Volume 674 Week 81 - Thursday 11 August 2011 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 674 Week 81 - Thursday 11 August 2011 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 11 August 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the Acting Leader of the House: When the House resumes on Tuesday 16 August the Government intends to move the first reading of the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill and the second reading of the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill. The Government then intends to move that urgency be accorded to the passage of a number of bills requiring timely implementation. The Acting Leader of the House intends to provide the Business Committee with further details next week. 
Questions to Ministers 
Financial Markets International—Effect on New Zealand 
1. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What advice has he received about factors that lie behind the current turmoil we are witnessing on world financial markets and what are the implications for New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Two related factors appear to be at work: a downgrade in world growth expectations and increasing worry about the creditworthiness of some countries and companies. So we have seen sharemarkets fall sharply while some sovereign debt markets have improved. Credit risk premiums for lower-quality debt have increased and economically sensitive commodities such as oil have seen declines in prices while gold which is seen as a safe haven has risen in price. Our markets are increasingly differentiating between the strong and the weak. New Zealand is among those countries that are seen as having strong creditworthiness. Therefore the market view of our debt has been improving. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the main actions the Government has taken that are helping New Zealand to ride out this crisis and keep interest rates low? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government started taking appropriate action back in 2008 because it believed that New Zealand was vulnerable to just these kinds of events. So we have worked to keep net debt below 30 percent of GDP and to focus on returning to surplus so that our debt will stop increasing. We have continued to protect the most vulnerable and we have worked on channelling Government spending to where it can be most effectively used as well as taking a range of measures on the broader economy that will improve our growth prospects. 
Jonathan Young 
: In what way is New Zealand better placed to withstand the current turmoil than it was 3 years ago? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In any number of ways the New Zealand economy is fundamentally more sound than it was 3 or 4 years ago—in particular because New Zealanders have changed their view of debt. Through the first decade of this century there was excessive borrowing by households but New Zealanders have taken the message from the world. They have stopped increasing their borrowing and are increasing their savings. That alongside Government action is reducing the vulnerability of New Zealand to these kinds of events. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the policies that put New Zealand’s financial stability most at risk? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Given that markets are increasingly distinguishing between countries with strong creditworthiness and those that are weaker anything that weakens our creditworthiness would be focused on quite intensely in today’s market. The kinds of policies that would take us there would be bigger Government spending higher taxes and more debt. We are not going to go down that path. 
Mine Safety—Safety Standards Compared with Australia 
2. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she still agree as she did on 13 July 2011 with the comment made by Rt Hon John Key on 22 November 2010 that “I have no reason to believe that New Zealand safety standards are any less than Australia’s and in fact our safety record for the most part has been very good”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes I agree with the Prime Minister. Further to that we have established a royal commission of inquiry to investigate all matters relating to Pike River. We have specifically asked the commission to compare New Zealand’s regulatory provisions with those used in other countries. 
Kevin Hague 
: Did she agree with the 15 out of 17 submitters on the Department of Labour’s 2008 discussion paper  
Improving health and safety hazard management in the underground mining industry 
 who considered that there were real problems requiring change; submitters that included Pike River Coal which drew attention to the inadequacy of New Zealand mine safety regulations and the woeful state of the mines inspectorate? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I took advice from that report from my department and I accepted the recommendations where appropriate. Can I say in relation to Pike River that it was a serious serious tragedy that affects our nation but there is no determination yet as to whether the tragedy was a consequence of operational and/or regulatory failure. The commission has been given the job of determining that and I expect it to do so. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does the Minister recall that her Workplace Health and Safety Council heard evidence prior to the Pike River disaster from Peter Whittall representing the Business Leaders’ Health and Safety Forum that raised significant concerns about the regulatory framework for mining health and safety specifically in comparison with Australia’s? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I recall that the issue of the qualification of mining experts and mining employees was raised and that is why we introduced a regulation to address it. 
Kevin Hague 
: Why does she maintain that she has no reason to believe that our standards are any less than Australia’s given the repeated warnings from the Workplace Health and Safety Council the submissions from virtually the entire industry to the Department of Labour and the warnings from mine safety experts about the inadequacy of New Zealand mine safety standards? Are they all wrong? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We do take advice. We have set up the royal commission of inquiry. That commission of inquiry will be looking at and has been looking at the regulatory framework around our mining industry and we will be taking those determinations and recommendations when they are out very very seriously. Like all New Zealanders we want to make sure that a tragedy such as Pike River does not happen again. 
Kevin Hague 
: What engagement was so important that she failed to attend the Workplace Health and Safety Council meeting on 16 December 2010 the first such meeting since the Pike River disaster? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I do try to attend all of those council meetings but I believe that on that occasion I was in Kaiapoi attending to some earthquake-related issues. That also was a national tragedy. 
Kevin Hague 
: Were any concerns raised with her or her department about the safety of the Pike River coal mine prior to the disaster there in November last year? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I have explained some concerns were raised about the qualifications of mine managers and we did address that by regulation subsequently. 
Kevin Hague 
: Given the wealth of evidence that has emerged since the disaster about the lack of safety in the Pike River mine such as inadequate gas drainage drilling next to cavities filled with pressurised flammable gases the answerphone issue I told the House about previously and the inadequate provision for escape from the mine does she now agree that the system of regulations and inspections must have been fundamentally broken for the situation to have arisen for her not to have heard about it and for absolutely no corrective action to be taken? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The royal commission of inquiry has not yet made any determination on any of those evidential issues and I will wait until it does before we address the situation. As I said we are very serious about making sure that mining is safe in New Zealand. We do not want another tragedy like Pike River but we do want to know what happened why it happened and what we can do to prevent it from happening in the future. 
Kevin Hague 
: I seek leave to table the minutes from the Workplace Health and Safety Council meeting no. 14 from Wednesday 16 December 2010—the meeting immediately after the Pike River disaster. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What is the role of the mines inspectorate given her statement in a response to me that it is “not to conduct a top-down audit of safety”; and given the other advice that the Department of Labour gives to its inspectors—that is not to advise mine owners on how they should mine for fear of legal liability—what indeed did she expect the mines inspectorate to do? 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: The same you did when you were in Government. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Exactly; the same as what the member’s Labour Government expected of the mines inspectorate when it was in Government. Can I say that we must not forget that the primary responsibility for workplace safety in a workplace lies with the employer. That is how it was set out in the Health and Safety in Employment Act several years ago. The Act was amended twice by the Labour Government and it never at that stage addressed the test nor suggested that the test was inappropriate. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given advice to the Minister 18 months prior that “a plan needs to be developed for how inspectors will be trained and supported in professional expertise in the next 8 months” has a plan been developed; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I have advised we are taking a close look at the resources and expertise in the department to ensure it can carry out its role of overseeing the mining sector. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Does the Minister consider that one solitary mines inspector is sufficient to uphold proper safety for miners in the hundreds of mines throughout New Zealand; if not why is she not doing something about it? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: No I do not think that one inspector is sufficient but actually at the time of Pike River we had two mine inspectors. Subsequent to that one of our mines inspectors was poached by the Queensland mining industry because it wanted his expertise. Can I also say that the number of mining inspectors was not increased under Labour and we are actively looking at the resources of our department. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I seek leave to table a page from the transcript from Michael Firmin the Chief Inspector of Mines who states quite clearly— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The transcript of what? 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: The royal commission. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The current royal commission? 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Where he states quite clearly that no plan has been developed to train and support the professional expertise of mines inspectors. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection? I want to be clear: there is objection is there? There is objection. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Will the Minister accept that practical professional miners who work underground and face the consequences of actions must have the right to be directly involved in all safety issues or will the Government continue with its current law of making all safety decisions the sole preserve of managers who work safely at the surface? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I accept that employee participation is very important in ensuring a good workplace safety culture in any workplace and that is why we have work progressing on that matter. 
Youth Skills Training—Job Creation 
3. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday when he said that the Leader of the Opposition is “just plain wrong” in relation to skills training? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: The member is being selective in her version of events. What the Prime Minister said was that it is “just plain wrong” that the Government is simply relying on bringing in people from overseas while New Zealanders stay out of work. In fact in the last year 43000 new jobs were created in New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: How was the Leader of the Opposition “just plain wrong” when the Government’s Youth Guarantee programme which is supposed to provide a pathway to work for young people has enrolled just 2475 people equivalent to 6 percent of those 15 to 19-year-olds who are currently unemployed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because that is roughly the number of places the Government has allocated to the Youth Guarantee programme which I might say is an innovative policy that is dealing with a significant group of teenagers—and it will deal with more of them—whom the previous Government just left out of the system. Once they left school nothing happened for them. We are trying to keep these kids on track to get more training when school does not suit them. 
Hon Annette King 
: How can it be “just plain wrong” when the number of Modern Apprenticeships a scheme that is focused on upskilling 16 to 21-year-olds has declined by 10 percent since early 2009 without any intervention or support from the Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: One of the reasons there has been some decline in apprenticeships is that industries such as the construction industry which were built on the false hope of endless debt under the previous Government have gone through major reductions in the volume of work that they are doing. We are doing our best to rebuild this economy so that those young people can get training opportunities. The member also needs to understand that her Government’s focus purely on driving up numbers in trade training and industry training led to a massive waste of money. My colleague the Hon Steven Joyce is fixing it. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the skills training cuts that he has made are due to wanting to get better value for money how does he explain the disestablishment of the Skill Enhancement programme this year which has run since 1993 and had an 82 percent rate of positive outcome for young New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That member should explain why under her Government’s system they were funding dead people to get qualifications. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question asked about a specific programme. It may be that the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister may not have that specific information but I think to attack the Opposition is not on if the Minister does not have the information. I invite him to indicate whether he can answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer specifically about that programme but I can say that it is part of a massive clean-up job this Government is having to do on the system. The previous Government said that the only thing that mattered was driving up the numbers. Thousands of young people were being misled because the taxpayer was spending money on their training and they were getting no qualifications whatsoever. So why should we pay tens of millions of dollars for programmes that do not deliver any qualifications? 
Hon Annette King 
: Is he satisfied that after almost 3 years his Government is doing everything possible to provide skills training opportunities for young people given that the recent report from the New Zealand Institute shows that youth account for 45 percent of our unemployment the highest rate in the OECD and at a cost of $900 million to taxpayers each year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes the Government is doing as much as it can particularly given the fiscal constraints we have. Next year we will have 13000 more post-school training places than in 2008 despite the fact that the budget is very tight. The Government has taken steps in primary and secondary schools to make sure that young people who leave our education system will be literate and numerate because of national standards and that they will have choices because of policies like the Youth Guarantee. The Government is doing a much better job than that member’s Government did. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he seen the statement made by the Human Rights Commission 3 weeks ago in its report  
Tracking Equality at Work 
 which said that “unless action is taken urgently the youth situation will become unsustainable representing a threat to social cohesion” in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I have not seen that statement but I can tell the member that the Government has spent a couple of years going through the mess of wasteful spending conflicting programmes and lack of accountability that were the characteristics of the previous Labour Government’s spending in this area. We are making considerable progress despite the fact that there is a recession and that the Government has no new money. I must compliment my colleagues who have worked in this area on how much progress they have made. 
Hon Annette King 
: What advice has he sought about the likelihood of social disharmony occurring in New Zealand as a result of high youth unemployment and disconnection given the unrest that has occurred in Britain in recent days which British commentators are saying arose from young unemployed people? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What erodes the confidence of young people in a community is false hope—the false hope that badly managed Government programmes and an economy fuelled by borrowing will give them sustainable jobs. That is why so many young people are pleased with this Government which in a realistic and effective way is rebuilding their confidence in the economy. 
