the sector maximise those competitive pressures and particularly make it easier for consumers to change power companies. The advice I have for instance for the consumers in Dunedin who are with Contact Energy is that they should look at the options to switch to one of the companies that have not put up their prices. 
Nurses Enrolled—Expansion of Scope of Practice 
10. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What progress has been made on expanding the role of enrolled nursing in New Zealand? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Over the past few years the role and status of enrolled nursing have been marginalised in New Zealand with many hospitals no longer willing to employ them. With enrolled nurse numbers dwindling to just over 3000 practising today one of the first actions taken by the new Government was to work with the Nursing Council and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation to restore and expand the scope of enrolled nurses in the public health service. The Nursing Council has now issued a wider scope of practice and this has been welcomed by the health service. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What areas of the health service will enrolled nurses now be able to work in again? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: A new curriculum will be put in place next year as will a new 18-month diploma for enrolled nursing. By completing competence assessments over the next year the new scope of practice will allow enrolled nurses to again work in surgical theatres acute services and mental health. This is an example of how the New Zealand public health service can be innovative and flexible in better meeting the needs of New Zealanders after the 9 years of failure under members opposite. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does it surprise the Minister of Health to learn that it was a National Government that stopped funding and training enrolled nurses in the 1990s and it was a Labour Government that brought back second-tier nurses and started training them again so that some are now available to take up a greater role? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have debates about how responsible Ministers are for stuff that went on in the 1990s but I guess the question was whether the Minister was surprised so an opinion is being sought. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It surprises me that that member opposite fails to realise that she was in a Government that told enrolled nurses that they are not entitled to be called that that they are to be called nurse assistants and that they cannot work in hospitals. This Government has changed that. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Nursing Council which decided what enrolled nurses would be called. The decision was not made by the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not debate the matter. Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [ 
Interruption 
] I beg your pardon; there is objection. I misheard. I guess on this occasion it is the Hon Tony Ryall who should use a bigger voice. This place was built to carry human voices without the use of microphones and I should be able to hear a member if he or she uses a loud enough voice. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold my question over until such time as the Minister for Social Development and Employment or anyone other than Simon Power is available to answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Youth—Education and Training 
11. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement in the House last week that “some of our preliminary results show that around 7000 of …16 and 17-year-olds are not touching any sort of programme or training”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment: 
 Yes. That number includes about 3300 young people who are receiving a benefit of some sort. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Why did she limit her answer to 16 and 17-year-olds? Is it because the figure for 15 to 19-year-olds not in employment education training or any form of benefit is much larger at 34900? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The reason she gave that number is that she has a priority concern for that group of people to ensure that they are able to be provided for by the system. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: If this is an area of priority concern can the Minister name the initiatives—excluding Job Ops and Community Max which focus on young people who are on a benefit—she is implementing to assist the tens of thousands of young people who are not on a benefit not in a job and not in education or training? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can tell that member that many programmes and services are available for those young people. I can name the work that the Minister for Social Development and Employment is doing to have a stronger economy in New Zealand through lower personal taxes less regulation and a commitment to a growing economy. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Does she have any preliminary results showing which of her policies has been the most effective in tackling Pacific youth unemployment? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member but I ask both Chris Tremain and the Hon Annette King to desist the interjecting across the front of the House. We cannot hear Carmel Sepuloni. I ask her to please repeat her question. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Does she have any preliminary results showing which of her policies has been the most effective in tackling Pacific youth unemployment? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not have that information with me. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: How does she reconcile any of the actions she has done with Bill English’s statement that the reason the $4.8 million for the Pacific Economic Development Agency was necessary was because nothing was happening in this area in relation to Pacific youth unemployment? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am sure those comments were made with reference to the neglect of the previous Labour Government. 
Pest Management—Proposed National Plan of Action 
12. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: What recent steps has the Government taken to improve pest management in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 The Government has just released for public consultation the  
Pest Management Proposed National Plan of Action: 2010-2035 
. This document suggests key improvements needed for New Zealand to provide the best pest management system possible for the next 25 years. A key change will be the requirement for the Crown to be bound by regional pest management strategies ensuring it meets its good neighbour obligation. This plan delivers on yet another election promise from National. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What has been stakeholder reaction to the release of the plan? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It has been hugely positive. It has included Local Government New Zealand saying: “Landowners are the winners.” the Greater Wellington Regional Council saying: “The active engagement of the Crown will make our efforts significantly more effective.” Environment Waikato congratulating the Government on progress and Federated Farmers saying: “When it comes to regional pest management strategies it’s a very promising step …”. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Ka pehea te whakatinana i te ngakaunui o te National Plan of Action “ki te whakauru i nga mohiotanga me nga whakaritenga o te tangata whenua ki nga mahi hopu kararehe porearea”? 
[ 
How will the national plan of action’s commitment to “incorporating tangata whenua knowledge and practices in pest management” be implemented? 
] 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The plan of action proposes the establishment of a Maori advisory committee to support engagement with Maori on all pest management issues. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Ko wai ka uru atu ki te mahi whakatinana i te ngakaunui i roto i te mahere ki te whakarahi ake i te kahapupuri e rua nei ona ahua ara; te whakapakari i nga pukenga o te tangata whenua ki te hopu kararehe porearea; te whakapakari hoki i nga pukenga o nga pokapu kawanatanga e pa ana ki te tikanga a tua atu hoki me pehea te whakatu mangai mo te tangata whenua e whakangawari? 
[ 
Who will be involved in actioning the commitment in the plan to two-way capability building—that is skill development in pest management for tangata whenua and skill development in tikanga for agencies—and how will the representation of tangata whenua be facilitated? 
] 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: All stakeholders will be involved but there will be particular emphasis on the work of the Maori advisory committee. 
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill seeks to raise the penalties for animal cruelty offences and to redefine the way offences are described. It sends a very clear message that serious offending against animals is unacceptable in our society. 
First let me thank everyone who has been engaged in the development of this bill and who has worked in a cooperative manner with the Government to reach this point. The Government originally decided to adopt and prioritise this bill after it was advanced by the member of Parliament for Tauranga Mr Simon Bridges and I thank that excellent member once again for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I also thank those who submitted on the bill and the Primary Production Committee for diligently considering the issues that were raised. I acknowledge that the bill has received strong support from every party in the House which reflects the importance that Parliament gives to animal welfare in New Zealand. New Zealanders can rest assured that with this bill we will see improved animal welfare in this country. 
I do not propose to go through the bill again in detail but would like to briefly recap its main provisions for the benefit of the House. The bill increases the penalties for wilful ill-treatment of an animal as well as the penalties for ill-treatment and other neglect-type offences including failure to meet the physical health and behavioural needs of an animal. The maximum term of imprisonment for wilful ill-treatment of an animal will increase from 3 years to 5 years. 
The bill also expands the threshold for wilful ill-treatment of an animal—the most serious category of offending—to include serious injury to or impairment of an animal. Additionally it introduces a new offence of reckless ill-treatment of an animal alongside the existing offence of wilful ill-treatment. This will capture those offenders who might otherwise not have reached the threshold for the offence of wilful ill-treatment to apply. The bill allows the court to impose a minimum disqualification period from animal ownership in cases where serious or repeat offending has occurred. Where the court sets no minimum period a default period of 2 years applies before that disqualification can be lifted. 
Finally the bill allows for the forfeiture of any or all animals owned by the offender where the court believes that this is required for an animal’s protection. These changes will enable cases of cruelty towards animals to be prosecuted at the appropriate level. The changes show that we take cruelty towards animals seriously and send a strong message to potential offenders that animal welfare offending will simply not be tolerated in our society. 
When considering the bill the Primary Production Committee expressed concern about the perceived lack of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry animal welfare inspectors. Since becoming Minister of Agriculture I have taken prompt and positive steps to address this issue in the form of an extra $8.2 million for animal welfare activities over the next 4 years. In the first year alone this new funding will enable the ministry to double its number of full-time animal welfare inspectors. As well $1.2 million will be provided to the SPCA to support the vital role it plays in upholding animal welfare standards in our communities and I commend the work that the SPCA does. 
Animal welfare is a priority for this Government and the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill sits alongside a range of initiatives it has under way to improve compliance with animal welfare requirements in New Zealand. This bill reflects the fact that most New Zealanders find animal cruelty to be truly repugnant and want strong laws to protect our animals from harm. The Government is confident that the bill will provide a higher level of protection for animals in New Zealand than has previously been the case. 
With the legal changes brought about by this bill New Zealand can continue to uphold the highest standards of animal welfare. The bill will enable the judiciary to impose tougher sentences for serious offending and will give them the tools to protect more animals from harm. This in turn will help prevent some of the more serious offending against animals from occurring in the future. 
In conclusion the passing of this bill is not just the National-led Government acting to improve animal welfare; the entire Parliament is sending the strongest message to potential offenders that cruelty towards animals is abhorrent to society and will not be tolerated. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party supports the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill in its progress through the House. How could we not support a bill that is aimed at offering better protection to animals around this country? There had been a number of cases of terrible cruelty to animals and the Government stepped in and took action. It has brought in a bill that effectively doubles the penalties for any ill-treatment of animals: wilful ill-treatment of animals neglect of animals or as the Minister said failure to meet the physical and health needs of an animal. Labour supports the protection that is needed for animals. There is no question—no ifs no buts no maybes—that we have to offer that protection to animals. 
The bill as introduced doubled the penalties for those offences but the Government had not put in place any additional resources for the policing of that law around the country. I acknowledge that the latest Budget has shifted money within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to provide some more for animal welfare policing; I might come back to that issue later on. Clearly an additional effort has been made within the ministry to carry out that work. 
I acknowledge the need for this bill: there were more than 14000 complaints about animal welfare in 2008 but only 58 convictions. There was a big gap and there was a need for resources and for a tidy-up in the law. We have moved in that direction. To quote the Minister it is absolutely unacceptable that we should have offending against animals. The Minister said that offending or failure to meet the physical and health needs of animals “will simply not be tolerated in our society.” That is why Labour supports the bill. 
The question I have for the National Government is: what about the people that it has forgotten? In coming into this House today and celebrating the passage of this legislation—and I see that the Minister has already gone—which will rightfully protect animals in this country what is National doing to also protect the physical and health needs of people in this country? I tell members what it is doing: it is neglecting them. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What about the protection orders just recently? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Calder should listen carefully because he might not meet these people. Yesterday on the streets of Westport I met a woman who could not walk without the aid of two walking sticks. She is currently embroiled in a battle with the Accident Compensation Corporation and has been told that her application in relation to an accident—medical misadventure—that was accepted at the time is now under review. She was in tears when she was talking to me and is fearful for her future. Nick Smith and the National Government are determined to discredit the accident compensation scheme and then to say that we have to cut back in certain areas. They are issuing policy instructions saying that the corporation should go back and review these cases. At the moment in this country people are fearful for their future. The protection of their physical and health needs is not being met by current legislation. 
As we pass this good animal welfare legislation I ask what the National Government is doing about people. National members are silent. There is not a murmur from them because they know that in celebrating this protection for animals they are neglecting the health and physical needs of thousands and thousands of people in this country today. 
Sue Kedgley 
: And thousands and thousands of animals. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: And animals too but they are making progress on animals. We acknowledge that and it is why the Labour Party supports this legislation. But the Government should bring to the House legislation that guarantees the health and welfare of individual New Zealanders. That is what we want to see in this House but the National members ignore that. 
In fact it is worse. In reviewing thousands of accident compensation cases the Government is putting fear into the hearts and minds of thousands of New Zealanders for their future. Those people do not know whether they will get an income. Many of them are unable to work but their accident compensation case managers are saying that they have to look at their cases again as they may not be entitled to any cover for accidents that were acknowledged as occurring at work. Those accidents that were work-related should be covered by the scheme. 
I say to the people affected that they should not blame the accident compensation scheme; they should blame National. It is that Government’s policy to discredit accident compensation firstly by saying that it is broke and failing. We now know that that is not the case. The scheme took a hit like every other investment fund around the world and it lost money because of the international recession. It is now on the way back up. The scheme is not broke but in an attempt to discredit it the Minister for ACC is issuing policy instructions to review cases and wherever possible throw people off the support system that they rely on. It is their only support system. 
I ask the Minister of Agriculture who referred to the failure to meet the physical and health needs of animals: what about humans? Abuse of animals will not be tolerated in our society and that has rightfully been tidied up in this legislation. If people are caught doing it they will be penalised. We have put in more resources to identify where abuse is taking place. Any Minister can come and ask me and I will identify where abuse is taking place against individual New Zealanders. They can come and ask me about it. I write to the Minister for ACC on a frequent basis to seek support and intervention to stop the physical abuse and the failure to meet the health and well-being needs of individual New Zealanders. 
I cannot help but make that point when animal welfare legislation comes to the House because it is absolute hypocrisy to cheer the passage of animal welfare legislation to protect animals at the same time as we are heading backwards in the care and protection of New Zealanders: of children of people receiving accident compensation and of the elderly. That is why in conjunction with the Green Party we have an inquiry to investigate the growing abuse lack of care and neglect of elderly people that is occurring up and down this country. If the Hon David Carter is to be believed—if he seriously believes his own words that failure to meet the physical and health needs of an animal will not be tolerated in our society—then I ask him about people. What about individual New Zealanders? Government members are absolutely silent. 
If I have said this a hundred times in this House I make no apology because that is why I have come to this Parliament. I have come to this Parliament to protect New Zealanders when they need it. I stand in this House as the first speaker for the Labour Party on the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill because I have come to this House to support any Government that brings in legislation to protect animals in this country—and we are doing that. Every one of us in the Labour Party supports this legislation because we have rightly said that it improves the protection of animals in New Zealand. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How about not just talking about it? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Ms Goodhew cannot even look after the ethical behaviour of one of her finest citizens. I suggest that she goes back to Timaru and defends Mr Hubbard because we know what is going on down there. He is just one—thankfully well resourced—individual who is being abused in this country. What about all of the other silent individuals—the children the people on the accident compensation scheme the people on benefits and the elderly—who do not have enough people standing up in this House to defend their rights to fair protection to prevention of cruelty and to prevention of wilful ill treatment and neglect? The definitions in this bill about wilful neglect apply to humans just as much as they apply to animals. 
The Primary Production Committee improved the bill. We did a lot of good work. There was goodwill to try to get good legislation and I think we have. But maybe Ms Goudie should go to the Social Services Committee and do the same for individual New Zealanders. That is what I say. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Damien O’Connor the previous speaker asked: “What about the people?” I say to Damien O’Connor that 99.9 percent of the bills that come to this House are all about the people. Arguably this one the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is as well in some ways—I may get to that. I want to be very clear to the member that we are not in a general debate right now where we could do point-scoring. I came to this House to talk about the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and animal welfare and that is what I am going to do. 
The latest contemporary research continues to confirm that animals are much smarter than we give them credit for. They are much more like us than we have historically thought. I have heard someone say that they are much smarter than Damien O’Connor but that would be cruel. There are differences between humans and animals. Animals have not devised as many ways as humans to be cruel and inhumane. In the first reading debate I went through last year’s SPCA list of shame. It listed 50 of the worst cases of animal cruelty we have seen in this country. I will not read it again. The range of sickening bloodcurdling acts is abhorrent to us but it makes one wonder who really does deserve the title of “animals” sometimes. The short point is this: humans can be cruel and sadistic. This bill addresses that in relation to animals and it gets tough in relation to animal cruelty. 
I will briefly do a couple of things this afternoon. I will recount the passage of this legislation then very briefly summarise the law as it will be. The passage of this bill is worth telling. In only a few months we in this Parliament with the support of the SPCA and other animal lovers have made some pretty big changes to animal cruelty laws. I know some—Sue Kedgley amongst them—will argue that we should do more and that is a legitimate debate to have. Nevertheless I do not think that anyone could argue in this House that we have not taken justice for animals much further in this bill than we have previously. As some members may know I was approached by an SPCA Auckland board member—other SPCA members have also talked to me—about reform. It quickly became very clear to me that change was required. Despite the frequency of heinous acts towards animals in this country before this bill less than 3 percent of prosecutions resulted in imprisonment. The most common penalty was a fine. At the time that this bill came to the House we may have seen something of a change already with the publicity surrounding the bill but at that time less than 10 people ever had been to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Fewer than 10 people. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —I thank the member—fewer than 10 people ever had gone to prison for animal welfare offending. 
Throughout much of this I have liaised with the Minister of Agriculture David Carter. I thank him and I acknowledge him for taking this bill on and substantially improving and widening it. Becoming a Government bill has made it an absolute priority bill. By the end of today we will have done something very strong and positive for animals and against animal cruelty in this country. I turn to the law. We are not getting a law that simply lifts the maximum penalty for the wilful ill-treatment of animals from 3 to 5 years as my member’s bill would have done. That would have been a good start it would have made some difference and it would have achieved my goals of raising public awareness and sending a message. However with this bill we are getting much much more thanks to the Minister of Agriculture the Prime Minister and ultimately everyone in this Parliament. We are getting a substantially strengthened law that simplifies and rationalises offences increases offence penalties across the board and does more to protect the welfare of animals. There was if I am frank the possibility that my member’s bill would have had a more symbolic than real effect. Our Government bill will certainly do more than that. It will improve the law across the board. 
As I say I take the view that this bill is in some respects historic. We have all—123 members of this Parliament— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: 122. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —122—with different backgrounds— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s got dumber with the glasses. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: It is hard to give a serious speech with some of those members across the other side of the House. Members with different views and different approaches—122 MPs whether Green ACT or other—are voting for this bill. In other words the entire Parliament of New Zealand is coming together on this legislation and is reaching a consensus against animal cruelty. In conclusion this year the Government is doing something great for animals and against animal cruelty. I commend this bill to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Why do I feel as if I have just sat through the public launch of Simon Bridges’ autobiography? 
I am very happy to take a call on the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I have checked my diary; apparently today officially is the “Hon David Carter Day of Action”. He had a question in the House and a third reading speech all within the space of 2 hours. The Minister should be careful that he does not have a nose bleed—that is a lot of work in one afternoon. I think all we can ascertain from that is that there must be a Cabinet reshuffle on the cards. I congratulate the Minister David Carter. It takes a lot of gall for the Minister to be able to sit there in front of the man whose member’s bill he stole and to regale himself with the eloquence in which he did it. 
I commend the member Simon Bridges who did all the work for this bill. We heard the long story of the build-up of this legislation and how he was approached to deal with this very important issue. He developed the bill he took it through his caucus and he put it in the ballot. It was drawn from the ballot but with the snip of a Cabinet reshuffle in sight it was then stolen from him by the Hon David Carter— 
Hon Member 
: Unbelievable! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Unbelievable. But it is a very good piece of legislation and of course Labour is happy to support it at its third reading. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh doh! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I am not quite sure what noises are emanating from the back benches of the Government but I think I will just ignore them. 
This bill is very important because we have a long history in New Zealand of inadequate penalties for animal cruelty. It takes about $10000 to prosecute a case of animal cruelty and it can take a number of years for a case to be taken through to conviction. As compared with 20 years ago when a third of the cases were taken by police now the SPCA finds itself having to take 90 percent of the cases which is undoubtedly a heavy load for a voluntary organisation like the SPCA. Along with other members I put on record our thanks to the SPCA for the good work it does in our country—the good work it has done and the good work it will continue to do. We are pleased to see that more funding will be going to the SPCA to assist that work and to prosecute cases of animal cruelty in general. 
I tell the Minister that $8 million is a good amount of money but again as my colleague Damien O’Connor pointed out that has to be put into context. There was $40 million provided for private schools so suddenly the $8 million provided for prosecuting cases of animal cruelty does not look quite so much like the generous appropriation that the Government is trying to make out it is. 
One of the points that Labour has been making throughout the course of this entire debate is that doubling the penalties for animal cruelty is a good idea but if the Government does not make sure that the provision is adequately resourced then it will not mean a single thing. Historically only 0.4 percent of animal cruelty cases have gone to conviction—0.4 percent. I think it is fair to say that there is very little disincentive to move away from animal cruelty when we look at the fact that 99.6 percent of cases never end up with convictions. So the resourcing of this legislation will be absolutely critical. As I said before we are pleased to see that more resourcing is going into this area. We certainly hope that this legislation will result in much tougher penalties for cases of animal cruelty. We certainly hope that it will result in more cases being taken through to conviction. 
Some interesting changes were made at the Primary Production Committee during the course of the bill. I think one of the interesting parts of the bill in general is the introduction of the provision for reckless ill-treatment of animals versus that for wilful ill-treatment of animals. One of the big problems in animal cruelty cases has been the necessity to prove intent. Of course that is difficult enough to do when we are talking about human beings who can tell us what happened; it is virtually impossible to ascertain intent when it comes to animals which was an important part of the requirement under the law. So the legislation draws a distinction between wilful ill-treatment and reckless ill-treatment. Obviously wilful ill-treatment if it can be proven is a much stronger offence but I certainly would not like to see the gap between those two offences open up wide. I would hate to see the offence of reckless ill-treatment of animals suddenly by default occupy exactly the position we have now or conjure up very low penalties which is also a problem we have now. 
The penalties under the law that we have are not even being used to their full extent so doubling them is good. We hope to see that decent penalties will be handed out. I certainly hope that those who are in a position to hand out penalties are noting the fact that Parliament is speaking with one voice on this legislation. We are saying very clearly to the courts that we want to see much tougher penalties for animal cruelty and for the mistreatment of animals. 
But I would hate to see the clause about the reckless ill-treatment of animals resulting in lower penalties. The clause is very good because it opens up a whole area for convictions that were very difficult to get in the first place. But if we end up again with few prosecutions or with very low penalties then the reckless ill-treatment of animals provision may end up just being a way by proxy of keeping the status quo that we have now—that is ineffective penalties. That is particularly important because it may well be that we know that the ill-treatment was wilful we know that it was intended but we just cannot prove it. So the provision of the reckless ill-treatment of animals may well be taken in very serious cases—and it is good that those cases will be taken. But I would hate to see the penalties under that clause being seen as very low because Parliament intended “reckless” to mean that someone did not intend to do it or that he or she was just being slightly negligent. That may not be the case; it may be that it was very wilful ill-treatment but that that test could not be met under the law. 
The other interesting work the select committee did was on the forfeiture of animals which is always a very difficult area. When one is deciding who should or should not own animals a decision is difficult to make when people move animals between different owners to evade the law. I think that the select committee came up with a very sensible way of dealing with that. It said that if someone mistreats an animal and that animal is on his or her property but he or she does not own it and if the owner is a very good animal owner who has no history of ill-treatment the authorities would not take the animal off the owner because the owner may not have known about the ill-treatment. The owner may not have had anything to do with it. Clearly the select committee did not want that unintended consequence to be carried through. 
That provision is very interesting because not too long ago in this House we had quite a robust and divisive debate about microchipping animals. When I read through this part of the legislation and the select committee’s comments on it I thought about how far we had come from those days when the Hon David Carter and probably Shane Ardern were screaming at us about what a terrible idea the microchipping of animals was. It was dreadful they said and it would not work. Well is the Minister going to repeal the microchipping provisions? No because that would be doing three things in one day and that is completely out of the question. 