Resource Management Act Reforms—Effect on Grocery Business Competition 
4. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How have Government reforms to the Resource Management Act helped increase competition in the grocery business? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The supermarket circus has long been a problem with the Resource Management Act. Both chains in New Zealand have abused the Act to block others establishing competing supermarkets with pseudo-environmental arguments. The Wairau Pak ’N Save debacle on the North Shore involved objections from Progressive Enterprises and went all the way through the system from commissioners’ hearings to the Environment Court and the High Court taking 12 years to resolve. The latest case involves Foodstuffs trying to block Progressive Enterprises from building a new Countdown store in Tawa. The losers in these legal charades are consumers who are denied competition and choice and getting the best value for money for their groceries. National’s 2009 amendment Act sought to stop such anti-competitive behaviour by disallowing trade competitor objections and appeals under the Resource Management Act. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What reports has the Minister received on whether the new provisions are working? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am pleased at reports that the objection from National Distributions Ltd a subsidiary of Foodstuffs to the new Tawa Countdown has been struck out using National’s new Part 11A provision of the Resource Management Act. The company had argued that even though it was a 100 percent subsidiary of Foodstuffs it was a land development and property business and not a supermarket so it believed it was entitled to object and appeal against the new Countdown store. I am pleased that this argument was not upheld and that the intent of National’s reforms was carried through in this important test case. This is good news for the 14000 people of Tawa who currently have only one supermarket. It is a well-documented fact that food prices are most affordable in those areas where there is strong competition. 
Earthquakes Royal Commission—Legal Representation for Victims’ Families 
5. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will he meet with earthquake victims’ families to hear directly why they need independent legal representation; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is the cost to the Crown the reason he will not provide independent legal representation to quake victims’ families? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Specifically then given that answer what is the harm in providing independent legal representation to quake victims’ families? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is not a question of harm; it is a question of what is appropriate in the circumstances. I have been very happy with the excellent work the royal commission has done. Justice Cooper who is the chair of the commission the counsel assisting and the families’ liaison person have kept in very close touch with these families to help them through this time. It is very like the royal commission on the Victorian bushfire which I know the member is interested in. The commissioner said: “The significance of the losses of 7 February led counsel assisting to adopt a role in the hearings that represented as far as possible the public interest and particularly the interest of families friends and communities affected by the fires.” 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he agree that refusing to provide independent legal representation to the families is likely to result in those families losing confidence in the effectiveness of the royal commission inquiry the evidence of which is provided in an open letter from Quake Families to him and the Prime Minister which is partly published today? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Quake Families—a group representing 50 quake families. It is an open letter to the Prime Minister and Attorney-General dated 10 August 2011 which details the lack of confidence I spoke about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that there is no harm in providing independent legal representation why is he still refusing those requests for assistance when providing such representation will afford grieving families some degree of comfort during what can be described only as an incredibly traumatic time? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Because I am very satisfied with the excellent work being done by Justice Cooper counsel assisting the royal commission and the families’ liaison person. They are doing wonderful work and are keeping in touch with the families. I believe they will enable the families to be helped through this very difficult period. 
Health Care—Long-term Costs 
6. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that “I think the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is referring to some longer-term issues around demographic change and healthcare costs and we share the chief executive’s concern”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I do although I would say having gone back and looked at the chief executive’s comments that I think he has exaggerated some of the challenges a bit by using language like saying that costs will grow exponentially over time. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does he believe that it is fair on pensioners to have to worry about the costs of the increasing number of elderly while he pretends that the age of entitlement can stay at 65 especially when Australia has announced several years in advance its intention to shift the age of entitlement to 67; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the message for pensioners is that they do not need to worry because they have attained the age of 65. I do not think that anyone is proposing that a change in the age of entitlement would affect them. They are a group who tend to worry more about these things but in this case they do not need to. On the issue of raising the age of entitlement the Government’s position is quite clear and well understood. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: How is it that Australia a far richer country than New Zealand recognises that the age of entitlement must be shifted out but here in New Zealand we have a Government promising to take on billions of dollars of extra debt over the next 4 years and potentially bankrupt New Zealand rather than facing up to reality? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We do not believe that those are the choices. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does he accept that his Government’s decision to hang its reputation on holding the age of entitlement to 65 is a political one to the long-term detriment of young people in New Zealand who must shoulder the debt; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. I think the Government’s reputation will hang on considered and consistent economic management in difficult times. With regard to the age of eligibility yes because it is a decision made by Parliament it is a political decision. Our Government has made a decision not to raise the age of eligibility and that is our position. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 In question No. 1 Bill English said that household debt had dropped. I seek leave to table a diagram that shows total household— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of this document? 
STUART NASH 
: It is from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand July 2011. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this its standard publication? The Reserve Bank makes a number of publications. 
STUART NASH 
: “C5 Sector credit: resident New Zealand claims of”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Which document is it from? 
STUART NASH 
: It is just off the Reserve Bank website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Oh it is off the Reserve Bank website. 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. 
Foreign Charter Fishing Vessels—Ministerial Inquiry 
7. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What is the timeline of the ministerial inquiry into the treatment of foreign fishing crews in New Zealand waters? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 No time line has been set as we are still working through the terms of reference and panel membership. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she consider that the testimony of the  
Oyang 75 
 crew who have suffered serious human rights abuses and breaches of New Zealand labour laws is an important part of the inquiry; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I accept that some very serious allegations have been made and that is one of the reasons why we are having a ministerial inquiry. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very clear as to whether their testimony was important. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to repeat her question. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she consider that the testimony of the  
Oyang 75 
 crew who have suffered serious human rights abuses and breaches of New Zealand labour laws is an important part of the inquiry; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: It is not my responsibility to judge whether the testimony is appropriate. That is an operational matter and is subject to the current investigation which is under way. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why then— 
Hon Annette King 
: Isn’t it a ministerial inquiry? 
Darien Fenton 
: —yes—is she determined to deport the  
Oyang 75 
 crew this Saturday and send them home to fines of up to $5000 each for breach of contract while those responsible for the abuses have not been held to account even though her department’s advice to foreign crew on its website is that New Zealand does not tolerate violence against workers or unsafe working conditions? 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I make this point of order as the acting Acting Leader of the House. Question No. 7 is a very precise question and it concerns a ministerial inquiry but now we are ranging forth into deportation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the question asked about the time line for the ministerial inquiry into the treatment of foreign fishing crews. The supplementary questions relate to matters to do with a particular foreign fishing crew. It may be that the Minister does not have particular information although it is a ministerial inquiry. I do not think it is unreasonable to link these questions to this primary question. Whether the Minister can be expected to have detailed information on any particular element is another matter. I ask the member to repeat her question because the House has now probably lost track of exactly what it was. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why is she determined to deport the  
Oyang 75 
 crew this Saturday and send them home to fines of up to $5000 each for breach of contract while those responsible for these abuses have not been held to account even though her department’s advice to foreign crew on its website is that New Zealand does not tolerate violence against workers or unsafe working conditions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister to answer I say that I now understand the concern of the acting Acting Leader of the House. That question is focused I believe on the Minister’s role as Associate Minister of Immigration. The Minister is being questioned in her role as Minister of Labour. She is welcome to answer what part she can as Minister of Labour but I accept that she is not responsible under this question as Associate Minister of Immigration. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Mr Speaker thank you for answering the question for me. As Minister of Labour I have no responsibility for decisions on deportation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did she as Minister of Labour ask the Minister of Immigration to ensure that the individuals who have been abused—physically and sexually—are still in the country in order to give their testimony to the inquiry that the Minister of Labour is setting up? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I understand that no such decisions regarding deportation have been made. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Because I had not written my question down I cannot read it out again but I certainly started with the question of whether there had been communication in order to ensure that the people are still here to give their testimony. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Indeed that was the question. The member asked whether the Minister of Labour had asked the Minister of Immigration to ensure these people were still in the country to give their testimony. I think the Minister actually answered it as she might as Associate Minister of Immigration. The question was to her as Minister of Labour and it was a fair question to a Minister of Labour. It asked whether she had advised the Minister of Immigration and I think that is worthy of answer. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Speaking as Minister of Labour there is frequent communication with the Associate Minister of Immigration. 
Hon Members 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a serious issue. This is an issue that has attracted some public attention. There is some public interest in this matter. The Minister has been asked whether as Minister of Labour she has asked the Minister of Immigration something to do with this crew—which could be involved in this ministerial inquiry—possibly being deported. I do not think that saying the Minister frequently advises the Associate Minister of Immigration is quite good enough. I realise it is the same person but the question deserves to be treated with some seriousness. A ministerial inquiry is being established by the Government. People who it would appear from the questioning could possibly be deported from New Zealand may be reasonably expected to be involved in such an inquiry. I think it deserves a reasonable answer because the question I think was a reasonable question. I accept that it is the same person which makes it a little unusual but I still think it is worthy of a serious answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is not the same person; the Minister of Immigration is Jonathan Coleman. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon; I accept that totally. I accept my error there. I ask the Minister whether she could answer a little more fully. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am advised that the department is working closely with the crews to try to resolve the current situation but I understand that no final decisions have been made. Of course there have been discussions between me as Minister of Labour and the Minister of Immigration and me as Associate Minister of Immigration but no decisions have been made by the Department of Labour or the Immigration Service. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the email from the Minister of Immigration in response to my request that the crew outlined in this question be allowed to stay in New Zealand while their abuse allegations and the non-payment of due wages are investigated and the Minister of Immigration’s response refusing to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is just seeking to table the document. 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. 
Darien Fenton 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the office of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to me in reply to a request from me that she intervene in the issue of the  
Oyang 75 
 crew and waive the $550 fee to allow them to appeal their deportation order. 
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. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has she as Minister of Labour asked the Minister of Immigration whether the  
Oyang 75 
 crew and the  
Shin Ji 
 crew can stay past deportation dates to assist with further investigations should it become apparent that there is evidence of human trafficking? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That specific question has not been asked but I understand and am advised that the department is working very closely with the crews to try to resolve the current issues in the situation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Further to her earlier answer that she had no operational responsibility for the details of the ministerial inquiry if she does not who does? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I refute that question because that is not what I said. 
Rahui Katene 
: What was the key issue that caused the Government to change its mind about a ministerial inquiry into the fishing industry between when I called for such an inquiry on 5 April 2011 and 3 months later on 14 July when the Government made its announcement? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The member was quite right to be concerned about the issue back in April. Subsequent and further allegations have since emerged and the Government considered that a ministerial inquiry was required and appropriate. 
Broadband Rural Initiative—Progress 
8. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What progress is being made on the Government’s goal of delivering fast broadband to rural areas? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government released two further tender documents for the final parts of the Rural Broadband Initiative contracts. Together these contracts will cover a further around 260 schools integrated family health care centres and up to 82 libraries. Following this roll-out 98 percent of New Zealand schools will be connected to ultra-fast broadband at the same speeds as their urban counterparts and the remaining 60 remote schools will have access to improved terrestrial or satellite wireless broadband services. We have been able to extend the roll-out to more health centres and some libraries as a result of the value delivered by the Government’s tendering process. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What difference will the Rural Broadband Initiative make to rural communities? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: When fully implemented the Rural Broadband Initiative will mean our rural communities have improved access to the best health care and education services. The tyranny of distance will be almost completely removed. Fibre connections to places like Te Puia Springs hospital will mean that specialist services can be delivered to remote residents in the Gisborne region or in fact anywhere else in the country. This will save people having to travel for hours by road to access some health services and specialists will be able to spend more time treating patients rather than driving to clinics. The New Zealand economy depends on the rural sector and the extension of super-fast broadband to rural community hubs like libraries will also help keep our rural communities connected to the rest of the world. 
Earthquakes Canterbury—Red Zone Development 
9. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Does he agree that an appropriate part of the “red zone” area along the Avon River through Christchurch should be transformed into a “green space” for memorial and recreational public purposes? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: At this stage we are concentrating on getting the offers of purchase out to people in the worst affected suburbs in the residential red zone. It is too early at this point to determine how that land might be remediated although I congratulate the member and his team on at least putting together one proposal about what might happen. That is a lot more than some people have done. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I thank the Minister for his comments. Does he agree with the recommendation in the Green Party’s  
The Future of Christchurch 
 report that the land might remain in public ownership in perpetuity? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. I will not be drawn on whether I agree with any of the Greens’ proposals or anybody else’s proposals at this point. I think there is a long way to go before a distilled view of where Christchurch will go emerges and I certainly do not want to get caught on something too soon. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Might he none the less agree in principle that such a zone could formally be called the Avon River Memorial Park and that a suitable memorial of some kind could be erected to honour those who died in February? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Whether or not suggestions like that have merit it would be foolish for me to make a judgment call at this time. I am prepared to wait until all of the information is in and a proper process to make those decisions is undergone. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave to table the Green Party’s report  
The Future of Christchurch: Report for a 21st century eco-city 
 which reflects the ideas generated from the public forums I have held in Christchurch over the past few months. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What is the reason he is saying that red zoned land may be used for residential development in the future when this is holding people back from their recovery from the trauma of the earthquake and their displacement from their family home? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am not sure that it is holding people back. I am advised that to date we have had just under 4000 consent forms returned to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority from those people living in the red zone with regard to the offer to buy their property. Can I say that there are still huge questions to be answered about the future of some of the land. Question time in Parliament before the proper work is done is not the appropriate place to answer those questions. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the letter that came with the consent form that makes it clear that the form has to be returned by 31 July or the offer will not be coming in mid-August. 