This bill relies a lot on the fact that we know who the owners of animals are and that we are able to trace them. The Minister does not seem to think that it is important to know who the owner of an animal is but there is a clause in this bill for taking an animal from its owner. I suspect that if the Minister was taking an animal off someone who had mistreated it and that person said that they did not own the animal the Minister would say that it was not useful to have a microchip that said in effect “Well actually you do because you’re the registered owner.” 
Hon David Carter 
: In the animal’s owner. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: In the animal I say to the Minister—in the animal. The Minister is free to microchip any members of his caucus if he feels that is necessary. But we are talking about microchipping the animals not the owners. 
The fact is that we have come a long way from the debate on animal microchipping which allows the SPCA to track animals in a way that it could not do before. It allows animal control officers to track animals in a way they had not been able to before. Members on the other side of the House are now taking advantage of that situation but they were frothing at the mouth when we dared to suggest that we try to track animals so we could know where they were and what their history was. Those members have now done a complete turn-round and have tried to forget history in its entirety. I thought it was important to point out that during the third reading debate. 
It is great that we have all come together once again on this bill. It is very important legislation. I hope it will make a significant difference and I thank the member Simon Bridges for bringing it to the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Well for 11 long years this Parliament has ignored the petitions and pleas of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to put an end to the worst forms of animal abuse—the sow crate and the battery hen cage. Parliament has kept a stony silence about these issues which so many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders care so passionately about. So it is something of a red-letter day that we are here having a very serious debate about animal welfare and considering the first piece of legislation about animal welfare that the House has considered and indeed is about to pass in 11 years. I congratulate Simon Bridges on initiating the legislation and I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on adding to the original bill the new category of reckless ill-treatment of animals and on increasing the Budget provision for animal welfare. 
The Green Party is supporting this bill largely because of the new category of reckless ill-treatment which we hope will make it easier for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the SPCA to take prosecutions. Really the main reason we had seen so few prosecutions for animal cruelty over the years was simply that it was so difficult to prosecute animal cruelty under the existing legislation. One had to prove wilful intent to commit cruelty towards animals in order to succeed. So if a farmer starved his cows to death it was often difficult to prove there was intent to cause cruelty and intent to starve the cows to death. 
The other reason was simply that there was such a lack of resources and staff to undertake prosecutions. Until now there have been only five full-time Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors overseeing the welfare of over 100 million animals in New Zealand. It is little wonder then that between 2007 and 2009 these five inspectors took only 44 successful prosecutions for animal cruelty out of the more than 14000 complaints lodged with the ministry. Only 3 percent of the cases that the ministry investigated resulted in a conviction and only 0.3 percent of the cases that the SPCA took resulted in a conviction. 
The SPCA told us during our consideration of the bill that it was so cash-strapped and so short of resources that it was not able to undertake many prosecutions. Most of its inspectors after all are volunteers and 60 percent of them are part-time so it is extraordinary that successive Governments have abdicated their duty to enforce the Animal Welfare Act and that that work has been carried out by a charity the SPCA. The society has had to have cake stalls and so forth to try to fund its prosecutions. It is extraordinary that the SPCA is the only enforcement agency in New Zealand that still has to fund-raise and try to raise money in order to do the work of the Government in terms of taking out prosecutions under the Act. We hope that this new category will make it easier for the SPCA and we also hope that some of the new funding will go to the SPCA for the fantastic work it does. Having 10 inspectors instead of five at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will also make a difference. 
We are not optimistic however that simply increasing the length of sentences will reduce animal cruelty in New Zealand. There have after all been only 11 cases of people who were jailed for animal cruelty in the entire history of New Zealand. A decade ago we introduced 3-year sentences for animal cruelty but no person has ever received a 3-year sentence. I do not think that just an increase in sentences by itself will make any difference but we hope that the new category and the new resources will make a difference. 
When the Minister introduced this bill he said that as a result of the bill we would see improved animal welfare in this country and that is great. But he ought to have added “for some animals” because this provision is particularly for companion animals for individual animals. The truth is that this bill applies to only individual cases of animal cruelty and completely turns a blind eye—completely ignores—all cases of institutional cruelty to animals in the farming sector. Any farming business that has a code of animal welfare in place is exempted from this legislation. So if someone carries out something that could be argued to be animal cruelty it will not be deemed to be animal cruelty if there is a code in place; this bill will not apply. 
The 90 million hens that spend their lives in cages will not be touched or affected in any way by this bill. They will continue to live their lives inside cages where they will be unable to move around or spread their wings. They will not even be able to turn round and they will not be able to express almost any forms of natural behaviour. The thousands and thousands of sows that are locked in cages for months on end where they are not able to turn round will not be affected by this bill either. 
It is interesting that Simon Bridges commented on the intelligence of many animals. In fact sows and pigs are generally thought to be even more intelligent than dogs. They are thought to be highly intelligent. There is some research showing that they have been able to use joysticks and play computer games. Nevertheless these highly intelligent animals will remain locked in their cages experiencing what can be deemed only to be animal cruelty and they will be untouched by this bill. 
This Parliament will pretend that keeping a pig in a cage is not animal cruelty so that owners will not be prosecuted under this bill. But it is interesting that if someone kept a dog in a cage for say a week or maybe weeks that person could be prosecuted. That person could be prosecuted under the existing legislation but certainly under this bill that person could be prosecuted. The owner of a dog that was kept in a cage for a long period of time could end up arguably in jail under this bill. However if the owner of a highly intelligent sow kept the sow in a cage for months on end that person would not be affected by this bill; he or she would not be prosecuted and would continue to be rewarded by our society and by this Parliament. 
Effectively what we have in New Zealand now is a double standard when it comes to animal cruelty. We have one standard for individual animals particularly for companion animals and a completely different standard for farm animals. In fact Federated Farmers came to our select committee and said that this bill should not apply to any farm animal any production animal. It said that we should continue to turn a blind eye and that farmers should be able to continue to carry out any form of animal cruelty to treat their animals in any way no matter how cruel because they are production animals. We should have one standard for production animals for farm animals and one for other animals. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes my colleague is reminding me that it is a bit like George Orwell’s  
Animal Farm 
. The animals on our farms will get the Orwellian cruel treatment— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh rubbish! The member’s stretching it. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: —if they are permitted to. That is fair enough; the member is pointing out that most farmers do not treat their animals cruelly. Most farmers treat their animals extremely well. However we cannot say the same for so-called chicken farms hen farms and intensive pig farms in New Zealand. Yet Federated Farmers argued that no farmer should be prosecuted because farm animals are production animals. They were arguing a double standard. 
The Minister said that his Government takes animal welfare seriously. He says that this bill shows that animal cruelty will not be tolerated in New Zealand. It is abhorrent to society; it will not be tolerated. All I can say to the Minister is that those are fantastic words. Can this Parliament and the Minister now turn their attention to the institutionalised cruelty of animals in New Zealand? 
Hon David Carter 
: Already done it. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Already done? 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s already under way. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It is already under way? Well we have been waiting for 11 years to do something about sows about the pig code and about hens. The Minister is assuring us that they will be liberated from their cruelty; I am delighted to hear that. If that is the case I say to the Minister that he has my heartiest congratulations. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill along with the rest of the Parliament. This is a rare occasion when the Parliament I understand is unanimously—100 percent 122 votes—in favour of the bill. It does happen from time to time and when it does it should be celebrated. 
The interesting thing about the debate from members on the other side of the House is that I have never been subjected to so many angry speeches in support of legislation. I think the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill may have arrived just in time for some of my colleagues on the other side of the House. Clearly something is going on over there from a cruelty point of view that could make them so angry when they are in support of legislation. I wonder what they are like when they do not like something. I have been sitting here pondering what could have caused it. I think I have come to a conclusion and the member Sue Kedgley may have given me the hint. After 12 long years of Labour and Green Governments they were unable to do anything; they never achieved anything. Nothing was done. And what happens? A National Government which according to the last speaker apparently supports farmers who are cruel to animals—not—comes along and introduces legislation that will fix up some of the issues that have been ongoing as the member said for a very long time. 
Hon David Carter 
: It only took 18 months. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Yes that is right; in 18 months it is already done. 
The further point that needs to be made—and it was raised by some of the previous speakers—is about the lack of resources. The National Government not only introduced a bill to fix up some of the problems but also added another $8.2 million towards a lot more resources to solve the issue. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How much? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is worth repeating—an extra $8.2 million will help with the fight against cruelty to animals. 
The Hon Damien O’Connor who was a member of the Primary Production Committee spent most of his speech talking about this legislation in terms of how it addresses issues of negative behaviour of people in society. Well he must not have listened to submitters during the submission process who said time and time again that there is an absolute link between cruelty to animals and further violence in society towards people. So in answer to Damien O’Connor’s challenge to the House about what National is doing in the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to address problems in society like violence towards people I say that this bill according to those submitters whom I have no reason to doubt will go a long way to prevent some of the negative heinous behaviour that we often see from people who start off by being cruel to animals and progress to being violent towards their partners their families their children or whatever the case may be. 
The Primary Production Committee received the bill in good faith from the Government on 23 February 2010. The closing date for submissions was 15 March 2010 and the committee delivered. We received the bill we got the submissions in—17 different organisations across the country submitted to the committee—and we went through the process and delivered a result. We made some recommendations to the Government in terms of changes that might be considered and the Government looked at those recommendations and put them in the bill. This legislation has had a sound robust parliamentary process. It is supported by all members in the Parliament. 
I need to finish with one point: New Zealand is an agricultural nation. I know that a lot of people in New Zealand hate that and I know that a lot of people in New Zealand would like to change that. But the fact is that we are an agricultural nation. Members from the Green Party are gesturing as though that is some kind of revelation to them. Well I mention to them that when I attended a political meeting in my own electorate in Raglan members of the Green Party were there and said that they would ban agriculture if they were given a chance. So I need to point that out to the members over there. We are an agricultural nation we are dependent on our primary production systems and we need to make sure that we present to the world farming systems that can stand up to scrutiny as far as animal welfare concerns go. I believe this bill will go a long way in doing that. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak after the chairman of the Primary Production Committee on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I assure Mr Ardern that if he were a Minister there would not be many angry speeches in this House against him. He is a good chairman; he is a good man who should be the Minister of Agriculture. 
This bill is an interim arrangement. I call it an interim arrangement because even Simon Bridges who introduced this bill accepted in his speech that there is a need to do more. So clearly this bill is an interim arrangement because just increasing penalties fines and jail time will not solve all the problems. In this country we cannot accept cruelty to animals. I acknowledge the work done by the select committee along with the chairman who also mentioned the work that the committee has done and also the work of the officials. I must also acknowledge that we have made some very good amendments to the bill and the committee did a good job. 
This bill comes after some very unfortunate incidents in relation to animal cruelty such as kittens being fed to pit bulls or dogs being shot. There have been very cruel incidents and this bill has arisen from those situations. I am delighted that Simon Bridges took the initiative with this bill which was passed on to the Minister of Agriculture who picked it up and brought it to the House. I am glad that the recent Budget has increased funding for the SPCA and for issues to do with animal cruelty. 
As we know in 2008 there were nearly 14000 complaints received by the SPCA against animal cruelty and only 110 cases resulted in some kind of charge being laid. Out of those cases there were only 58 convictions. That shows how hard it is to prove animal cruelty whether ill-treatment or the new offence of reckless ill-treatment of animals which is now a new clause in this bill. 
I think it is very important for us to realise that although we have done a good job in terms of this bill and the whole Parliament of 122 members has approved this bill there are important issues for us as an agricultural nation. We are very highly dependent on the export of animal products whether they are dairy products meat wool or whatever. We are highly dependent on the welfare of our animals and particularly on the perception out in our market places of the welfare of our animals. People want to know that the meat wool and milk from New Zealand is coming from animals that are well treated and well looked after. That is an important issue that we have to be very careful of in the future particularly in relation to the legal areas. 
As we know there are ever-increasing difficulties in exporting our products to the EU and Asian countries and we want to ensure that more and more of our products are going to those markets. But people are watching the way that we treat our animals—particularly farm animals as the member from the Green Party said. We have to be very careful about the perception out there in the market place in relation to our farm animals’ welfare. We have heard for example about pigs in sow crates. We have heard about cubicle farming and about some of the issues there. We have heard about 1080 drops and that is an ongoing controversial issue. Personally I totally agree that we need to use 1080 because there is no other option at the moment. The science has not come up with anything new that is comparable with 1080 drops so we have to use it but there are people out there within the country and overseas who are opposed to using 1080 drops. 
There are issues like that and also issues in relation to the treatment of young animals like lambs and calves in the snowy areas for example. I think that we are all very mindful of those issues as we go forward with regard to how the market place will see the way that we treat those animals. I think it is important that we as a nation look after animals very well particularly as the Minister of Agriculture has accepted now— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. The level of noise is so great that I am having difficulty hearing the member. I ask members to please quieten down. If discussions need to take place please go out to the lobbies. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your intervention in this case. As I was saying it is very important for us to be mindful of our future exports to the markets that are becoming very differentiating in terms of where animal products come from. As we very proudly say when we travel overseas and meet other parliamentarians and officials we take a lot of pride in our country’s clean green image. That is very good and we are very proud of that. But at the same time the stories about animal mistreatment particularly on farms reach out to the market places and people want to know exactly what is happening. 
This bill is in my view an interim bill and we will have to do more. I am quite sure that in a few years’ time this issue will come up again in relation to the treatment of farm animals. I think that all the farmers in this Parliament realise that we have to be very mindful of this issue particularly as to how we treat our pigs cows and sheep on farms as the farms become more and more intensive. This is especially so for dairy farming. We have heard about the issues in relation to water utilisation in dairy farming in Canterbury. Cubicle farming was a very hot issue a while ago although at the moment we are not hearing very much about where that is at but we are getting into more intensive farming. I suppose that to grow our GDP as a country we will have to get more and more exports of dairy products particularly for which I believe there is a huge market out in Asia. There is a growing market in Asia in countries like China and India and other Asian countries are coming up. Those countries are very keen to import our products particularly dairy products and wool. They are also interested in importing our forestry products and other products but our main exports to them are animal products. It is important that we are not careless in the way that we treat our animals and it is better if the unfortunate stories like the ones we heard earlier do not go out into the media and the market place. 
In conclusion I once again say that this is a good bill. I acknowledge Simon Bridges who is sitting at the back of the House. His good work started this bill. I know that the current Minister of Agriculture was the chairman of the Primary Production Committee for 6 years and as far as I know he never raised this issue. Obviously this bill is a credit to the new young member for Tauranga who has done a good job of bringing it to the House. I am delighted that the Government has taken over this member’s bill and has taken the next step and I appreciate the extra money that the Minister has made available in this area in the Budget. With those words I commend this bill to the House. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 There is clearly a great deal of public interest in this important issue of animal welfare and it is good to see that it has commanded urgent attention from a diligent Minister of Agriculture and a very busy and effective Government. Like Mr Choudhary the previous speaker I pay tribute to my colleague Simon Bridges the member for Tauranga who I think deserves considerable kudos and credit for his hard work and attention to detail on this matter and for showing his responsiveness to that widespread public interest. I think it is a fitting reward that his member’s bill has been adopted as a Government bill and I congratulate him on that. I know that he has worked tirelessly to achieve that end. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Indefatigable. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Absolutely indefatigable—I thank Dr Calder for that. 
The provisions of this bill have been well canvassed by previous speakers and in the bill’s earlier readings as it has moved through the House. I am pleased that it is now a very comprehensive measure that underlines the seriousness of the issue. Several of my constituents in Hamilton West have raised with me in recent months their very real concerns about animal welfare issues. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill demonstrates that we are taking their concerns and indeed in many cases their deep revulsion and distress very seriously. 
I imagine that all members of this House and an overwhelming number of New Zealanders struggle to understand how anyone could deliberately be cruel to a domestic pet and are sickened when instances of that type of abuse are brought to our attention. How anyone could feed kittens to a pit bull terrier is almost impossible to comprehend. How anyone could take pleasure from training dogs to fight is beyond me. The disturbing reality is that such sickening cruelty to animals often reflects a propensity to inflict cruelty on the frail and vulnerable adults and children in our communities. So it is right that we enact stronger penalties to reflect society’s collective revulsion towards those who inflict terror and pain on any living creatures. 
I am encouraged to detect support for this bill from all the other parties in the House. But it was disappointing to hear Mr O’Connor wander from the topic in his speech. When both he and Ms Mackey expressed concern at the relatively low number of convictions for animal cruelty I found myself in agreement with them but for 9 long years under their Labour Government very little happened in that area. But Mr O’Connor’s suggestion that the new National Government is neglecting the people is bizarre irrelevant and unfounded. It was a shame that he showed little ability or inclination to focus on the provisions of this bill when he spoke. Animals barely got a look-in when he was on his feet. In fact it was a real “Four legs bad two legs good.” type of address and that was very disappointing. 
So let us look at what more informed commentators have said about this measure. There are not many more qualified to do so than the SPCA’s national president Bob Kerridge who said: “It is time to recognise that cruelty to animals is a social sickness that is as heinous as any act of violence inflicted on fellow humans and the two are inextricably linked.” He also said: “Wilful ill-treatment epitomises the most reprehensible acts of animal cruelty we encounter for which sentences are generally abysmally light given the nature of the crimes.” Well this bill addresses Mr Kerridge’s concern and increases the maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment of an animal to 5 years of imprisonment. 
The bill has also been warmly endorsed by Dr Wayne Ricketts of the New Zealand Veterinary Association who backs increasing the maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment of animals and who has commended the Government’s comprehensive overhaul of animal welfare legislation and codes of welfare for commercial activities involving animals. Dr Ricketts said: “We are delighted to see an increased compliance and enforcement effort with the doubling of enforcement officers and the stated focus on bringing the key organisations involved in animal welfare together. 
There is no doubt that there is considerable professional support for this bill. Those who have great experience dealing with the issue out in our community are right behind it. It is wonderful to know that all members of the House are behind it and I look forward to this bill very shortly becoming the law of New Zealand. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 This is an interesting debate because I have heard Shane Ardern and Tim Macindoe trumpeting about the wonderful things they have done to fix animal rights. Well that is good and great and as has been mentioned we all support that but I would love members of the Government to stand up and talk about some measures they will put in place to help humans. What have they done? There have been a whole lot of cuts. If we start at the beginning of life we see that there have been cuts to early childhood education. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a third reading speech not a first reading speech and the bill is about animal welfare. 
STUART NASH 
: Very much so. 
This is a great debate. One of the first legal debates we had at law school was a discussion of whether a fish is an animal. I suppose that comes down to whether a human is an animal. Of course a human is an animal. That is why I am talking about the welfare of humans as well as the welfare of animals. The welfare of human animals has been affected by cuts to home help and early childhood education and everything in between. The only animals that have benefited from this Government are the ones that walk on four legs—clearly not the ones that walk on two legs. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. 
When it comes to animals I support this bill. Who would not support this bill? 
Tim Macindoe 
: Well talk about it then. 
STUART NASH 
: I will talk about this bill. As mentioned the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill was initially brought to the House by Simon Bridges. I suspect that the reason Mr Bridges is no longer in charge of the bill is as he admitted last night in the debate that he lost about 50 percent of the cases that he heard as a prosecutor or defence lawyer. I do not quite know how that works. If someone had Mr Bridges as a lawyer and tossed the coin that person would win 50 percent of those cases and lose 50 percent of them. Goodness me! The Government could not risk this bill being defeated in the House so it took it away from Mr Bridges looked for a safe pair of hands and then gave it to David Carter. 
But anyway the bill is before the House it is having its third reading and it will be supported by everyone in the House which is fantastic. I suppose Mr Bridges did well to pick it up to start with and he acted in a very magnanimous way when it was ripped from him and given to a Cabinet Minister who is more important. I commend him for retaining his dignity. Someone with a lesser personality would have jumped up and down and whinged when such a simple task had been taken off him but he did well. I must admit that I love his glasses; they look good. I wonder whether there are lenses in them. He looks very smart. 
Anyway animal cruelty is abhorrent to everyone. We all know that when photos of such abuse appear in newspapers and on TV they always raise groans of disgust. Animals are not humans but many are treated in such a way. I know of cat owners who think that cats are on a higher level than humans— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Tell us about the cats. 
STUART NASH 
: I will. The abuse shows a disturbing lack of not only responsibility but also any thought of empathy. It is quite frightening. We all know the stories about Guy Fawkes Night when kids set fire to dogs and cats. It is just dreadful. Parliament has a role to send a message loud and clear that certain behaviour is simply not acceptable. This is what this bill does. It sends a message that any abuse of any sort of animal is simply not acceptable to society so we will increase the measures wholeheartedly and let us hope it works. Let us hope it is picked up and broadcast loud and wide. 
I was astounded to read that in 2008 the SPCA had over 14000 complaints of animal abuse—14000. I know that only 110 resulted in charges being laid and 58 resulted in convictions but I ask what the hell is going on out there when 14000 cases of animal abuse are being reported. Goodness me; we need to do something about this. One thing we really need to do is fund the SPCA. Parliament gave it an extra $1.2 million over the next 4 years. We rely on it to such a large extent yet we expect it to hold cake stalls and to raise money so that it can do the public good. The SPCA needs to be funded and money also needs to be provided to early childhood education adult and community education classes and home help. 
Let me get back to these animals. I ask whether a fish is an animal. Is an orange roughy an animal? I am not too sure. I have been to the SPCA in Napier and it does a fabulous job. There were not only cats and dogs at that SPCA; there was even a turtle. The chief executive officer of the SPCA in Napier a wonderful guy called Rob Johnson has done an amazing job of turning that place around. He has got money he has the buy-in of the local community and he has got local sponsors. I know that Rob would like to spend more of his valuable time actually advocating for animals and building cases against those who neglect and abuse them rather than getting out there and raising money. This is what we have to do. This is a classic case of an organisation that could do with more funding. 
I ask why this is important. It may have been Tim or Shane Arden who mentioned that tackling animal cruelty can have a greater benefit for society. There is a proven link between cruelty to animals and abuse of humans. I can tell members about a 1997 survey that was undertaken by the Humane Society of the United States of 50 of the largest shelters for battered women. It found that 85 percent of the women and 63 percent of the children entering those shelters discussed instances of pet abuse in the family. That is simply dreadful and it is something we must do a lot about. 
I am in a relationship where the cat shares the same privileges as me—except when it comes to rights over the couch or the prime cuts of meat. The cat’s name is Mozzarella. That cat has been around longer than I have so I suppose Mozzarella has pre-emptive rights. Even in moments of tiredness when the couch would be nice but the floor beckons thanks to Mozzarella’s disposition there is never ever a moment when I would consider treating this ball of fluff any differently from how I would treat a child. The thought of cruelty quite frankly makes me feel ill. I simply cannot understand how there can have been 14000 reported instances of animal abuse in 2008. And those are just the ones that are reported; I assume it is probably the tip of the iceberg. 