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. 
Tax System—Fairness 
10. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he believe the tax system is fair for all New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The tax system is certainly fairer than the one we inherited from the previous Government although there is always room for improvement. For instance we have brought in changes that increase the effective tax rate on investment property which was not being taxed under the previous Labour Government netting just short of $1 billion of extra tax per year; closed loopholes that allowed well-off families to claim social assistance— 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a primary question; I asked whether it is fair for all New Zealanders not fairer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a reasonable point. The question asks whether it was fair and it did not ask why so I think we have had sufficient answer. 
Stuart Nash 
: Was the Government’s own Tax Working Group wrong when it said “a large component of economic income is not taxed—capital gains.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It was stating a fact. Members will note that the Tax Working Group came to the conclusion that it would not recommend implementing a capital gains tax and it certainly would not have backed the messy complex high-spending high tax high borrowing— 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. All I asked was whether the Government’s Tax Working Group was wrong and he said it was not wrong. I do not need a further explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member—[ 
Interruption 
] A point of order is being considered and there is merit in the point being made. Questions are to be answered without further embellishment according to the Standing Orders. The more brief the question and the less political the question the less room there is for embellishment in the answer. 
Stuart Nash 
: Was the Government’s own Tax Working Group wrong when it said “There are equity and fairness arguments that can be mounted in favour of a capital gains tax.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not actually seen that quote but it may well have said that. Making tax policy is always a trade-off between fairness efficiency and complexity. Unfortunately the Labour Party’s package loses on all three. 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you know what my point of order is going to be. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has sat down already. 
Stuart Nash 
: Was the Government’s own Tax Working Group wrong when it said “A capital gains tax is generally said to support the integrity of the tax system by reducing opportunities for tax planning and tax avoidance.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It may have said that but it clearly lacked the certainty of its convictions because its members could not come to agreement about a capital gains tax and did not recommend implementing one despite the arguments it raised for it. 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise the point the member is going to make on this occasion but I believe that it would be unreasonable to say that the Minister can say only yes or no because to give some context that is helpful in ensuring the answer is meaningful is not outside the Standing Orders. On this occasion I believe that is what the Minister was doing. That was not unreasonable. It was not superfluous embellishment and it was not attacking the Opposition; it was just pointing out that although the Tax Working Group may have expressed that view it did not carry it through into its recommendations and that is a perfectly valid context to put around an answer. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the Tax Working Group report given that it may be of assistance— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All members have the Tax Working Group report. 
Stuart Nash 
: Is it really fair that a working person earning $50000 a year pays around $8000 in income tax while a person who sells an investment property for $50000 profit does not pay any tax on that income? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That may well not be correct because there are quite a number of people who trade in investment property. But if the member is trying to make a general point about fairness there was nothing fair about Labour’s tax system— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister has no responsibility for Labour’s tax system. 
Hon Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table a statement on the fairness of Labour’s GST proposal from Heinz-Wattie which states: “It would discriminate against local producers”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of this statement? 
Hon Craig Foss 
: The source of this statement is an article in  
Hawke’s Bay Today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not seek leave to table current newspaper articles. 
Benefit System—Management 
11. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps has the Government taken to manage gateways between benefits? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have ensured that the gateways between benefits have been tightened through better management of the benefit system. This is all despite a global recession. In 2004 the net flow of people going from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit was 5963 people. In 2011— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister but the member asking the question has a right to hear the answer. The Opposition has been commendably brief in its interjections today but on this occasion the interjections are unreasonable. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I will start again Mr Speaker. We have ensured that the gateways between benefits have been tightened through better management of the benefit system. This is all despite a global recession. In 2004 the net flow of people going from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit was 5963 people. In 2011 for the first time in over a decade it was negative 712. Not only has National halted the flow but also we are now seeing more people transfer from the sickness benefit to the work-tested unemployment benefit and that is a good thing. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: How has the Government’s better management of the benefit system— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi but it is not fair to a colleague who has been called to ask a supplementary question if front-bench members continue to interject. It is rude. It is certainly not good enough. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: We weren’t sure who he was Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: How has the Government’s better management of the benefit system impacted on the overall number of those on the sickness benefit and invalids benefit? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In the 2000s we did see the number of people on the unemployment benefit decrease but the number of people on both the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit increased by about 50 percent. Yes we have seen an increase in the number of those on the unemployment benefit over the last 3 years but we have not hidden the numbers or simply transferred people to another benefit to make ourselves look better like Labour did when it was in Government. 
Education National Standards—School Charters 
12. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all of her answers to Oral Question No 8 yesterday? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What does the Minister make of the fact that 533 or over a quarter of 1922 analysed school charters are non-compliant? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Well the ministry is assessing those charters on a variety of criteria and it is working with schools to develop their charters so that they are compliant. 
Sue Moroney 
: Are there schools that have refused to submit their charters by the 1 July deadline as well as the 533 schools whose charters are non-compliant; if so how many? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I would not have any way of knowing whether a school has refused to do that. That is asking for an opinion and I do not have access to information about it. But I can say to that member that of the so-called rebel schools that submitted their charters—about 437—338 of their charters have been analysed and almost half of those did contain national standards targets. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she still intend to take control of schools away from parents by putting in a statutory manager if they do not comply with her national standards policy? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No we are working with schools that may be breaking the law in a variety of ways helping them to understand that they are in fact breaking the law and making sure that they have every assistance to comply with that law. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she think the stand-off she has created between her and 533 school communities is beneficial to the education of New Zealand children? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The member’s assertion is incorrect because as I have said the criteria that the ministry is using to assess those charters as being compliant are much wider than just whether they have targets that go against national standards. What I can say is that there are over 2000 primary schools and the majority of those are implementing the standards. In fact I was at a school this morning where it was said to me that already the school could see that using national standards targets had lifted the achievement of its students. That is what this Government is all about: we are about getting results for kids not about creating stand-offs with unions. 
Urgent Question to Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am just considering a matter here that is quite important. I beg the House’s indulgence. [ 
Interruption 
] I apologise to the House for that distraction. What happened was an urgent question was lodged with me and I have to decide whether the facts of the matter as before us justify the urgent question. It is my ruling that on this occasion they do not because the Minister has indicated to the House that nothing will happen before there is a chance to ask further questions and therefore an urgent question is not appropriate today. Had that not happened I think the matter would have justified an urgent question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that mean that we have an assurance in the House that the deportation order to take effect on Saturday will not happen? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The reason why that point is relevant is that were that not to be the case then I would have allowed the urgent question. My understanding was that the Minister had indicated that would not necessarily be happening. If that is not that case then I believe the question should be allowed. Perhaps to clarify the matter I should allow the urgent question. I have perhaps made a wrong assumption so I will hand the question over for the urgent question to be asked. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There were ample opportunities for the member to ask supplementary questions. If his supplementary questions were inept well that is it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The acting Acting Leader of the House should not use that kind of language; it is not becoming. [ 
Interruption 
] It is my decision whether an urgent question is appropriate. If in fact there was no chance to ask further questions if things were going to happen before there was the opportunity to do so and there is no opportunity to ask further questions today without an urgent question being accepted—in my view there would be grounds for the Speaker to accept an urgent question. In respect of my initial ruling until the matter was drawn to my attention by the person who had lodged the question my initial understanding was that nothing would happen before further questions could be asked in this House. That would appear not to be the case. I believe that in respect of a matter of public interest if an action is to be taken before there is the opportunity for a question to be asked then those are grounds for an urgent question and that is why I am allowing the question. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just refer you to Standing Order 379(1) which says the member must also give a copy of the question to the Minister involved. I want to clarify whether that has occurred. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon David Carter. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: An urgent question is something that occurs on a very infrequent basis in this House for urgent matters. To allow this to proceed is frankly making a shambles of the process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not hear any more on this. The House will come to order straight away. Serious matters of public interest are never a shambles in this place—never. Serious matters of public interest that Ministers are responsible for should be treated seriously and this is the place where Ministers are held to account. I ask the member for the Standing Order again as I did not hear clearly which one he was referring to. [ 
Interruption 
] It is 379(1). 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with the matter and I will not hear a further point of order while I am dealing with the matter. There is no question that the member is right. I think on that basis I cannot allow the question because it is not in order—[ 
Interruption 
] No no no. I think the dilemma we have is that the question was lodged with the Clerk so late that it is impossible to deal with it properly. I want the House to come to order because this is a serious issue. The Standings Orders do have to be complied with and at the time I had to make a ruling on it the Minister did not have a copy of the urgent question. So the Standing Orders had not been complied with. I cannot overturn the Standing Orders. But I want the House to treat this matter seriously. I cannot depart from the Standing Orders. I have tried to make every opportunity for a matter of public interest to be dealt with but the Standing Orders are the Standing Orders. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have made it very clear it is the end of the matter. There can be no further points of order on this matter so it has to be on a different matter. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Well it is on this matter but it is a different aspect of it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because the Hon Rick Barker normally has something worth hearing I will hear the member. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The situation is not too dissimilar from when Ministers walk from the Beehive across to this House. Members of the press gallery do not give prior written notice to Ministers of issues they wish to doorstop them on. Let us be frank about that. They turn up as they come by and Ministers are expected to answer the questions when they are there. I accept they do not give them notice that they will turn up. All Ministers understand that. When they walk across they are prepared to answer any questions. I accept your point Mr Speaker that the Standing Orders prohibit it in that regard but I seek leave for the Hon Trevor Mallard to be able to ask one further question to the Associate Minister of Immigration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection to that— 
Hon Annette King 
: Gutless! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —course of action. The Hon Annette King will get to her feet and withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Annette King 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just speaking to that point of order and because it is a matter of public interest and very serious— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not understand what point of order can be raised here because that matter has been dealt with. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Can I seek leave? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can seek leave indeed. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I seek leave to clarify the situation and attempt to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister wishes to make a ministerial statement that is debatable. There is no personal explanation that I am aware of that the Minister can use here. The matter has been dealt with. I sought to enable an urgent question to be asked. It was pointed out to me that that was inconsistent with the Standing Orders. I totally accept that—it was inconsistent with the Standing Orders. I have to rule in favour of that. I sought leave on the recommendation of the chief Opposition whip. Leave was not granted and that is the end of that matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said that that is the end of the matter. Well I will hear it; I want to understand what the point of order is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point of order is to make it clear to the House that the Labour Opposition will not object if the Minister asks for leave— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. Members have pointed out to me that the Standing Orders did not provide for this urgent question to be asked and I have ruled consistent with the Standing Orders. That is the end of the matter. The House must now move on. Question time is a time for questions to be asked. The member was quite at liberty to lodge an urgent question. I felt there was some merit in the question he lodged but the Standing Orders precluded my dealing with it today. 
Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 10 August. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I intend to take only a very very brief call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2)— 
Paul Quinn 
: You’ve said that before. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —but the more Paul Quinn interjects the longer it will be. My contribution will be brief. I welcome the introduction of electronic voter enrolment. It is particularly relevant for younger enrolees and prospective voters. It is of huge concern to me that younger people under the age of 25 dominate the list of people who are eligible to enrol to vote but do not. I hope that allowing electronic voter enrolment will certainly go some way to addressing that. 
I hope that in the next Parliament and the near future we will have a debate about whether electronic voting should be allowed in this country because I think that would potentially also encourage more young people to vote. I know that will be a source of significant debate. I hope it is one we can address in the next Parliament not this one. I think it should be addressed. 
Overall it is a good bill and Labour will be supporting it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I just want to make it clear that I totally endorse the comments of Chris Hipkins. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Some members think electoral law makes one’s eyes glaze over but of course it is of fundamental importance and constitutional significance. I think—as Carol Beaumont an authority on constitutional matters said yesterday in the House on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2)—that there is really nothing at all controversial about this bill. That is a testament to what this Government has done in this area. We have taken much of the heat and controversy out of electoral law matters. 