This bill is obviously supported well and truly in this House. It has been reported widely that the SPCA will be given the powers the police will be given the time and the other agencies that do the work around this area will be given the mandate to go out and put in place the measures in this bill. I hope that we see more convictions and that the complainants do not have someone like Simon Bridges as a lawyer because he admitted as mentioned that he won only 50 percent of his cases. I suppose that is not too bad; it is better than the Irish rugby team against the All Blacks. I support this bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you very much. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am delighted to be speaking on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I thought I would break from the tenor of the contributions to the debate and actually talk about the bill—gosh imagine! The bill itself and what it does have not been talked about very much. 
I reiterate that the bill clarifies ownership. I am quite taken by clause 7 which amends section 169 of the Animal Welfare Act which states: “A court may … disqualify a person for any period that it thinks fit from being the owner of or exercising authority in respect of an animal or animals of a particular kind or description where the court convicts that person of an offence …” prescribed in the bill. I think that is really great. 
A person who has been convicted of the wilful ill-treatment of an animal does not deserve to own or have authority for an animal and the court may decide the period of time for which this applies. The bill states: “In making an order under subsection (1) the court may also specify a minimum disqualification period.” I think that if it is easier for the court to make that determination with a conviction then that is great. Those people do not deserve to own an animal if they cannot look after it. If they have had a couple of tries and they have been found wanting then I think that minimum disqualification period—it will be assessed in accordance with the actual offence—should be quite lengthy. If a person cannot look after an animal in the first instance any future behaviours or further ownership or exercising of authority will probably be found to be wanting. 
I would like to make a comment in reference to the amount of complaints made. A number of complaints made about the ill-treatment of animals are found to be not qualified—that is people not necessarily understanding what they are seeing. I will give members an example. Horses can be kept in a couple of paddocks where the grass is pretty short but in actual fact those horses are in really good condition because they are being fed all sorts of other types of matter not just pasture. When people see a horse in a fairly empty paddock they do not necessarily know that that horse is being fed a lot of other different types of feed and is in really good first-rate condition. I had that concern so I went and spoke to the owners and had a look at the animals. The owners told me what was happening. They said they had had a lot of complaints but they were pretty spurious. 
I just make that short comment. I would like to commend Simon Bridges for his excellent contribution in bringing this bill before the House the Minister of Agriculture for his foresight in acknowledging the importance of this bill and the Government for taking it up and for contributing of $8 million - plus to furthering the care of animals in New Zealand. It is a great bill. Well done everybody. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 As the 18th century jurist and philosopher Jeremy Bentham said about animals “the question is not Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but [rather] Can they suffer?”. Curbing cruelty to animals is a priority for National. 
The relationship between mankind and animals has probably been extant longer than that between man and the oldest profession. The emotional symbioses and synergies the confrontations and territorial disputes between mankind and animals have exercised the poet the author the philosopher and the statesman over the years. All have had their thoughts. 
Mahatma Gandhi observed: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” This Government is concerned that the people who are cruel to animals are also often violent to their families and others. Immanuel Kant wrote: “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” 
How will this bill work? Among the things that this bill explores is the expansion of the threshold for the wilful ill-treatment of an animal—the most serious category of offending—to include the serious injury or impairment of an animal. The bill increases the maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment to 5 years’ imprisonment. 
The deep relationship between animals and humankind has occasioned a raft of comments verging on the metaphysical. Theophile Gautier for instance said: “Who can believe that there is no soul behind those luminous eyes!”. An anonymous person observed: “Thousands of years ago cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this.” Warren Eckstein wrote: “In the beginning God created man but seeing him so feeble He gave him the cat.” Anatole France wrote: “Until one has loved an animal a part of one’s soul remains unawakened.” As a medical doctor I was well aware of the therapeutic benefit that many of my patients derived from their daily interaction with their family pets. 
The vast majority of New Zealanders—whether urban dwellers with their cat dog turtle or parrot or the “horny-handed sons of toil” in the rural sector with hundreds of dairy cows or flocks of thousands of sheep—nurture and care for their animals in an exemplary fashion. This bill sends the clear message to the very very small number of offenders that cruelty to animals is completely unacceptable and it will be dealt with severely. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Courts (Remote Participation) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill enables the wider use of audiovisual links in New Zealand courts. The bill sets out criteria that must be applied to any decision to use video links. These criteria are specifically designed to protect the fair trial rights of defendants and other participants in the court process. I shall take a moment to go through these criteria as they are pivotal to the operation of the bill. 
Clause 5 sets out general criteria that must be considered in any decision to use video links at any type of proceeding. The court must examine the nature of the proceeding—for example whether it is procedural in nature or a substantive matter. The court must also look at the technology available and how use of that technology will affect all participants in the case. Clause 5 also enables the court to take into account any other relevant matters. Such matters might include the views of other participants such as the child in a Family Court proceeding or whether the accused represents a significant security risk. 
In the more specific case of a criminal proceeding clause 6 provides additional criteria that must be considered which go to the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the defendant’s ability to comprehend the proceedings participate in the defence consult and instruct counsel privately access relevant evidence and examine witnesses for the prosecution. 
I listened carefully to the debate on the second reading and last night to the debate of the Committee of the whole House. I was persuaded by the arguments put forward by a number of members that more explicit protection is needed for the appearance of a defendant at his or her actual trial. Last night I tabled an amendment to clause 9 which states that audiovisual links cannot be used for the appearance of the defendant in a trial that determines his or her guilt or innocence without the defendant’s consent. These changes mean that it is defendants who will decide whether they appear by video link at their own substantive trial. Other participants including witnesses in substantive matters will still be able to appear by video link. In my view this preserves the fair trial rights of the defendant while still enabling the wider use of video links in New Zealand courts. 
Notwithstanding the debate that has taken place this week it is important to recognise that this bill is not just about defendants appearing by video link; that technology will be available to a wide range of participants in the court system. In allowing for this the bill enhances access to justice not just for those involved in criminal proceedings but also for individuals families and businesses trying to resolve their civil disputes. It will mean that a day in court is not contingent on every participant being in the same place at the same time regardless of whether that is convenient efficient reasonable or safe. Enabling the greater use of video links through this bill will benefit a wide variety of court users minimise the costs and risks associated with transporting prisoners and contribute to this Government’s reform programme which has a wider goal of a safer more efficient and effective justice system. 
What a difference 24 hours can make in Parliament! I close by stating that I appreciate the very genuine way in which members across the House put their case for a change to this bill and that was the spirit in which I considered their arguments. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I begin by congratulating the Minister of Justice on doing as he has described. I think that the way in which Parliament has conducted itself in respect of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill in the last week has been exemplary. It is the sort of interchange we should have in respect of legislation and the sort the public wants us to have. We have actually built public confidence in this institution this week. Were there to be another ranking of the most trusted New Zealanders next week compared with our ranking last week we would maybe come up a notch although I suspect that we still would not be in the top half. 
Returning to the merits of this legislation I point out that there has never been disagreement that we ought to take advantage of this technology for things that do not adversely affect the interests of parties to litigation. The use of audiovisual technology to make it cheaper quicker and more convenient for people to participate in civil proceedings and particularly in call-over proceedings for criminal matters is to be applauded. The area the Opposition was very concerned about was in respect of the ability of a judge to have discretion to conduct a trial without the accused having the right to be present. I will dwell a little on why that seemed so clearly to be wrong but perhaps more on the process that led us to being so close to abrogating that civil liberty because I think it pointed to a mistake that was made within the ministries. 
When I started to think about this issue after we had heard from the Human Rights Commission and the New Zealand Law Society as to their opposition to it and tried to think about how injustices could be caused to the accused it quickly became apparent to me that there were a number of ways in which an injustice could occur. I have listed them previously in other stages in the debate but I will mention some of them now. For a start the right of the accused to participate by audiovisual link could be frustrated at the Department of Corrections end if Department of Corrections officers wanted to be disruptive. There could also be technological faults; it is a matter that I have not previously raised but there is always the possibility of technological failures which we have seen often enough at select committees when we hear submissions from a distance by way of audiovisual link. 
In addition various things happen at a trial that an accused must be able to see not only to protect the interests of the accused but also to maintain the sense that he or she has been dealt with fairly by the justice system. That is important in terms of maintaining public confidence in justice. One particular thing that would worry me if I were an accused would be if the person giving the main evidence for the prosecution could not see me staring at him or her at the time that witness was about to give evidence that was adverse to my interests and that I knew to be incorrect—and therefore I knew the witness was perjuring himself or herself. I think that having to stare at the accused—at the person who will go behind bars if convicted—affects the tension upon the witness. Therefore it affects the demeanour of the witness when he or she gives evidence and whether the evidence will be believed by the judge or the jury. That is one instance when it is important that the accused is there and able to face the accuser. 
Another instance relates to what can go wrong in a courtroom. On occasions—and it is very rare—there can be inappropriately cosy relationships between the defence and the prosecution. That sort of thing is less likely to happen if the accused is present and if it does happen it is important that the accused is there to see it so that the accused can say that it is not on and sack his or her counsel. Inappropriate things can happen in relation to a jury. A juror could fall asleep. Jurors could be handing around pictures that are irrelevant or have not gone through the normal evidence process and the accused has a right to see whether that is happening so as to protect his or her interests. The accused has the right to see whether someone in the gallery is showing signs that might be pejorative of the accused. The judge may have had prior dealings with the accused and be tempted to make snide or inappropriate remarks about the accused when he or she is not present. The accused has a right to know whether those things are happening so that the accused can protect his or her interests both at trial and at any subsequent proceedings like appeals. 
I think it is pretty obvious that this change was a substantial abrogation of the current civil liberty we all have to personally attend a trial where we are accused. I was very gratified that members of the Government acknowledged some of these arguments. I thank Simon Bridges for digging out some cases which were also referred to in the report to the Attorney-General by Crown Law. He noted that there were some instances where the accused was not able to appear at his or her own trial. But when we dug down into those cases we found that the accused was not there because the accused did not want to be there and had absconded from the trial. That shows those cases to be different from the more general principle that could have been brought about had the Government not agreed to an amendment right at the end of the Committee stage. 
I have read the report dated 27 November 2009 to the Attorney-General from Crown Law. It said in paragraph 5: “The use of AVL for the appearance of an accused person at trial appears to be uncommon in comparable jurisdictions at least without the accused person’s consent”. So it actually noted that there could be a problem. But I have to say that there was an incredibly once-over-lightly response once that problem was identified. Not one of the instances of possible injustice that I have referred to in this short speech was referred to in the analysis from Crown Law to the Attorney-General and I personally think that was a mistake. I will not call it slack; I just think that it made a mistake. It was a mistake not to be aware of what I think were pretty obvious possibilities of injustice arising from that legislation. Crown Law should have been alert to those from the fact that even in its own report it states that it “appears to be uncommon in comparable jurisdictions at least without the accused person’s consent”. 
I for one have a little less confidence in Crown Law than I did before I read this report because I think it made a mistake. I hope it has learnt a lesson from this legislation and that it has seen that when this bill was debated in Parliament Parliament saw fit to be a bit more protective of our civil liberties than Crown Law thought was appropriate when it was assessing this legislation in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
In terms of the advice that came to the Justice and Electoral Committee I thought that the Ministry of Justice departmental report was less than perfect as well. Again its analysis of paragraph 65 and around there was a bit general. It tried to bluster that these things were happening overseas when in fact if one read it in detail one could see that there was not much justification based on overseas jurisdictions. Canada cannot have remote participation without the consent of the accused and it is the same in most parts of Australia. Maybe Australia is a wee bit different because of the huge geographic distances. That point was never brought out either. We never heard what the case was in the United States but I would be very very surprised if one can have a trial there without being personally present. The United Kingdom has only some pilot trials so it certainly does not have this rule either. So we were going out on our own in my opinion and that was not clear from the departmental advice that was provided to the select committee. We as committee members had to dig in order to find that. 