This bill is the final stage of two stages of reform to amalgamate electoral agencies. It is a good measure without controversy and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a third time. 
Freedom Camping Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I move  
That the Freedom Camping Bill be now read a second time 
. Firstly I thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for its clear analysis of the issues and for its excellent report. I also thank the committee for reporting back a bill that will protect our environment and ensure that New Zealanders and visitors to New Zealand can enjoy the freedom to camp while enabling local authorities and the Department of Conservation to better manage freedom camping for everyone’s benefit. 
I agree with the changes the committee has recommended. Some submitters were concerned that the bill had the potential to catch out responsible campers or allow local authorities to issue blanket bans across their districts. Both of these concerns have been addressed. This bill’s default position is that freedom camping is allowed on public land subject to the Act. It is a matter for local authorities and the Department of Conservation to identify specific sites where freedom camping is prohibited or limited to self-contained vehicles. 
There is little argument that freedom camping is causing communities considerable concern. The number of people undertaking this activity has doubled over the past decade and the waste left behind as a result has increased significantly. We are an outdoors destination and we encourage tourists to come here travel across the country and enjoy our backyard. Freedom camping is a tradition that will carry on and this bill is careful to ensure that it does. But we do have a duty to protect our environment from the minority who could not care less about their moral and legal responsibility to leave a site as they found it. The filth that has pervaded some parts of the country is troubling. Not only is it costing councils and the Department of Conservation financially to clean up the mess being left behind but it is ruining the experience of responsible campers and damaging our international reputation. We are not a dirty country; we pride ourselves on being clean. 
This bill is designed to allow local authorities and the Department of Conservation to address freedom camping issues they are facing especially at popular tourist sites. Local authorities will be able to make by-laws prohibiting or restricting freedom camping in a particular area but only if such a by-law is the most appropriate way of addressing those problems. Prohibitions or restrictions will apply only to areas where problems are being caused by freedom campers. Importantly any prohibitions or restrictions must be in proportion to the problems identified which will also alleviate the concern regarding blanket bans. This is a stronger pro-camping stance than currently exists under some local authority by-laws. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I caution members about the use of telephones in the House. Usually if a phone rings in a select committee the member shouts afternoon tea. I think it would cost the member a lot of money in Parliament. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The bill will also result in nationally consistent signage and improved online resources informing both domestic and international tourists of where camping is restricted. There has been concern that some of the by-laws listed in the schedules impose blanket bans on freedom camping. It is true that some of the by-law provisions in the bill’s schedules do not entirely reflect the parameters set by the bill but none of the current by-laws imposes an outright ban on camping in a district. Many local authorities provide designated areas for camping and their current by-laws do not allow freedom camping outside those areas. The bill reverses this position in favour of freedom camping being allowed everywhere except in designated no-camping areas. 
In order to enable local authorities to use the infringement regime during the Rugby World Cup 2011 the bill is pragmatic in its use of the existing camping-related by-laws. Approximately 95000 visitors will come to New Zealand over the 6-week period of the Rugby World Cup and a great many of these visitors plan to travel between the games in campervans freedom camping along the way. Breaching existing local camping by-laws will be an infringement offence for 1 year. After the year is up local authorities in consultation with their communities will have to make new by-laws under the Freedom Camping Act if they wish to use the infringement regime. New freedom camping by-laws will have to conform to the provisions set out in the bill. No responsible law-abiding freedom camper or tramper will be affected. 
The bill defines freedom camping as an activity that takes place within 200 metres of a vehicle-accessible area or the coast. Trampers in the back country will not be ticketed for making camp for the night during a tramp. Nor do picnickers need to worry that they will be prevented from enjoying a day’s recreation at their favourite picnic spot. People will still be able to sleep overnight at road ends before starting a tramp unless specific restrictions apply to that site. There are already some restrictions on camping near the start and end of some of the Great Walk tracks and these have not created problems for legitimate users. The committee has also specifically reinforced that tired drivers will not be fined should they need to take a few hours’ rest on the roadside. 
This bill will not only protect our traditional Kiwi camping experience but will ensure that visitors to New Zealand who inject millions of dollars a year into our economy are also able to enjoy the best of that traditional Kiwi experience. 
The bill has been criticised by some for being a disproportionate response to the problems associated with freedom camping. It has been suggested that a better way to deal with the problems is to provide more public toilets and rubbish tins. Local authorities and the Department of Conservation have found that other tools and methods of management are of limited effect do not have teeth on their own or have negative side effects. Providing more rubbish tins or public toilets may alleviate problems in some areas but there are significant costs to local authorities and the Department of Conservation to establish and maintain toilet and rubbish collection facilities. For example the Queenstown Lakes District Council spends $326000 a year to clean and maintain 45 public toilet buildings. It costs about $10000 to install even a basic back country - style kit toilet. To build and maintain public toilets at every potential freedom camping site may not be a priority for the ratepayer when considered against other community priorities. This is particularly true in areas such as the West Coast where local authorities have large land areas and high visitor numbers but small rating bases from which to fund facilities and services. There is also no guarantee that such facilities will be used. 
The threat of a $200 fine will be a valuable tool for local authorities and the Department of Conservation. Like all enforcement there is room for leniency should the occasion suit but the threat of a fine will give authorities more confidence to tackle issues and move campers on. Some submitters suggested that freedom campers be required to comply with the New Zealand standard for self-contained motor caravans. This standard may be a useful way for enforcement agencies to identify whether a motor caravan parked in an area where only self-contained vehicles may park is complying with those conditions but it is not mandatory or required under this bill. However we do not want to be in a position where only people in expensive motor homes are allowed to experience the great outdoors. In some areas freedom camping may be permitted only in self-contained vehicles. In other areas where there have been no significant problems or where toilet and waste facilities are provided freedom camping in non - self-contained vehicles or in tents may be totally acceptable. It will be up to local authorities the Department of Conservation and local communities to decide what is appropriate at particular sites. 
One of the changes the committee recommended was the creation of a new offence in relation to the serious environmental harm that can be caused where for example someone empties a campervan sewage tank on to a rest area. This offence recognises that self-contained vehicles are only as environmentally friendly as the people who operate them. 
We want people to enjoy our countryside. We want visitors to come here and see what a beautiful country we have. We need to encourage everyone to act responsibly and with care for the environment. When they do not we need to make sure that local authorities and the Department of Conservation have the tools to deal with them. This bill enables that. 
Finally I thank again the select committee for the excellent and prompt work it has done on this bill. There were many passionate submissions. The report shows that the committee has been attentive in listening to submitters. The changes will help significantly in achieving the bill’s intentions. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is with some degree of disappointment that I say to the House that despite the best efforts of the Local Government and Environment Committee working to improve the Freedom Camping Bill Labour will oppose it. We agree that there is a problem; it is a very small problem. It is one that in our view had alternatives that would have been preferable to this bill. 
This bill is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It goes far too far. More important it restricts some of the activities that New Zealanders value as being at the core of our being and as part of being New Zealanders. Our ability to stay the night on the roadside before setting off on a tramp—the way that hunters and trampers often behave with total respect for their environment—is now threatened. This bill assumes that everybody who is a freedom camper is also a polluter. That is just not fair. It is not correct. 
I commend however the process undertaken by the Local Government and Environment Committee. It was rigorous. I pay tribute not just to the members on it but also to the officials. The officials worked really hard to pick up the points made by select committee members and by the submitters and to understand how solutions could be reached. They were not able to do that on every occasion as is clear from the fact that Labour opposes this bill. But that was not for lack of trying. They worked really hard and I commend them. It was an interesting process. 
This bill gives every district council and every Department of Conservation conservancy the ability to say that large parts of our country are no longer allowable for freedom campers—a blanket ban. In fact a district council could say that the whole of its district was no longer allowed to have any freedom camping in it. That is by anyone’s stretch of the imagination in my view a step too far. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: They couldn’t do that. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: They can do that. It is not likely that they would but they could. That was certainly the conclusion that was reached during the select committee process. There are large parts of our country that can be excluded at the determination of a council—that is correct. In my view New Zealanders have the right to get out and pursue outdoor activities. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Read the bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The brains trust from west Auckland who refuses to read any briefing papers on anything to do with evidence-based best practice on child abuse or social development suggests that we read the bill. In my view it should be up to the people who live in an area pay their rates and enjoy that activity to determine how their local area is designated and that is not the case. So the select committee has released with its report back a minority report. That minority report makes it very clear that Labour recognises that there is a problem but believes it is one where less Draconian measures could be introduced and supported. 
It would have been good in my view to have support from the whole of Parliament for these measures giving a clear message to all our councils—all our elected representatives on councils throughout the country—that Parliament considered that there were appropriate means to progress these measures and protect our environment. 
But I am not surprised that the councils said they were not sure they would be able to do that. Even Minister Wilkinson talked about how expensive it was for councils to put in toilet facilities. Well part of the reason for that—in fact a large part of the reason for that—is that the National Government has cut the subsidies that used to be available for particularly small district councils to put in toilet facilities. 
That subsidy used to be available to help them. It was seen as a partnership between central and local government and the National Government was in for 5 minutes and flicked that partnership. It said to the district councils that they were on their own. Then the Minister comes in and says the councils will find it very hard because it is very expensive to put in toilet facilities. So instead of putting in toilet facilities the Government will ban freedom camping. This is New Zealand—the country of the great outdoors—where we are going to ban freedom camping rather than put in toilet facilities. There is now no assistance available at all for local authorities to put in toilet facilities. 
For the benefit of the member who was screeching out earlier on and saying that that is not correct I point out that the assistance was called the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme. It was in existence years ago—actually right up until 2¾ years ago—and the National Government abolished it. The Government stopped the sort of practical help that would have enabled councils to better resource their facilities so that their environment was less likely to be polluted. I do not think it is such a big ask to have specific areas which can be introduced and built on over time so that we have better rubbish collection and better toilet facilities. 
In a nutshell my view is that Steven Joyce may have been away from the Cabinet on the day this bill was put through by the Hon Nick Smith because it clearly has not had the Crosby/Textor nanny State ruler run over it. It is the most Draconian bit of legislation I can remember seeing introduced to this House. The Hon Maurice Williamson is paling at the thought of being part of the introduction of nanny State legislation but it is before him. 
Some of the emails I have had—and there were a large number on this issue—described this legislation as particularly abhorrent and as something that National should never consider. Another one expressed alarm that such a law was going to be passed—that was from one of Nick Smith’s constituents. Actually there were quite a few from his electorate. Somebody else said that he would be personally obliged if we could consider his approach and that an alternative would be to follow the approach Labour has suggested—which is in our minority report—because he says he is a strong believer in leadership and example not burdensome legislation. The Hon Maurice Williamson will need smelling salts very shortly—burdensome abhorrent nanny State legislation is being introduced by the National Government. 
One other comment I want to share with the House is from a man who is a bike rider and cycles all around the country; he will be well known to my colleague Kevin Hague I am sure. He said: “Some of my colleagues call this a nanny State bill.” He said that that is not correct; it is a “jackboot State bill. I think that is a step too far.” 
Simon Bridges 
: I think you should table these. Table the evidence. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If that member is implying dishonesty then he should withdraw and apologise particularly given his reputation and position. There were a large number of emails on this in addition to the submissions and the point made by every single one of them was that they agreed with the need to protect our environment but they thought this bill was a step too far. The other concern they had was that it was being put through in a dickens of a rush solely because of the Rugby World Cup timetable. 
If we seriously expect we can solve these sorts of problems with no additional support for councils with jackboot measures nanny State measures all in the name of supporting the Rugby World Cup I believe that it will detract from our reputation our clean green image and our welcoming of people who want to enjoy our environment rather than enhancing it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Not only is the Freedom Camping Bill important in protecting New Zealand’s environment but it has served another very useful purpose. It has flushed out in this Parliament those who are the practical greens as distinct from those who are just the political greens. We have people on the Opposition benches who have raved on about water quality during their entire political careers and who cannot give a speech without mentioning the words “clean green New Zealand” but when they are given the opportunity to actually do something practical about it they want New Zealand to be the polluters’ paradise. 
The Government says we need simply to give councils the practical laws to be able to control freedom camping. The Labour and Green Party Opposition members say they want to let it be free to continue. I wish members opposite would get out of the comfort of their offices and get out to real New Zealand where some of our most precious spots are being used and abused. [ 
Interruption 
] My question for the member who interjects Sue Moroney is what is “100% Pure” about the experience of stopping at a beautiful picnic spot on the banks of Lake Wakatipu becoming overwhelmed with the smell of human sewage and seeing toilet paper and human effluent all over the place and published from one end of the reserve to the other? Wake up guys! That is not good for the New Zealand brand. 
All this bill does is let our councils and the Department of Conservation define where people can freedom camp where they can camp subject to self-containment and where they cannot. [ 
Interruption 
] They cannot ban camping everywhere I say to Mr Mallard. He is a former Minister for the Environment. He did not do anything about it. He received dozens of letters from councils asking him to move on this issue but he did not do a thing. 
Secondly the presumption in this bill is that people can camp unless it is specifically restricted. The really crunchy provision in this bill is simply to introduce an instant fine so that if someone is camping where they are specifically prohibited by the council from doing so they can be subject to a fine. At the moment if a council wants to prosecute it costs the ratepayer or the taxpayer over $10000 to initiate a prosecution. The part I cannot believe about the naivety of the Labour and Greens’ opposition is this: they say the answer is just to build more public toilets. Well I guess we can and we should. But we will never be able to provide them everywhere. It is the ongoing view of the left that there is a bottomless pit of public money. The Government is simply saying we need to be practical. Councils need to be able to say that people cannot camp in some areas and councils need the practical measures in order to be able to enforce it. 
The part I find most galling about Labour’s and the Greens’ opposition to this legislation is that they are simultaneously running campaigns demanding tougher rules on farmers and industry in relation to water quality. We have just adopted a national policy statement on water quality and both parties opposite have said it is not nearly tough enough. This Government’s view is that farmers will need to step up and improve their management of fresh water. That is why we have toughened compliance and doubled the fines for breaches of resource consents. But how will we get farmers to take on board this important message when they see the Government and councils ignoring overseas tourists dumping raw sewage in their backyard? The truth is that we cannot. We have to be consistent. We need to be equally firm in our measures to protect the Kiwi environment. The $200 instant fine is not at all out of proportion when a farmer now faces up to a $200000 fine for breaching their resource consents. 
The last contradiction from members opposite that I must expose is the lack of trust they have in councils and the Department of Conservation. This is an empowering bill. The Department of Conservation and councils have good practical people running them. They do not wish to kill off legitimate recreation any more than anyone else does. This is a practical Bluegreens bill that addresses a growing problem. It is needed in order to protect public health protect iconic spots and protect New Zealand’s “clean green” brand. It poses no threat to the responsible freedom camper. 
I say to all members of this House that if they are serious about environment protection and if they do not think it is acceptable to dump raw sewage in some of our most iconic picnic spots then they should do the right thing and support this practical bill. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 The Freedom Camping Bill is typical of what the Minister for the Environment has brought to this House. It is a reactionary political posturing bill that attempts to get a few votes down in his own patch because a few people have jumped up and down about it. The reality is that this bill will not address the problem we have across the country because we have inadequate infrastructure. That is the fact of the matter. Hundreds of thousands of people travel around this country in cars each and every day and when they stop at a rest stop—or anywhere—because there are no facilities they often use the bushes for a toilet. It is inappropriate and not what we want—I accept that—but this bill which addresses just the issue of campervans staying overnight is ridiculous. It will not address the problem we have here. 
The Tourism Industry Association went around the country looking at this issue and it said: “strong clear and targeted camping information is the cornerstone for achieving responsible camping practices in New Zealand. Developing a culture of environmental care underpinned by national and local visitor-friendly information is the key to addressing this.” 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We’re doing that. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: No he is not. No he is not doing that. That Minister has cut funding from the Department of Conservation. The Government has cut funding from the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme that assisted local councils to put facilities in place. It is absolutely—I am not allowed to use the word am I? No no. There is an “h” word. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member will not use a circumlocution to get around what he is trying to say. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Sorry. This jackboot Government has double standards in this area. There are a whole lot of issues that this bill will not address. I pointed to the number of people in cars. This bill will not help them. I was at a meeting the other day at which the local council person turned around to the Department of Conservation person and asked who will be policing this law. Who will be the poo police? Will it be the Department of Conservation or will it be the local council? Can the Minister answer that? Who will be the poo police? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The bill makes it very clear. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Oh really? The bill makes it clear. Well it is not known whether the cost will be to councils or the Department of Conservation let alone the legal issues involved in trying to address it. 
I will finish because I do not want to carry on for too long. The main problem has been campervans dumping and emptying their tanks. That has been the major issue; it is not the little pile and the little bit of white paper. In fact when people go to locations—and I know many of them—the issue is when campervans have dumped large amounts of effluent in one place. The people in the campervans most likely have not even stayed in that place. They most likely have not stayed in that place but as they get towards the end of their trip because there are an inadequate number of dumping stations for these campervans they often—too often—dump their effluent in inappropriate places. That is the problem and this bill will not address that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It does. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Well no more than currently where we have littering bills. I have to say that as much as I support the submitters who came along in good faith and said that this is an issue that needs to be addressed the Government has cut funding to the organisations that should be implementing higher environmental standards and it refuses to bring in a nationwide programme of up-rating upgrading and installing facilities to deal with the problem. This legislation is cheap posturing by that member who got on the front page of his local paper saying what a wonderful bill it would be. Mark my words: in 3 years’ time this legislation will not have addressed the issue of effluent up and down this country because we have inadequate facilities. It is about time we got on and put them in place. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to say it is a pleasure to take a call on the ridiculous Freedom Camping Bill but sadly that is not the case. 
I begin in the usual manner by thanking the officials who assisted the Local Government and Environment Committee considering this bill. I think those officials did a fantastic job under a lot of time pressure but also under pressure from the extraordinarily tricky drafting tasks that were put in front of them. They did extremely well. Thanks also to the submitters. The submitters also made their submissions in a very tight time frame. We received a lot of thoughtful submissions and a lot of submissions expressing quite different points of view. It is very difficult to reconcile some of the views that were expressed. 
I note that the tightness of the time frame for submissions to be made and for the select committee to do its work has not been reflected in the bill coming back to the House for the second reading. I must say I had hoped that that reflected a difficulty for the Government in getting support for the bill from its confidence and supply partners in particular the Maori Party and ACT Party. I am sorry to say it appears that that is not the case. 
The Green Party for its part remains steadfastly opposed to the bill. We restate our position that although there is a genuine problem this is the wrong approach to resolving that problem. In fact we do not believe that this approach will resolve the problem. We welcome Labour’s change of heart and its opposition to the bill in the second reading. We wish that other parties had also been prepared to re-examine their views. 
Having said that we will continue to oppose the bill I do thank the select committee itself because I think the committee did a very good job in trying circumstances. The bill that has come back to the House is considerably better than the diabolical mess and Draconian bill that the House was presented with at the first reading. I know that for many of those people who have been expressing strong opposition in emails to us many of their fears will have been at least eased by the changes made by the select committee. I think that was very worthwhile and I thank Mr Auchinvole in particular as the chair of the committee for his work in steering it through. 
One of the issues that continue to sit uneasily is the set of transition measures that are embedded in the bill largely to deal with the concern that some people have that the Rugby World Cup will be an opportunity for the serially inappropriate in toileting habits to exacerbate the problem. The bill effectively grandfathers for the period of the Rugby World Cup the provisions that local bodies have already put in place. But it is critical for this House for the general public and for local authorities to understand that by doing so the bill does not confer any greater legal status on those by-laws than already existed. That is incredibly important because the select committee received advice that it was quite likely that if existing by-laws were challenged many of them would not stand up to scrutiny in court. 
We have a number of territorial local authorities for example that have imposed blanket bans on freedom camping throughout their districts or that have made extensive restrictions on freedom camping. It is quite likely that those by-laws would not stand the test that a court would place on them. The law requires that any by-law must first result from genuine evidence of a real problem in a particular location and clearly a blanket ban or an extremely extensive restriction would fail that test. The by-law has to be the best possible remedy that is available for that problem and again that is highly contestable. The by-law almost must be proportionate to the size of the problem. So it is crucial that it is widely understood that the grandfathering of those provisions in this bill does not provide any protection for local authorities that have in fact illegal by-laws. That may be a very real problem for some of those local authorities in the months to come. 
I will raise almost a philosophical question and I have done so previously in the House: what is the best approach to changing behaviour that we consider to be undesirable? Clearly there is a whole spectrum of possible approaches from at the one end simply leaving the matter to free choice. There are people who simply believe that if everyone has absolutely free choice and is unhindered then by a magical process the best outcomes will result. There are ways of skewing that by providing some incentives for different action. At the other end there are I guess regulatory approaches. It is a question of choosing the right approach for a particular situation. 
I think there are lots of examples of inappropriate deregulation. I have been speaking about some of those in the House over recent months. For example deregulation of the building industry resulted in leaky homes deregulation of the finance industry resulted in the catastrophic loss of wealth for many New Zealanders and deregulation of mine safety has at least arguably—and I believe that it will be found to be the case—resulted in even greater tragedy for at least 29 men on the West Coast where I live. So deregulation I believe has clearly occurred in some circumstances where it was inappropriate. 
We have seen from this Government a particular fondness for deregulation. One of the first things it did when it came into office was to repeal the law that regulated biofuel requirements for fuel companies. It then immediately introduced its own approach which was to provide some kind of subsidy. We clearly see nowadays in the results that that approach has been less effective in encouraging the development of biofuels. So it is a question of horses for courses. 
What I have argued and what the Green Party has argued both in this debate and at the first reading is that the correct approach to this problem is to recognise that people want to do the right thing. We should use regulation where people are disinclined to do the right thing: where they want to do something different or they have incentives to do something different. In this case they have come to this country because of our clean green image. They want to respect our environment. We need to assist them to do that and the best way of doing that is through the provision of appropriate facilities and appropriate education. Colleagues have already spoken about the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme for those local authorities that cannot afford to put in extra toilets. That is exactly the right approach because we all benefit from tourism in our country. 
I will make one brief comment about the comments of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I think it is very sad and indeed worrying if the Minister for the Environment is unable to distinguish between the infinitesimal contribution that inappropriate toileters in campervans make to fresh water quality in this country and the disastrous impact of agricultural intensification that his failure to act on fresh water quality has resulted in. This is the wrong approach to this problem it could have been dealt with in a much better way and we encourage the Government still to do so. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Manu Korero. I am really pleased to stand and speak to the second reading of the Freedom Camping Bill today. This bill rests upon the concept of freedom. It responds to the practice of freedom camping which is when people camp away from sites that are recognised as camping grounds. Any legislative attempt to define or interpret the concept of freedom whether or not it is in the context of camping is of course asking for trouble. We are reminded of the challenge by Abraham Lincoln: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves”. The question in this case is however not black and white because the so-called freedom for tourists whether they be international or domestic tourists to pitch a tent to park their caravan or to drive their car campervan house truck or any other type of vehicle on to a piece of land has brought with it adverse consequences for those living around the area and particularly for mana whenua who take very seriously their responsibilities for kaitiakitanga for guardianship of tribal land. So I choose another interpretation of freedom from Janis Joplin in the song “Me and Bobby McGee” which says: “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.” For what we have experienced with freedom camping in my electorate of Te Tai Tonga has a massive loss in terms of the way the litter of human waste has trampled on the mana of the local people and the special places in our rohe.  
I first raised this issue over a year ago in March 2010 when I called on freedom campers to show respect and for local business owners to inform manuhiri of the need to be careful with their rubbish and body waste. The problem of freedom camping has been particularly apparent in Te Wai Pounamu no doubt because of our priceless beauty and our unique landscapes which draw tourists to them in huge numbers. So we have frequently reported sightings of the freedom camper species in areas like Fiordland Otago Southland West Coast and Nelson-Marlborough. They have even been reported in major centres like Christchurch. To get an indication of the scale of the problem at the top of the south in Marlborough complaints over irresponsible freedom camping increased from 80 in 2006 right up to 432 in 2009. Most complaints were about non - self-contained vehicles used by overseas visitors. At the other end of the motu in Queenstown Department of Conservation staff monitored six sites with “No Camping” signs during February to April 2010. Between one and four vans were found at each site visited. Human waste and toilet paper were common and widespread. The issue had erupted for me over the disrespect accorded Nga Niho Pa a traditional pa site in Kaikoura. The ultimate offence was shown when the so-called freedom campers were using this traditional pa site to empty their toilet waste. So yes from a basis of cultural integrity we certainly agree with the sentiment expressed in the lyrics that there is “nothing left to lose.”  