In respect of the conduct in this House I also thought that Wayne Mapp in the chair made an appropriate acknowledgment at one stage when he conceded that the change from having an unconditional right to appear at one’s trial to that effectively being at the discretion of the court albeit with some protections built around that discretion was a significant change. I think that was an appropriate acknowledgment for the Minister in the chair to make and I thank him for doing so. But it then raised a question. If the Minister in the chair can see that and if we in this Parliament can see it why could Crown Law not see that it was a significant change that actually required some proper analysis in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? 
We then came to the intervention of the Minister of Justice. He had been listening to the debate—he was presumably in his office—and was sufficiently moved by the importance of these issues to come to the House. I thank the Minister for doing that. I know that on both sides of the House at times that does not happen. It is pretty hard to change track when one has departmental advice that one is right one has been to Cabinet and Cabinet has been convinced that one is right. It is actually quite hard to change one’s mind in that process and it shows strength of character on the part of the Minister that he was able to do so. It shows also the respect that he is held in by his Cabinet colleagues that he had the confidence that he could do that and his Cabinet would support him. I put that on record. 
I think that in the end this legislation shows that this Parliament can work to protect civil liberties. We have done so in this case. I was very concerned until the last that we were not going to get there. We had put up an amendment with a similar effect to the amendment that the Minister put through last night which was voted on first. The indication was that our amendment would not have been voted for by the Government. I thank Mr Garrett and members of the ACT Party members of the Maori Party and the members of the Green Party for their involvement in this debate. In a process sense I probably could have raised that issue earlier a bit more clearly with some other parties. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I will not speak for very long because we are in a position of consensus on this bill the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. It is very clear that with this bill we are taking advantage of a technology that is available to us as a society. I think we can all agree that there are safety benefits in relation to prisoners and their transfer and the like there are efficiencies to be gained and through that there are of course cost savings. That is not the be-all and end-all in justice matters by any stretch but it is a matter worth noting—there will be cost savings. 
I think it was David Parker who said in the second reading debate that Labour members agreed with 99 percent of the bill and that it was with regret that they were holding out on one point. I will not relitigate that but I agree with David Parker that what we have is a situation where the Minister of Justice listened carefully. It is to his credit that he in weighing up those arguments was persuaded by—I think we can say—strong speeches from the Labour Opposition and Kennedy Graham of the Greens. 
I suggest that we have seen a Parliament that is working—sometimes pretty robustly but working well. I certainly do not want to say to the House that this debate is somehow all for our own edification and that we do all this to be educated but I think that David Parker would agree with me that this has been to some extent educational. We have all learnt something. We have picked up some different perspectives and perhaps a number of members in this House who have followed the debate closely—as I have and as David Parker Kennedy Graham and David Garrett have—will come away better more educated and with a finer sense of the mood of the House on issues like this. I think the process has been very good and very robust. Now we have a bill that as I understand it will have unanimous support. I think that is very good. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand along with my colleagues and every member of this House to speak this time in support of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. I acknowledge the Minister of Justice for changing his mind and for listening to the debates. I also acknowledge Kennedy Graham from the Green Party who shared the view of the Labour members on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I acknowledge the ACT Party which listened very carefully to the arguments and played a part in the National Government’s change of mind I acknowledge the Maori Party and I also acknowledge Chester Borrows who did a very good job of chairing the committee. 
At any select committee it is very important that submitters are treated with absolute respect and that they know that their voices are heard. I think the most compelling submissions on this bill were those from the Human Rights Commission and from the Law Society which raised the concerns initially. When the bill went through its first reading it was certainly positive in terms of access to justice and efficiency and there were some very valid arguments. But it was the Law Commission that was so strident in its opposition to remote participation without consent being required. The commission’s submission raised our concerns and alerted us in the Labour Party to why it was really important to have further protection. We talked in earlier debates about whether we should use a trial period which as David Parker pointed out earlier is being used in the UK I think. When we are getting into new technology it is really important that it is tested. David Parker also said earlier that in many other countries consent is generally required for the use of the technology. 
I can remember—as can many other members in this House I am sure who are around my age—when answerphones first came into use and how difficult it was for people to use them. Adjustment as we move forward is needed for people to feel at ease and we had that with leaving a message on an answerphone. 
As other speakers have said there is a difficulty at times for submitters to select committees to give evidence through remote participation. Many submitters are a little more nervous and uncertain in that situation because they cannot see us. Most people feel much more at ease being able to speak in person. From the accused’s perspective which David Parker so eloquently outlined there are many many instances where the accused could be disadvantaged. They may not be able to see what is happening with the jury they may not be able to see body language and they may not know what is happening between counsel within the court situation. All of those things could be quite a disadvantage. 
There is also a disadvantage for victims in relation to the right of victims to face the accused. So taking all of those things into account requiring consent for remote participation in a trial is a really important thing. I am really pleased as I said before that all members of this House of every single party in this House have acknowledged that that is important. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: That’s right. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I thank Dr Choudhary very much. Let us face it: it was at the eleventh hour that the Minister put forward a handwritten amendment. But that is what democracy is about. It is about not being too proud to say that yes we did get it wrong or that something can be improved; we should listen and we should change it. I have seen a media release from the Human Rights Commission that was very appreciative of the change of heart from the Government as are the members in the House who supported the commission’s concerns at the select committee. 
The use of audiovisual links despite the fact now that consent is required to use it in a trial will be a real asset in terms of court processes. We all know that everybody in this House supports it because we want to see situations where the justice system is not held up and where there are no unnecessary delays. 
When the previous Government held our inquiry into victims’ rights we found that there were concerns about those rights. I acknowledge Nandor Tanczos who put forward that inquiry into victims’ rights. We learnt a lot during that inquiry; we learnt a tremendous amount. We learnt that victims needed more support and more information and that is why Labour introduced the 24-hour helpline whereby victims had access to information. But submitters told us that what was particularly upsetting for them were court delays. They had in their minds that they would be going to a hearing but then there would be a delay. So anything that helps the efficiency of progress in the court has to be good for victims. 
The victims’ right to face the accused who has done them harm in some way is also another very important part of justice. We want to see justice served in our judicial system and this bill with the amendment that has been supported by all parties in the House goes a long way towards that. It is a pleasure to speak in support of this bill. Thank you. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise to join others in recognising the progress that has been made in this House in the last 24 hours on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill and by implication the progress that has been made more generally. Simon Bridges put it well if I understood him correctly: we have essentially a more refined understanding of each other’s positions policies and viewpoints. Certainly in my limited experience in the House this was the best example I have seen of political parties coming from different philosophical vantage points bringing their different policies to bear on a pretty complex subject and refining them through debate to the point where we found common ground. Let us hope that we can undertake that more often. We are winding down a little from last night and we are all a little spent in our passion on this subject but it was because of that passion that we got to where we did. 
I pay tribute to colleagues beginning with Minister Power who has the statesmanlike quality of being able to think on his feet metaphorically and even literally and to adjust the position that the Government has taken at the moment that it is necessary. Timing is obviously everything. I would not say that the Government has made a mistake with this bill necessarily but if it has then I will say that we can all make mistakes and we all do in every party. But I commend Minister Power. I also commend the Minister in the chair during the Committee stage Minister Mapp for very ably handling the subject at a critical moment on behalf of his colleague Minister. Not least I commend the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee Chester Borrows who guided us through and played a critical part behind the scenes in our arriving at a common position. It is an absolute pleasure to serve in a select committee under his chairmanship and I commend him for both his capabilities and his style of parliamentary work. I also thank Simon Bridges who eloquently put the Government’s case and other colleagues as well. 
I have a couple of quick points to make. We reached common ground but I also note Peter Dunne’s thoughts on the matter. It is a shame that he is not here. I do not know whether other members have picked up on this but Mr Dunne issued a press release this morning in which he commended the position we arrived at. He said that he will as I understand it support the position but he still had some critique of it. I note his concerns—I will take it upon myself to articulate them since he is not here—with a degree of sympathy. If the discretion resides with the defendant to appear via an audiovisual link and not appear physically a pattern could arise for whatever reason where the defendant could be weak-minded or lethargic or totally indifferent having essentially given up the ghost. At the other extreme the defendant or someone charged could be very wealthy and use their wealth to personal effect in a criminal trial. So Mr Dunne’s concern is that we could get a pattern of non-appearance that could undermine the principle. I will not say “absolute principle” but I will say “constitutional principle” as I see it. I will not say any more. So I note Mr Dunne’s comments and I share the concern but in so far as he is prepared to support the bill the Green Party had independently arrived at a position of support earlier on the basis of the Minister’s moves. 
David Parker made the point—I think it is a very important point—that the New Zealand Government may have gone a little far out in front of other similar jurisdictions and was almost on a fishing expedition to find areas of justification for the bill. He wondered about the situation in the United States and I can certainly confirm that the United States is arguably the strongest of all when it comes to a defendant’s right to appear in court. It is there in the US Constitution it is there in an 1884 case and it is there in a 2004 case. In the United States it is not an absolute right but rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure does state that the defendant must be present at the arraignment at the time of plea and at every stage of the trial including at the empanelment of the jury the return of the verdict and the imposition of the sentence. He or she may however waive that right can be dismissed through disruptive conduct and so on. So it is clear that the United States particularly is very strong on this point. 
Last night in the full flush of pursuit I challenged the Government to come up with New Zealand cases over the last half-century that might have been heard in absentia. We had very limited time in which to do that. Simon Bridges focused on a few cases and we undertook our own research in the short time available. I take this opportunity again to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Library’s services which we and I particularly use a great deal. I am extremely well served by the individual researchers in the Parliamentary Library. We are able to say based on that research that there have been 11 criminal trials heard in absentia. Four cases were about single defendants absconding while on bail and another four cases were of multiple-defendant trials where a small minority did not appear as they had absconded as well. So there were essentially eight cases of defendants absconding while on bail. There were two cases of illness where the judge formed the view that the trial could proceed. Finally in 2003 I think there was an extraordinary case where the defendant was in prison overnight before sentencing and was forgotten. Staff had failed to feed him clothe him or anything. He was in severe distress the next day and was registered by a medical practitioner as unfit to attend the trial. None the less the judge proceeded to hear the case. That was the 11th case; but cases were few and minor. So we would have been proceeding against all manner of precedent and principle in New Zealand law had we gone ahead on that basis. I think that is sufficient comment. 
I pay tribute again to the Minister of Justice for his initiative. I believe that last Tuesday night’s second reading and yesterday’s Committee stage on this bill represented New Zealand parliamentary democracy at its best. Let us hope we can continue with that level of debate. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to lend the ACT Party’s support to the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill and to echo pretty much the comments from all around the Chamber. 
I too can say that in my short time here which parallels that of Dr Graham the debate on this bill was the best example of parliamentary democracy that I have seen. I do not think it would be treading on any toes—I hope not—to say that last night lessons were learnt all around the House and in the wider precinct. What should have been a straightforward procedural change to the law threatened to cause or potentially cause some very serious damage to the integrity of our justice system. I again echo others in paying tribute to members on all sides of the House who argued passionately throughout the Committee stage to make some very important amendments to the bill—the obvious one being to exclude trials from the ambit of audiovisual links without the defendant’s consent. I think most members would not regard me as an obsequious person but I wish to put on record that I found David Parker’s speech truly inspiring. I think it was probably the best speech or certainly one of the best speeches that I have heard in my time here. 