The Maori Party will fight to the nth degree to protect and preserve Papatuanuku to prepare for our environment and to care for our environment in any way befitting. So I have much pleasure in announcing that in time for the second reading I have released Supplementary Order Paper 266 to ensure that mana whenua are intimately associated with the monitoring supervising and decision making around the provisions to combat freedom camping. My amendment inserts a new clause 3A “Tiriti o Waitangi”. The clause notes: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the te Tiriti o Waitangi local authorities and any person acting on behalf of local authorities must act in a way that is consistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi when exercising powers or performing functions under this Act.” I think that it is really important when we consider any legislation that we consider what it means for tangata whenua as the indigenous peoples of this land and a Treaty clause is a very clear way of being able to formalise intent into action. Acting in a Treaty-compliant manner will ensure consultation with iwi as an important means of protecting the integrity of the associated ecosystems together with the taonga contained within them for their own sake and for the benefit of future generations. We want to be assured that there will be robust and accountable work practices by local government and regional authorities when working with mana whenua. Taking appropriate account of the Treaty will mean that iwi who exercise a customary right over the associated lands will be automatically involved in the response. 
Within the terms of a kaupapa-driven economic framework the Maori Party believes that kaitiakitanga becomes imbued with value in cultural social and economic terms. Within the terms of the Treaty mana whenua will be involved in devising solutions to reduce the pressure on the environment and avoid long-term costs to future generations. In the case of this bill the economic returns from the manifestation of kaitiakitanga are spelt out explicitly under the examples described as a strict liability offence. To name just a few the offence of freedom camping is described as taking place when the flora or fauna is interfered with or damaged or waste is deposited on to the area other than into a waste receptacle. But freedom camping is also considered an offence when individuals fail or refuse to leave conservation land when required to do so by an enforcement officer. It is about preventing unnecessary damage and destruction. Environmental protection becomes viewed as an inherent part of citizenship. We see the kaupapa achieving an economic value in that the long-term stewardship of the environment and ecosystems is most effectively provided by committed citizens individually and collectively. Tangata whenua in carrying out our obligations and duties to protect our primary ecosystems are acting in ways that are necessary for future economic prosperity. 
Of course we all know the real reason this issue has suddenly appeared on the Order Paper is because of the Rugby World Cup and the Government’s anxiety to get our house in order before we prepare to welcome the crowds. I would rather that we were taking this action out of a genuine concern for the environment but notwithstanding my cynicism we will be supporting this bill in the longer-term interests of the environment and the cultural integrity of our unique places. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I would like to give a brief presentation on the Freedom Camping Bill. I will begin as have other speakers by commending the work of the officials by commending the contributions from submitters and by thanking the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for the way they handled this particular issue. It was done at some speed but it certainly was not rushed. Something that never fails to impress me with the processes that we have in Parliament is that short-term submissions are none the less of high quality. We had high-quality submissions on this bill and some high-quality work has been done by the committee. 
I must say that I occasionally find myself wondering whether I had been to the same meeting as some of the people who have spoken in this debate. I find astonishing the range of interpretations that can be taken from the same subject by different members. 
Basically in my mind this bill establishes three things. It establishes the rights of freedom campers and for everybody to engage in freedom camping. The bill certainly does not restrict that right; it creates it as the default position. Freedom camping is a right. 
It does create infringement notices. My colleague Kevin Hague said that the bill is a sledgehammer to crack a nut—a phrase that was later taken by Phil Twyford who said it was his phrase. In fact that is the current situation whereby if people wish to move campers on they have to take them to court. The bill will create infringement notices that can be used by the Department of Conservation and by councils and that is an interchangeable responsibility. 
The bill allows the management of camping activity within 200 metres of a road. It is pretty much as simple as that. 
Coming from an area that benefits from 1.2 million bed-night visitors a year I look forward to being down on the coast again shortly once this bill has passed. I am sure we will be commended for the way it has been handled. Thank you. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe. The Freedom Camping Bill went through the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am not a member of the committee but I am Labour’s spokesperson on tourism. I first of all want to give a plug for tourism because that is basically what this bill is about. That is the industry this bill affects. Tourism is our biggest export earner. It is responsible for a huge slice of our GDP. One in 10 New Zealanders is employed in a tourism-related industry so it is really important that we do what we can to support the tourism industry. 
There is a problem regarding freedom camping and I can say that from personal experience up north. Just last year I attended a meeting in Kaitaia where there were about 40-odd people who are involved in the tourism sector. I stood up and gave my little explanation as I have just done now about the benefits of tourism. I was quite stunned to hear a woman who lives in Waitaki which is about 20 kilometres south of Cape Reinga cut me off and say that tourists are a pain in the neck. She said they are a pain in the neck because they are dumping waste litter rubbish human waste and all sorts on the side of the road next to creeks and in rivers and it is polluting our waterways. I was quite taken aback by that attitude towards tourism. So there is a need to do something but I do not know whether the something that I am reading in this bill will change the problems that we have all around the various parts of Tai Tokerau and the rest of the country. 
I was listening to the member for the West Coast - Tasman talking about infringement notices and about the ability of Department of Conservation personnel and councils to issue those infringement notices. There are so many highways byways and little nooks and crannies around the country that Department of Conservation workers and council workers will not be near. They will not go past them so this problem will not be addressed whatsoever. 
We have to make the differentiation between whether it is the camping that is the problem or whether it is the disposal of the waste. As Damien O’Connor said there are these self-contained campervans whose occupants dump their waste in all parts of the country. Those people may not have even stayed overnight but they wake up in the morning and find before they take the campervan back to the rental outfit that they have a full tank of waste that they have to get rid of or else they will be charged so they just dump it anywhere. I am not sure that this bill will change that outcome whatsoever. 
Minister Smith said that what we need are practical solutions and I wonder whether these practical solutions have been considered at all. One of the problems is the lack of camping grounds. Some campers turn up in a self-contained or even a non - self-contained camper vehicle and go into a camping ground but there is no space for them so they have to go somewhere else. In Nelson for example which I visited one night I went to a car park where by about 6.00 in the evening about 25 or 26 vehicles were parked up. The council had propped up a couple of Portaloos and a couple of rubbish bins for the waste. There is a problem and why should the residents of Nelson have to put up with those campervans and the people who if the Portaloos are full jump in the bushes to do their business? 
There are other options. I wonder whether these practical solutions have been thought through. There may not be camping grounds everywhere and there may not be waste disposal facilities everywhere but in most communities there are rugby clubs sports clubs schools and marae. They have car parks and flat ground. With a bit of thought and a bit of ingenuity such as local government entities working together with the tourism industry and schools sports clubs and marae there could be the potential to improve the facilities at those organisations. The septic tanks could be improved as could the ablution blocks and showers. I would say that a number of marae might quite possibly welcome the idea of getting funding from their local authority to improve their ablution blocks so that they could be improved for the people of the marae as well as for the tourism industry. They could quite possibly make a buck from it as well. So if we are talking practical solutions I wonder whether everything has been explored. I am not sure that it has. 
There is also the option or possibility that the people driving around in their campervans do not actually know where the next set of public facilities is. I wonder again whether there is enough information for tourists when they go to book or hire their vehicles. Do they have enough information to know that if they are in a particular place in the country it is 15 kilometres to the next public facility where they can dispose of their waste or go to the toilet? I think that a number of things really have not been totally thought through and that the $200 fine for infringement has been the solution for something that I think is a bit broader than just pinging people who happen to park their campervans in the main street of a town when they should not do that. 
There is also the idea in Labour’s minority report that we could phase out non - self-contained rental vehicles over a period of time. We were not saying they should be phased out in the next 5 minutes or even the next 5 years; we said that as the vehicles come to the end of their lifespan and have to be replaced they should be replaced by something that is self-contained. I thought that that was a sensible idea that should have been looked at as well. 
When we talk to the people in the tourism industry we hear them say that the infrastructure to support tourism in New Zealand is lacking. It goes back to what I said about local authorities buying in to the concept that tourism is so important to their local economies and that the tourism industry and local authorities should be working together to create facilities. If I am driving north I swear there is not a toilet north of Whangarei that I myself would really want to stop at. From Whangarei up to Cape Reinga is close to a 5-hour drive yet there is nothing really there in between except for an odd place— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Kawakawa. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: Oh Kawakawa. Sorry I forgot my own home town with the Hundertwasser toilets. Oh gee whiz! This is about local government working for and valuing tourism and making sure that there are the facilities that campers can utilise. It is also unclear where the next service station is that has disposal facilities for the self-contained tanks of camping vehicles and I think that that needs to be highlighted as well in tourist information so that tourists do not have to drive 30 kilometres to dispose of their waste when there could be something a heck of a lot closer. 
This Government cut the Sanitary Works Subsidy Scheme and that is a shame. It gave a subsidy for small communities to put in place toilet facilities and dump stations but that scheme has gone and now there is no assistance at all. That is a shame because it could have mitigated this whole problem of the waste that is disposed of by people freedom camping. I do not think it is the camping itself that is the problem; I personally believe that it is the disposal of the waste. Kia ora. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. 
Gareth Hughes 
: The Noes have it. Party vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have made it very clear that when a vote is called the party vote must be asked for at the time. If the member wants to cast a party vote he or she must indicate that quickly. If the member wishes for that he will have to seek leave. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker I did; you must not have heard it. I seek leave to record a party vote. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to record a party vote. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Freedom Camping Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; United Future 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand Labour 40; Green Party 8; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Bill read a second time. 
Education Amendment Bill (No 4) 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank the members of the Education and Science Committee for their prompt consideration of this complex and technical bill. I also wish to thank those individuals who and organisations that made submissions. The select committee carefully considered the submissions and made some changes to improve the bill. The Education Amendment Bill (No 4) has three objectives: firstly to increase transparency and accountability in the tertiary education system by enabling the regulation of compulsory student services fees; secondly to facilitate the expansion of international education by establishing the new Crown agency Education New Zealand; and thirdly to improve regulation of the tertiary education system by updating and reinforcing the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s legal arrangements. 
The committee has made amendments to clarify the accountability arrangements for the use of compulsory student services fees. These clarifications make it clear that the Minister for Tertiary Education can give a direction listing the categories of student services an institution may use the compulsory fee for and that the fee fixed by tertiary institutions is limited to covering services from within those categories only. I have considered the minority view that does not support the proposed changes to compulsory student services fees. We know that changes are needed given that compulsory fees across universities increased 102 percent between 2009 and 2010. Therefore I consider that the provisions in the bill are necessary to improve the accountability and transparency of student services fees by ensuring that students are consulted on the categories and levels of compulsory fees and that institutions adequately report on how those fees are used. 
The bill establishes a new Crown agency for international education to drive growth and innovation in this important sector. The committee has made some minor changes to those provisions. First the committee has clarified that the Minister can give only terms of reference on the topics that the stakeholder advisory committee may advise the board on rather than specifying the content of that advice. The original specificity was unintended. Second the committee removed the general exemption for Education New Zealand from the Commerce Act 1986. It has provided for Education New Zealand to seek exemptions on a case-by-case basis instead. 
The bill strengthens the regulation of private training establishments. These changes include raising the threshold for private training establishment registration and giving the New Zealand Qualifications Authority greater powers to deal with non-compliance. The committee made a number of technical changes that will improve the practical application of the new regulatory regime. The bill also modernises the legal arrangements of the authority. The committee made a number of technical changes as well as requiring that an officer inspecting a private training establishment must provide a list of all documents removed and return the originals unless this would prejudice any investigation. 
The committee supported changing the legal name of Career Services to Careers New Zealand. Careers New Zealand will provide leadership co-ordination and resources to the groups involved in influencing career decisions. The name change reflects the organisation having a wider focus as a national leader in the careers sphere. The Government intends to support the amendments recommended by the majority of the committee including the Career Services amendments. 