The substantive change that as others have said needed fixing and was fixed in the final analysis was the defendant’s right to appear at his or her own trial. I will not repeat the reasons why that is so important as other members have done it as well as or better than I could. A defendant must be and always has been considered innocent until proven guilty—that is a foundation block of our justice system. As Parliament is effectively the highest court in the land it is the job of this House to ensure that nothing goes through this place that undermines that fundamental right. For this reason I join in the chorus of praise for the Minister of Justice. He said and I take him at his word that he was persuaded by the quality of the debate—and it certainly was an excellent debate—that it was necessary for him to take the most unusual step of making a handwritten amendment. 
For those both within and without this place who think that parliamentary democracy is out of fashion I would like to think that what has happened in the last 24 hours has restored their faith in it. Obviously the crucial clause as it now reads is that audiovisual links must not be used for the appearance of the defendant in a trial that determines his or her guilt or innocence unless the defendant consents to that use. If the defendant thinks he or she stands a better chance of being found not guilty by being in the courtroom where the judge and the jury can see the defendant’s body language more effectively or vice versa then it must be the defendant’s right to appear in person at his or her trial. 
As members on the other side of the House have noted though it was not just for the defendant’s sake important as his or her rights are—in fact the defendant’s rights are paramount. It was Lianne Dalziel who said during the Committee of the whole House that many victims and their families prefer that the defendant is forced to face them in person. I have not had the pleasure of witnessing marae justice but I understand that the face-to-face aspect of the victim confronting the wrongdoer is a big part of that process. It is important for victims to gain a sense of closure. Having the defendant in court hearing the victim impact statements in person if the victims are able to read them and seeing what damage he or she has caused can be both therapeutic for victims and—sadly less often—one hopes occasionally a wake-up call for those who have caused hurt. 
I have just drawn a line through the next section of my speech because I was going to score a point. As everyone else has been so magnanimous I shall continue in that same vein. 
This bill is recognition of the role of modern technology and what it has to offer us. As usual the corporate world is streets ahead of the public sector when it comes to using technological advances to increase efficiency and achieve better outcomes. Rather than flying around the world for a meeting with audiovisual links one can sit in the Auckland office and negotiate substantial business deals in London. It is cheaper and as Gareth Hughes said in his speech it is better for the environment—if one believes in the evils of air miles and carbon footprints and we all have some divergence of opinion on that. 
Governments are often slow to adopt best practice from the business sector. In my view it is high time the justice system properly embraced and used the benefits of audiovisual links. We have a justice system that I think all parties would agree has been clogged for a long time. Delays in trials can be more than 2 years I understand and that is entirely unsatisfactory on a whole heap of levels. Increasing the use of video links at earlier stages of proceedings can only help speed up that process. That is beneficial for everyone in the system—criminals victims and indeed litigants in civil trials. 
Anything that will reduce the amount of time spent waiting for justice to be delivered must be a good thing as long as justice is delivered fairly. That was the crux of the debate last night. Thanks to the last-minute courageous amendment made by Minister Power this bill does just that. ACT members are delighted to support it along with every other party. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe tena tatau katoa e te Whare. Ko taku i te tuatahi ko te whaiwhai haere i te korero o enei na me mihi ki te Minita ka tika. Katahi ano au ka kite i tera momo ahuatanga. Te taenga mai o te tangata ki roto i te Whare Paremata mena ka whakarongo ia ki nga korero te nuinga o te wa ka patai te patai he aha te tika o enei mahi i roto i te Whare Paremata. I te roanga o te wa kua noho au ki roto i te Whare Paremata kua kore au e kite i tera ahuatanga ara ko te aro mai o te Minita ki te ia o te korero ka korerohia i roto i te Whare Paremata. No reira ki te Minita ka nui te mihi ki a ia otira ki te pai o nga korero i puta i te Whare huri rauna huri noa i te Whare nga kokonga me nga taha katoa. A kati he rawe ki te whakarongo ki nga korero. No reira tera korero tera. Ka waiho ki reira me taku mihi ano ra ki te Minita. 
Katahi ano au ka rongo i te ahuatanga o te kupu e ki ana ko te “oxymoron”. Kua korerohia tera kupu ki roto i te Whare Paremata nei ko te “oxymoron”. Kaore au i te tino marama ki te tikanga o tera kupu te oxymoron engari ki taku mohio i roto i te Ao Maori a ko nga kupu e noho taupatupatu nei. Ne? Ko nga kupu ko te wairua o te korero e noho tukituki nei taupatupatu nei. A penei i roto i te reo Pakeha “a wise fool” tera momo korero. Ara ko te “legal murder” tera momo korero. Ara ko te korero oxymoron tera. Ki taku mohio a e ahua pera ano hoki tenei pire. Ko te oxymoron 
e korerohia ake nei ko te “remote” 
me te “participation” kei te ahua tukituki ena kupu ne? No reira kua marama au ki te tikanga o tenei kupu o te oxymoron. Tera korero tera. 
Mo tenei pire tino rata au ki te ahuatanga o nga korero katoa engari hei whaiwhai haere i te korero a taku hoa a Hone Harawira inapo nei me taku ki atu tera korero i kitea te taumatatanga o tenei mea o te korero o te whaikorero. No reira ka mihi ki a ia. A ko tana korero ki te Whare e penei ana. E taea ana e tatau te kite i te tukinotanga ka taea e wai ranei i roto i nga spacies parlours. Ka kitea mai ai nga tamariki ka pehia te patene kua mate te tangata. Na te pehi i te patene ko tana korero ngawari noa iho ki nga tamariki ki te haere ki era momo whare ki te kainga ranei noho ki mua i te aroaro o te pouaka whakaata ma te PlayStation era momo mea a ka mahi tenei mea ko te mahi whakatumatuma. No reira kua kite tatau i te whanui i te wharoa o te ahuatanga o te ao technology nei. Ka taea ma te pehi o te patene te whakatuwhera i te kuaha o te kareti ka taea te kati i nga arai ka taea te whakatika te whakaka i to pouaka whakaata enei ahuatanga katoa. No natatanei kua puta te joystick kei te mohio etahi ki te ahuatanga o te joystick. Engari anei au e noho nei me te rangirua he aha te tikanga o te joystick 
mena ko tona mutunga mai he patu i te tangata. Kei te ahua oxymoron tonu tera momo korero. Ka joystick mai engari ko tona mutunga mai he patu i te tangata. Katahi te mahi rorirori ko tera. No reira tera korero tera. 
Kei te mohio pea etahi o tatau ko te ahuatanga o tenei mea o te  
Grand Theft Auto 
. E ai ki nga korero whitu tekau miriona nga kape me ki kei a tatau kei te ao. Ko tana mahi me ki ko nga momo tangata kino nei ko nga hara nei a ko ta ratau mahi haere i te ao. Ma te patu i te tangata kua piki haere nga taumata o tenei mea o te kino. No reira koinei te ahuatanga o tenei mea o te  
Grand Theft Auto 
. I etahi wa ko te mahi o tera kemu ka kite atu i te pa kuha a te tane me te wahine ano nei kei te mahi i tera mahi. No reira koinei te ahuatanga o tenei mea o te technology. Heoi ano koinei te ahuatanga o tenei ao. 
A ka pehi te patene me ki penei i ta Hone e korero nei mama noa iho te noho ki reira i te mea ehara i te mea kei roto i tena ao. Ko ta Hone inapo penei i tana haerenga i te motu kaore tetahi i paku whakahe i mua i tana kanohi i he to korero Hone Harawira kao engari i te pouaka whakaata ka karawhiuwhiuhia nga korero katoa whakahe nei i a Hone engari ki mua i te aroaro o te kanohi kao. Kaore tetahi i paku korero. No reira koinei te ahuatanga me ki kei roto i tenei whiriwhiringa o tatau. No reira kati waiho tera ki reira. 
Ko te tikanga o taku korero e ki ana e mea ana penei i ta tenei na ko te kanohi ki te kanohi he mea nui tera i roto i te Ao Maori. Engari ko te mate ke o te kanohi ki te pouaka whakaata he kore wairua he noho wehe tera momo ahuatanga. No reira ki taku mohio he oxymoron te putake o tenei momo pire. A kati waiho tera ki reira i te mea ara ano etahi awangawanga o te Pati Maori mo tenei pire. Ka ki atu matau e me kaua tatau e whai i tera ahuatanga. Ko ta matau ko te ki atu kanohi ki te kanohi me whai i tera ahuatanga. No reira koia te mea i te putake o tenei take ki a matau. Mo te Pati Maori ko tenei mea te ture he mea nui tera ki a matau. Me whai te ture ki tona mutunga ki tona tika ki tona teiteitanga. 
Kua roa matau e korero ana mo te tika o te whakahaere o te ture mo te whakatinanatanga ano hoki o te ture i roto i nga koti. Koinei ta te Pati Maori mo tenei pire. Ko tenei mea o te ture i kitea mai ai i roto i te ahuatanga o tenei mea e ki ana ko nga tikanga a-tangata ara i te reo Pakeha human rights. Ko ta matau ko te ki atu he pai tonu kia whai te human rights i roto i te pire me ki o Aotearoa New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Ka tae ki te mutunga a kaore matau i te tino kite i te ahuatanga o te whakatinanatanga o tera mea i roto i te pire i mua o te wa i hoki mai a i te wa i korerohia i te wahanga komiti nei. I ata titiro matau ki te ahuatanga o tenei pire a ko nga tikanga whakahaere o nga whakaaturanga a-pikitia. I ata titiro matau ki nga tikanga a-pira. Ko te tino putake o te raruraru ko tera e pa ana ki te kupu whakamutunga ki te whakaaetanga ranei o te kooti o te tiati ranei. I reira te raruraru. Penei i ta Kennedy Graham mena ka riro ma te tangata kotahi e ki atu ae kao. Koina te putake o te raruraru. No reira koira te putake o ta matau raru. A ko te mate ke ko te paoho o nga— 
[ 
Greetings to you and to us all the House. First I want to follow up on the sentiments expressed by those before me. The Minister must be acknowledged. It is the first time I have seen that sort of thing. When a member comes into the House and if he listens to the contributions most times questions raised are about how such actions affect order in the Chamber. In the time that I have been in the House I have never seen a situation where a Minister took the nub of a contribution in the Chamber into account. So I commend the Minister highly. I commend the quality of the contributions throughout the Chamber on all sides as well. It was wonderful to listen to the speeches. I leave that statement there with my acknowledgments to the Minister once again.  
I have just heard the word “oxymoron” used in this Chamber. I really do not know what that word means but my understanding from a Maori perspective is that it is about words that clash with each other is it not? It is words in which the concepts contradict each other like the English words “wise fool” or “legal murder”. That is what an oxymoron is. To me this bill is a bit like that. “Remote” and “participation” are the oxymoron here. Those words somewhat contradict each other do they not? I am clear about this word “oxymoron” now. That is that statement.  
As for this bill I am quite satisfied with everything in it and the way it is worded but to follow up on my colleague Hone Harawira’s address last night it was from the top drawer and I commend him for it. The essence of what he said to the House was about the damage that anyone can do in spacies parlours. Children can be seen annihilating people by pressing a button. He said that we have made it easier for kids to go to those kinds of amenities or to stay at home in front of a television with a PlayStation or gaming consoles and be an armchair terrorist. So we can see that technology has extended beyond the boundaries of human imagination. We can open the garage door shut electric blinds and turn on the TV all by remote control. And now we have the joystick and some of us are aware of what it can do. But here I am in a state of confusion as to the meaning of joystick which ultimately is about killing people. That sort of talk is somewhat of an oxymoron to me. What a crazy game that is!  