At the appropriate time I will be moving a Supplementary Order Paper addressing two aspects of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s new legal arrangements. First the scope of the authority’s rule-making powers regarding the use of standards in degrees and postgraduate qualifications needs to be clarified. Second under the bill as currently drafted the authority has duplicate powers to impose conditions on consents to assess against standards. That was unintended and should be corrected. 
In conclusion this bill will improve the transparency of and accountability for tertiary education in New Zealand. It will also support the growth of our international education sector and ensure that our reputation as a provider of high-quality education continues. I now commend the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) to the House. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) and to say at the outset that Labour supports this bill because what it does is in the main sensible. Certainly the 102 percent increase in student levies from universities and polytechnics over the course of 2009 and 2010 is of great concern to Labour. It also shows the Government that there is a squeeze on tertiary education funding. I hope the Minister does understand that this has been the reaction of tertiary institutions to the underfunding that has happened right across the education system but which in this instance is clearly visible in what is happening to the tertiary education system. 
The attempt by the institutions to significantly increase student levies has been their response to the squeeze on funding that has come from the Government in the area of tertiary education. So although this is one aspect of what needs to occur in order to safeguard dramatic increases for students in the levies being imposed on them by tertiary institutions I hope the Government is under no illusion that this will solve the problem. The problem of course is that institutions were starting to use and to increase the student levy to pay for things that previously have been paid for by Government funding. That is the fundamental problem here and I hope the Government is under no illusion that by passing this bill it has fixed the problem; it has not. 
I guess in supporting this bill I want to point out that Labour has a concern about another bill that is proceeding through this Parliament at the same time which we think causes great concern. If we combine the two we can see that students will be the people who miss out. The bill I am referring to is the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill although— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not part of this debate. Remember this is a second reading speech and the member can concentrate only on the purpose and contents of the bill. The member must come back to this debate. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There is no point of order. I have ruled. This debate is on the bill’s second reading. It is not a first reading debate. The member must concentrate on the second reading of the bill as reported back. 
SUE MORONEY 
: What I want to raise— 
Todd McClay 
: The problem is the member hasn’t read the bill. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The member over there who seems to be the brightest spark that National can come up with may be a bit confused. When bills work in tandem they have an impact on students in that regard. Here is what the Government is doing. On the one hand the Government is saying to tertiary institutions that they cannot increase the levy for students. But on the other hand it is trying to diminish the role of student unions in their institutions so that they can no longer provide the services on those same campuses—if that is the plural of campus. 
What is happening is that the Government is putting itself in a position with this legislation and another piece of legislation whereby the combined effect will be that student services will suffer. If those services are no longer being provided by student unions because they are collapsing under the weight of other legislation put through by this Government and the university chooses to pick up those services this legislation gives the Minister the right to come along and stop the institution from asking for a contribution from students towards providing those services. The net result will be that those services will not continue to be provided for students. 
So I think it is important that the Government understands the impact of not only this bill but also its combined effect with another bill it is supporting at the moment. Yet Labour is prepared to support this bill because by itself it makes sense—by itself it makes sense. In combination with another bill that Labour will not support and does not support it puts student services at risk and that will put student education at risk academic achievement at risk the future productivity of this country at risk and all of the things that go with that. 
I will not take up too much more time on this bill because as I said Labour supports it. The bill supports greater transparency and accountability in the setting of student levies. They did increase hugely in 2010 under this Government. Please understand that it was not just by pure accident that that happened; it happened because of the funding squeeze that came on to the tertiary sector. The bill also establishes a new Crown agency in charge of export education and it introduces stricter requirements for the registration of private training establishments in order to stamp out growing qualification fraud in this sector and we wish to support that. 
I look forward to seeing the Supplementary Order Papers that the Minister for Tertiary Education referred to in his speech when we come to the Committee stage because as a member of the select committee the issues he raised with regard to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority were not issues that were put before the select committee for our deliberation. So I look forward to seeing the content of those Supplementary Order Papers when we reach the Committee stage so that we may make a decision on whether to support those as well. Labour supports this bill. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 The Minister for Tertiary Education clearly outlined the provisions and the intentions of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). I do not feel any need to reiterate those. I want to make two comments if I may. The first is that as chair of the Education and Science Committee that held the hearings and reported back to the House I want to endorse the Minister’s comments about the work of the select committee and express my appreciation to all members for their contribution. The second thing I want to do is welcome Labour’s support for this legislation. It is good legislation it will improve tertiary education it will improve international education and I commend the bill to the House. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Being a recent member of the Education and Science Committee I would like to acknowledge the chair Allan Peachey for the great job he does. I find him to be a very fair and reasoned chairperson who gives us the opportunity to express our views. I appreciate that from the chairperson. 
Labour supports the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It will do a lot of good. It will improve things in education. I would particularly like to focus on careers. I do not think there is enough emphasis on careers in New Zealand education in particular the transition between secondary schools and tertiary education and from tertiary education into employment itself. I do not think we can overemphasise the need for career advice and guidance in schools. 
I was surprised to see that despite inflation running at about 5 percent student levies increased over 2010 by 102 percent. That is outrageous so any moves to cap that are very welcome. 
The export education provisions in this bill are interesting. It is basically about representing New Zealand as an educational destination to students overseas. I think there need to be measures on that and it will benefit New Zealand and New Zealand education. I did say in the first reading that we need to be careful that we do not forget our own home-grown students by overemphasising the fact that we want to attract foreign students to New Zealand. 
In respect of the part of the bill concerning private training establishments I think that making sure we protect the integrity of those institutions is very important. There have been instances of qualifications basically being sold and the falsification of results which is unacceptable at any level of the education system be it at primary school at secondary school or in the tertiary sector and private training establishments. We have to move to protect the integrity of those institutions as I have said. 
I return to student levies. I endorse what my colleague Sue Moroney said about them. Student levies are used in institutions to provide services for students and those services are being jeopardised by another bill that is going through the House. We have to make sure that students have the support that they need—emotional social and health—to get through their studies. 
The funding squeeze in tertiary education has forced institutions to look elsewhere for funding and that is why student levies have risen at such an extraordinary rate—for example there have been increases of up to 600 percent at Canterbury University. That is just not on especially given that the rising cost of living as we know is putting pressure on students’ budgets everywhere as is the cost of gas the cost of food—the cost of everything. The price of tertiary education has risen 18 percent since National took office and out-of-control student levies are just one of the causes. 
Labour is supporting this bill. We look forward to the Committee stage. Again I acknowledge the members of the Education and Science Committee. I have been a member of that committee for a very brief time and much of that time was interrupted by unsuccessfully contesting a by-election. However it has been a pleasure to work with all committee members. Kia ora. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is great to be discussing education issues in this Chamber but I have been struck by the lacklustre debate we have been hearing. There is no passion from any of the members. It seems as if they are not interested in the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). Education is vital to our future as a country as a people and as an economy. My vision is for an education system that sets up our young Kiwis be they in primary school at university or at a polytechnic so that we can deliver a smart economy. I was just looking out of my office window today at all those logs on the Wellington waterfront. Why are we still exporting raw logs in 2011? Why are we not using our smarts to turn them into high-value wood products? Why are we not leveraging that clean green brand and building a smart economy? Although it is good to be discussing education in this Chamber this bill is about tinkering. This bill is not visionary and it will not bring about the big changes we need to really deliver a smart economy and smart people. But here we are; we have this bill to debate today. 
I first acknowledge the submitters to the Education and Science Committee. There were not a huge number of them but I acknowledge them. I acknowledge the officials the chairman of the committee and other members who heard the submissions on the select committee. I also acknowledge them. 
This bill does a number of things—for example it strengthens the regulation of private training establishments. It gives the Minister of Education more power to issue directives to tertiary providers about how they charge the student services levy. It establishes the new Crown agent Education New Zealand to replace three former agencies and lastly it makes it easier for the Ministry of Social Development to administer student allowances by giving the ministry the power to request enrolment information. Much of that is not controversial at all. The Green Party could support these mostly common-sense or beneficial clauses and parts to the bill. 
But the fact is that the Green Party will not be supporting this legislation because of what we see in clauses 25 to 29 which are the student service levy clauses. I will outline why the Green Party is opposed to these clauses why we would have liked these clauses to be removed and why there are good reasons they should have been removed. Then we could have had the whole Parliament voting for what would have been a pretty good common-sense and non-controversial bill. 
The reasons why the Green Party is opposed to these clauses is that no evidence was presented that there is a significant problem of rising fees or that this situation will continue into the future but we acknowledge there have been recent rises that have been significant. But of course both parties are avoiding the real issue. Why are we seeing student service fees rising so high? The reason is that Governments whether red or blue have both failed to properly fund tertiary education and have put in place policies like the fee maxima that have been good on one side but that have meant that institutions have had to go out and get revenue sources in other ways like having student fees. 
The bill gives Steven Joyce Minister for Tertiary Education far too much power to issue directives on what institutions can do. The Green Party supports greater autonomy for our tertiary institutions. Through this legislation we will see a worse outcome for our students. Clauses 25 to 29 give the Minister power to direct via regulation the categories of student services that the institution may make available. The council of the institution must ensure that any fees fixed under the schedule relate only to the types of student services that fall within those categories. In a nutshell the Minister will be deciding what categories of services independent institutions can charge their students for and fund. 
The Green Party is concerned about rising fees. We do not think that rises of up to 600 percent at Canterbury University are on. Some rises have been significant. But we heard from the officials on the regulatory impact statement. They said quite clearly that there is no indication that recent rises will be the norm. I looked at the Auckland University submission which states: “The Bill as presented seeks to address a number of ‘problems’ that do not exist and even if they were to exist would be capable of efficient and inexpensive resolution without the need for the approaches suggested in this Bill.” If we look at the submission from Victoria University we see that it says this bill is about “second guessing” the university’s roles and responsibilities to its students and it questions the independent ministerial powers. There is no evidence that we need legislation to deal with the problem. 
The fact is that the bill avoids the real issue: why institutions feel they have to keep raising student fees. It is the lack of funding by this Government and the last Government it is the fee maxima policies and it is the fact that the budget for tertiary education has not grown by a cent under the National Government yet we know that inflation is rising by 20 percent—the highest increase in 21 years. We are seeing a country that spends $3000 less than the OECD average on our students yet Australia which we are apparently trying to catch in terms of economy and performance has poured $5.7 billion extra into its tertiary sector. We have put no extra money into ours which has required institutions to raise their fees. There is no need for this law as it fails to address the real problem and the legislation gives the Minister for Tertiary Education Steven Joyce far too much power. 
I believe that clauses 25-29 are in contradiction of Part 14 of the Education Act which gives institutions institutional independence. National when in Opposition railed on about the nanny State and the perils of regulation and red tape coming from the last Government but here it is now in Government and deciding to put regulatory powers on the shoulders of one man for him to decide who should levy fees on students what fees should be levied and how they should be levied. At the same time that we are debating another bill that we cannot name in this Chamber—ostensibly in the name of student choice and student freedom—here is the National Government supported by Labour telling students how their student fees will be raised and what fees can and cannot be used for. If that is not nanny State then I do not know what is—the Government telling institutions what they can spend their own money on. 
In the environment of the legislation that cannot be named in this Chamber we are seeing that students associations are going to collapse and we are seeing the need for agreements to be signed between institutions and students associations as is the case now at Auckland University. That puts a serious constraint on their funding ability and the fact is that the vast majority of these services are critical to a good university environment critical to good pastoral care of our students and ultimately critical to good educational and economic outcomes. 
The Greens support greater openness and transparency and greater student involvement in setting student levies but again that is being left up to regulations and there is no detail in this bill. We think that that should have been enshrined in this legislation to make sure the principles of openness and transparency will be delivered by the Minister. Again so many parts of this bill have been left up to regulation. We are writing the Minister a blank cheque to decide what he sees fit to do with students’ money. 