Some of us know about the  
Grand Theft Auto 
 game of which it is alleged that there are 70 million copies available worldwide. It is an action game where one becomes a big-time criminal carrying out all sorts of organised crime throughout the world by killing people. That is the nature of this thing called  
Grand Theft Auto 
. Sometimes there is even the opportunity for simulated sex. So this is the nature of technology and the reality of this world we live in where by the mere press of a button or through remote control as Hone Harawira alluded to it is very easy to become disconnected from the world and reality and become desensitised to the reality of terror as well.  
In Hone’s speech last night he referred to his travels around the country when no one confronted him personally to reject his assertions—not at all. On television everything he said was criticised and rejected—but face to face not at all. No one said a thing. This then is the nature of this negotiation process of ours. So enough leave that there. 
What I am really trying to say I guess is that working on a face-to-face basis is important in Maoridom. The problem with a face-to - television screen approach is that it lacks the personal and emotional touch. It is devoid of any feeling. To my understanding oxymoron is at the root of this kind of bill.  
Enough leave that there because the Maori Party has other concerns about this bill. We advise against pursuing the remote control aspect in criminal matters. The face-to-face approach is what we favour. That is the crux of this matter for us. Justice is an important thing for the Maori Party. It must follow due process it must be just and it must be pursued at its highest level.  
We have talked at length about how justice must be administered correctly and that the implementation of the law in courts must be just. This is what the Maori Party seeks in this bill. The justice issues that arise in this bill are purely and simply about human rights. We say that human rights for New Zealand through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is fine but in the end we did not find any reference to that in the bill before it came back or when it was debated at the Committee stage. We studied the criteria that would influence the way in which audiovisual links are to be used. We looked at the right to appeal. The real problem for us was the question around judicial discretion where the judge must take into account whether the parties including the defendant consent to the use of audiovisual links. It was as Kennedy Graham said whether it would be for one person to say yes or no. That was the crux of the problem and where we came unstuck. The problem with evidence being beamed from 
—] 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very reluctant to interrupt my colleague but the interpretation appears to have— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am aware of that; there is not a lot that I can do about that. I think it is back on. I think there was a bit of a delay while the interpreter was finding the words. I think that is right. We are working through it. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Kei te pai. No reira i hea au? Tera pea i rongo koe i tera? 
Ko tetahi korero i korerohia inapo nei me ki ko te ahei o te hunga hara ki te korero ki tana roia tera momo take i korerohia inapo nei. I tino whakaae atu matau ki tera momo ahuatanga. Ka mutu me hoki ra ano ki te putake me te mohio ano hoki ka katia te wa korero ki a au. I te putake o te nawe o te Pati Maori ko tera e pa ana ki te ahuatanga o tenei mea o te whakaaetanga. Te whakaaetanga o te hunga hara ki te tu ki mua i te aroaro o te kooti. I mua o te taenga mai o te Minita i katia tera ahuatanga i tona mutunga mai ka riro ma te koti tera e whakatau. No reira i harikoa tino harikoa. I mutu pai i tau pai te katoa o te korero i roto i te Whare Paremata. E tino harikoa ana matau i te ahuatanga a te mahitahi o te Ropu Reipa te Ropu Kakariki tae ra ano ki a Nahinara me te Pati Maori ki nga tangata nei hoki. No reira katahi te rangi pai inanahi he ra pai ano hoki tenei i te mea kua tutuki kua eke tenei pire ki tona taumata. E te Whare tena koutou kia ora tatau katoa. 
[ 
That is fine. So where was I? There perhaps; did the member hear that? 
Another thing that was discussed last night was the ability of a defendant to consult with counsel during proceedings. We agree completely. So finally I must go back to the crux knowing full well that my time to talk is about to expire. For us it all revolved around the concept of consent—allowing the defendants to stand before the court. Before the timely intervention of the Minister that approach had been closed off and now it has been left for the court to resolve. So we are very happy indeed—really pleased. All of the contributions in the House were well received. We were elated at how the Labour Party Green Party National Party and the Maori Party including these members here worked well together. So yesterday was a wonderful day and so is today because this bill has reached its conclusion. Greetings to you the House and to us all 
.] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 When people believe in something so much that they put their heads above the parapet and get elected to this House one of their biggest frustrations once they get here is to have to compromise. Compromise is affected by who is putting forward legislation whether that person is in one’s party and whether that person supports one’s party and the arguments begin. 
A number of people come to this House and take on issues as if they were fighting in the front row of the All Blacks. As someone who never had the privilege of playing for the All Blacks but spent about 25 years in the front row I do not believe that that is the attitude one should bring to this House. And the public the people who put us here do not want us to have that attitude when we are debating the issues. 
It is a privilege to be the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and to work in a very collaborative way with members who have the integrity of the members who have been spoken this afternoon: the Hon David Parker Jacinda Ardern Lynne Pillay Dr Kennedy Graham Simon Bridges Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi Hekia Parata and Paul Quinn. I thank the various members of the committee for their kind words this afternoon in respect not only of the committee and the way that it works but also my chairmanship of it. It is very much a privilege to work on this sort of legislation—legislation that with a reasonable amount of collaboration an expectation of fair play and a willingness to engage will have an enduring nature to it because it will work past the political divides. 
The Courts (Remote Participation) Bill—whose title is indeed an oxymoron as my friend Te Ururoa Flavell has mentioned—does a number of things that a lot of people outside the system would be very very pleased with. Firstly remote participation allows for cheaper court cases. But I believe very strongly that justice should never be measured in terms of how much it costs. Justice is something that as scripture tells us rains down upon all the Earth on the just and the unjust. In a civilised society justice is meted out to those who deserve it and to those who do not. That is how we know we are living in a just country and that is why I am so pleased to be living in this country instead of Cuba Fiji Georgia or some other country where the extent of justice is based on who can pay for it and on whom one knows rather than on the premise that a person who asserts must prove and one is innocent until proven guilty. 
The fact that people will be able to appear as witnesses before the court via an audiovisual link is a good thing. It has significant advantages but it also has some disadvantages. The fact that we deal with media in the way that Te Ururoa Flavell outlined to us earlier is exactly the point. As somebody who has been the officer in charge of trials involving the sexual abuse of young children I can say that having a young child appear before the court and give evidence by an audiovisual link has some definite advantages because it encourages the child to get the words out. 
But it also has a distinct disadvantage which is that in the world that we live in we are unfortunately used to seeing horrible things on television. So when a child witness is giving evidence of the terrible things that happened to him or her—the most disgusting sexual crimes for instance—it is all too easy for members of a jury to be removed from and remote from the full effect of that evidence because they are watching it on a television monitor and unfortunately we are used to seeing bad things on television. I would encourage people appearing as witnesses to be in the room if they can because the weight of the evidence carries far more effect if the witness is in the room. 
The bill brings huge advantages in respect of the safety of those required to transport prisoners to and from court and we have heard about and recall to mind the death of Liam Ashley. The default position is that for procedural matters people appear via an audiovisual link in order to avoid a threat to the safety of officers and fellow prisoners and that is a good thing. We can agree with that. 
It was however of real concern to a number of us that this bill sought to remove the fundamental right to be present at one’s own trial. It bothers me that over recent years huge traction has been gained by a section of people in this society who live remote from the judicial system have no contact with it and want the court to get harder and harder on those who appear before it. 
I was pleased to hear my friend from the ACT Party David Garrett finally admit that the rights of the defendant are paramount within our justice system—and so they should be. In a recent media study of police stories in our newspapers 80 percent were neutral reporting only that the police were involved in a particular case—the reports were neither bad news nor good news—10 percent were negative for the police and 10 percent were positive. Calling to mind any of those neutral newspaper articles or any of the positive newspaper articles is a very very difficult thing to do. Yet we can recall to mind quite easily the abhorrent cases that are reported in respect of our law and order issues. All that does is gain traction for those people who want to attrit the rule of law as it applies to people who appear before the court. 
I am incredibly proud to be part of this Government and to work under the leadership of the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power. He is prepared to listen to a debate to consider the arguments and to change his position even with the prospect of some degree of attack from another side or from the commentators I have already referred to. He is prepared to do what is right and just in a situation and to protect the rule of law. Thank you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will take only a reasonably brief call on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill because I think most of the things that I wanted to contribute have already been contributed by other members. I will not take up the House’s time repeating those contributions. 
I will pick up on the initial comments that Chester Borrows made in his contribution about the importance of parliamentary debate and not taking entrenched party-line positions unnecessarily on things. That is a two-way process. One of the things I was heartened by last night in this debate was that the Minister of Justice came down to the House took calls and actually listened carefully to the debate and engaged in it. We often see situations in this House—and it is something I am sure the current Government would say happened under the last Government as well as under this one—where Ministers do not engage in the Committee stage of a debate. They sit there and try to push things through as fast as they can. I think that if we go back to the principle of what we are doing here why we are here what is our role here we see that the purpose of the Committee stage debate is for us to go through a bill line by line and every party in Parliament can speak on it even if that party was not on the select committee that considered it. That is where amendments like this can be considered argued and thrashed out. I think we saw that happen last night with this bill. I welcome the Government’s contribution to that debate and the willingness of the Minister to come down to speak. 
I had not intended to be involved at all in this debate. I came to the House last night to speak on an entirely different matter. I was pretty disappointed when I sat down and picked up a copy of the bill that was being debated and saw what would happen under the status quo of the bill without the amendment that the Minister put forward. Effectively in some situations it could have led to somebody not being able to be present at his or her own trial. That seemed to me to be wholeheartedly unjust. 
I congratulate all of the members who took part in the debate particularly the leadership of Lianne Dalziel David Parker and Simon Power in negotiating the compromise agreement that was reached. I know that the Green Party took a particularly strong position and spent some time giving us time to sort it out. I thank the Green Party for that and also the contributions of the Maori Party and the ACT Party. It is relatively unusual for parties to all work together in the collaborative manner that we did last night. I think that is quite sad. I think the public would like to see a lot more of that from us. I hope that this new spirit of goodwill emerging right before the school holidays will continue through the holiday period and perhaps when the House resumes after the holidays we might find that we can continue with other legislation in the same vein. 
With that I conclude my comments and simply wish everybody all the best for the adjournment. I am sure they will all be busy in their electorates. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I agree with all the previous speakers that the amendments to the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill is a very good sign of democracy. New Zealand is a democratic country and good government always listens and makes changes to its policies for logical reasons. This is another very high standard set by this Government. The Hon Simon Power made up his mind to make the necessary changes that were demanded in this House. Clause 9 states: “AVL must not be used in any criminal substantive matter for the appearance of a participant unless a judicial officer determines to allow its use for the appearance of that participant …” and the defendant consents to that use. 
This bill will improve efficiency safety and security for the accused and for those working in the courts and improve access to justice. It will improve the quality of evidence heard in courtrooms. It is estimated that the reforms we are proposing in this bill have the potential to save thousands of court events and court sitting hours. 
This bill sets out the criteria under which audiovisual links can be used. The criteria will protect the rights of all participants including the defendants and the witnesses. They will allow judicial officers or the registrar to require any participant to appear by a video link in a criminal procedure matter where evidence is not being presented. 
Lastly I would like to thank the Labour members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their support. As a first-time member of Parliament I have the great advantage of gaining experience from the committee’s members like the Hon David Parker and the chair Chester Borrows. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 The House seems to have made good progress today and it would seem an appropriate time for the Assistant Speaker to leave the Chair. I seek leave for that to happen. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for the House to lift. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears to be none. Leave is granted. 
The House adjourned at 5.30 p.m.