What we have is a problem that both the regulatory impact statement and most institutions in their submissions say does not exist. The bill goes against the institutional independence that we hold dear in our institutions. It will see worse outcomes for students. It avoids the real issue and I say once again that it puts too much power on the shoulders of one man the Minister for Tertiary Education. At a time when we desperately need education in order to provide a boost to our economy and our society we are seeing the underfunding of tertiary education fewer places being provided more expensive services and reduced access for students aged over 55. The Government has made shocking retrospective punitive decisions that will rule out literally thousands of students because it has made changes that will apply from 2 years ago and has raised entry requirements. In a sense we are seeing a whole bunch of barriers to better tertiary education outcomes. We are seeing tertiary education in New Zealand becoming less accessible less affordable and in some cases downright impossible as the Government closes the door. That is why the Green Party opposes this bill. We would have preferred to see clauses 25-29 removed; then we could have seen all of Parliament voting for the bill. As it stands this bill is not needed is avoidable and ignores the real issues facing our sector. Kia ora. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). I too congratulate the chairman Allan Peachey and other members of the Education and Science Committee on the diligent way they worked on this very important legislation. This legislation really will improve our tertiary education system. Let us consider the aspects of it. 
Export education contributes $2 billion to the New Zealand economy. On that basis one can begin to understand how important this legislation is to improve and enhance the reputation of New Zealand. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority is long overdue to be modernised and improved. The evidence that has been mentioned in the House today about student fees shows that they need to be brought under control. 
I draw the attention of the Green Party member to the work that was done at the select committee to adjust the powers of the Minister for Tertiary Education. In actual fact new section 227A(1)(b) inserted by clause 26 contains a lot of work that was rewritten. The select committee took on board the comments and views of the members of that select committee and adjusted the bill. All the Minister can do now is advise and direct; he cannot tell those institutions what to do. So I think the Green member was well out of order in talking the way he did. I will leave that issue there. 
The other point that is quite interesting inside the legislation is that with changing modernising and improving there are always transitional arrangements. In Part 2 a lot of work was done to improve the transitional arrangements. There are organisations that are delivering training at the moment that will be affected by the bill. Provided they react appropriately within the legislation within a 12-month time frame they will be able to continue to do what they do. So it is very good legislation. I commend it to the House. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to say that we support the Education Amendment Bill (No 4) but we have some concerns about the powers that the bill gives to the Minister for Tertiary Education. For all that Government members say this bill is just a tidy-up and that it looks at strengthening the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the regulations around private training establishments there are aspects of the way that the Minister has put some squeezes on the tertiary education sector that we are really worried about. There is a certain irony that we are debating this bill a week after we debated at length the impact of voluntary student membership on universities and students and the effect that will have on student participation and student input into the tertiary sector. 
When we are considering a bill that looks at fee-setting mechanisms and transparency it is absolutely critical that first students have the capacity to be consulted and then second have a voice back to the ruling council about a fee-setting mechanism. That will be taken away because there will be no students associations around the country and that really worries me. 
Along with the funding cuts that have happened we have also seen funding cuts in Adult and Community Education and all those other portals that allow access into learning and lifelong learning that are so critical. I come from an area where second-chance education means such a lot so why the cuts there? It is the union that helps those adult learners to know the range of services they can access and what is a fair fee-setting mechanism and those opportunities will be taken from the polytech sector which I am more familiar with. 
I am worried that Mr Joyce has already cut $145 million from industry training. We have seen the number of people in industry training drop by 30000 and that worries me and there is a 10 percent drop in Modern Apprenticeships. I have had meetings with our polytech in Rotorua and the staff there said they could have taken many more students but for the funding cuts and the cap that has been put on student numbers. I find that irresponsible from a Minister who then comes to the House and says he believes in transparency and in tidying up the loose ends of a sector. Tidy up the loose ends of a sector and do it in a transparent way. That is why we are supporting this bill to select committee—so that we can hear back from various sectors that will be impacted on and they can give us their views in a proper select committee process. 
Labour will be supporting this bill but I do not think this is just a pro forma bill tidying up aspects of the tertiary education sector at all. One aspect I am happy to see—but again there is a delicious irony in the fact that some Crown entities are being forced together today—is the establishment I understand of a new industry group to look at export education. For all that is needed I wonder about the timeliness of that when such constraints are being put on public sector service delivery. I think there are some rather odd messages coming from the Minister’s tabling of this bill in the House but because we believe in democracy and community participation in this so-called non-controversial bill we will support it to select committee to allow the select committee process and submissions. Thank you. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to speak in this second reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 4). It is fairly obvious that the speaker before me Steve Chadwick has no knowledge of this bill because it has actually been to the Education and Science Committee and come out. So it was a bit of a bother to realise the ignorance of some of the members on the other side who do not even understand where this legislation is in the process. We have had a full select committee process. We have had a great level of scrutiny on the legislation. 
I will focus on one of the parts of the legislation that has not been touched on a lot today and that is the unleashing of the export potential of our international education. That is one of the key differences between the Opposition and this side of the House: this side of the House is focused on where we can gain more export dollars. This bill is about taking the handbrake off a section of our education that is doing extraordinarily well overseas and getting rid of some of the braking that is currently stopping its ability to grow and therefore bring in much-needed export money to this country. That is why this bill is so fantastic. 
On the one hand the legislation is providing opportunities for us as a country to earn more but on the flip side it is also saying that we have to make sure that the spending that goes into tertiary education is as effective as possible. So the bill is tightening up provisions to make sure that the tertiary institutions that get significant funding from the Government are using that money wisely. In particular with the student services fees the bill is giving students more opportunity to provide some views about how those fees should be spent and the level at which they should be set. Common feedback that has come back particularly from Canterbury University says that those fees have been increased without the ability for students to have an input in terms of how that money is being spent. 
To again correct the member who spoke previously I tell the House that in terms of what is happening with export education three organisations currently do the work in relation to international education. We are simplifying that by making sure that one agency is responsible for that work rather than having three agencies tripping over themselves and still getting it wrong. That is what the international education industry wants. That is what will allow New Zealand to grow our international education and to grow our export income. 
I am very pleased to support this bill. It is one that has two focuses: first of bringing money into the country and second of making sure that the money being spent in tertiary education is spent as effectively as possible. As well the bill is lifting the number of places to be available in tertiary institutions—11600 more core places—without more money being spent. So there will be better more effective use of money in tertiary education while students will also be given the opportunity to have input and be consulted by their institutions about how their student services fees are set. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 38; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 2; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 6; Independent: Carter C. 
Question agreed to. 
Bill read a second time. 
Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Care of Children Amendment Bill 
Adoption Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move that the Child and Family Protection Bill be now read 
— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry; that is not Government order of the day No. 4. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I move  
That the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Care of Children Amendment Bill and the Adoption Amendment Bill be now read a third time.  
Despite a comprehensive set of laws designed to protect children and families from violence and abuse New Zealand continues to have very high rates of domestic violence. The Government is committed to addressing the underlying factors that contribute to these high rates as well as doing what we can to protect victims of domestic violence under the law. We have already taken action to ensure that perpetrators are held more accountable for their behaviour through the introduction of on-the-spot police safety orders within our first year of office. This legislation is the next step in delivering on the Government’s commitment to strengthening the domestic violence prevention regime and increasing the protection of victims particularly children. 
When the child of a protection order applicant continues to live at home after the age of 17 they will now continue to benefit from the applicant’s protection order. In the unfortunate event of an applicant’s death it will now be clear that their children and other protected people will continue to be covered by the applicant’s protection order. The legislation also means that there will no longer be any opportunity for a lapse to occur between a temporary protection order and a final protection order. Administrative barriers to respondents’ engagement in programmes for stopping violence will also be minimised. Disputes over contact with children will be resolved earlier as parents will have an early opportunity to review care and contact arrangements after a temporary protection order is made. This will help to focus on the best interests of the child. 
The passage of this legislation will also ensure further consistency between the Domestic Violence Act and the Care of Children Act with regard to psychological abuse. The principal section of the Care of Children Act will adopt the definition of “violence” used in the Domestic Violence Act clarifying that all forms of violence include physical sexual and psychological abuse and also include indirect and direct abuse. When a protection order has been made against one party to a parenting order application including on the grounds of psychological abuse the court will not grant that party care or unsupervised contact with the child unless the court is satisfied that the child will be safe. 
The bill will also make it easier for a parent to obtain an order preventing the removal of a child from New Zealand. By making these orders more flexible it is hoped that parents who might otherwise have been deterred will be encouraged to seek such an order. 
Finally the legislation will help to protect children from economic and sexual exploitation by the creation of a new offence in the Adoption Act of improperly inducing consent to an adoption. This new offence will enable New Zealand to finally ratify the second Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children child prostitution and child pornography 10 years after the previous Government signed it. This ratification is also timely for a number of other reasons. One is the impending examination of New Zealand’s third and fourth consolidated report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Ratifying the second optional protocol will also fulfil one of the commitments that the Minister of Justice made on behalf of the New Zealand Government to the United Nations Human Rights Council as a result of its universal periodic review in Geneva in May 2009. The ratification will demonstrate the Government’s strong support for the protection of children’s rights in an area that is of global concern. I commend these bills to the House. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am happy to rise to make a contribution on behalf of the Labour Opposition and to support the legislation arising from the Child and Family Protection Bill. Labour agrees with the intent of the legislation. We agree with the intent of providing more protection for children who are victims of domestic violence and of ensuring that the Family Court can manage proceedings involving children appropriately. 
I am one of the fortunate members of the Social Services Committee which has over the past 3 years had the opportunity to listen to the various experiences that have been shared with us by members of our community working on the ground in this field. I myself and members of that committee have been involved in a process whereby we have looked at what is happening with our young people. We have had the opportunity to visit some of the homes facilities and community groups who are engaged in that activity. We cannot simply deny that we have a problem. We do have a problem but I hope this Government will not simply hold out bills such as the ones we are now passing and say “There’s the answer. These are going to be the solution to our problems.” I have to say that although these bills are a step in the right direction more needs to be done on the ground. 
Members may recall that when this Government first arrived in office and took over power in this country it shouted from the rooftops that it would put every bad kid in jail. In fact there was a debate about the validity of boot camps and whether they would achieve what we were wanting to achieve—that is not only to protect children from domestic violence but to ensure that they had every opportunity to succeed in the future in this country. 
Of late the Social Services Committee has had the opportunity to travel to Australia and look at the experience of the Australian Parliament as well as at groups and various courts systems. I came away heartened that rehabilitation programmes work when the community is being engaged with on a regular basis. I came away heartened that one of the fundamental lessons that the Australian public and the Australian Government have learnt is that prison is a last resort. We should not be so gung-ho so to speak that every time some young person does something wrong we simply throw them in jail and throw away the key. That is not the way forward. 
In terms of our experiences with community groups working on the ground throughout the length and breadth of this country we have heard some awful stories. I have to say that I have now gained an understanding about why some young men and young women are on the streets prostituting themselves. It is because of the kind of abuse sexual and physical that they have often received at the hands of people who are supposedly loved ones—members of their families. We also have to remember that that is not the case for every household in this country. I think that often we become so focused on the bad that we forget there is also good in the wider community in Aotearoa New Zealand. 
I also offer a word of caution if the Government is willing to listen. There is a problem that when we become so fixated on fixing a serious problem such as the problem of violence on our young people we often then demean every other parent who is struggling to try to discipline instruct and counsel young people who often get themselves into trouble. The fact remains that it is invariably human nature that in the teenage years sooner or later young men or young girls will get themselves into trouble. It happens; it is a fact of life. I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the House would agree. I have got myself into trouble but probably not into the kind of trouble that members opposite may have got themselves into. The point I am making is that young people push the boundaries young people challenge young people want to learn and from time to time one or two of them will get themselves into trouble. Parents who are struggling at that end need to be supported not to have the finger pointed at them and to be told: “You do this and you’ll go to jail.” “You do this and you’ll get yourself fined in court.” and “You do that and the courts will come down hard on you.” 
I am saying that this legislation is not the sole answer. We have to ensure that every young person and every young parent gets the education they need. We have some really important programmes out in Manukau where young women or young men who find themselves to be young parents are able to receive the support they need not only to cope with parenthood at such a young age but also to continue with the educational opportunities that are available to them. 
When we visited the Salvation Army last week it was very heartening and very sad on another level because the staff had an air of concern about the work they are engaged with. Their concern is that they are now having to deal more and more with a whole range of social problems that have emanated because of high unemployment and the high cost of living. They suggested that when families are faced with those kinds of struggles we will often see problems occurring in the home. 
I was saddened to hear from a colleague of mine who works for Child Youth and Family. My colleague said that every time the Warriors team loses on the field there are problems in some homes. I was aghast to hear that when the Warriors lose Child Youth and Family and the police have to try to deal with the strain in some homes. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Ignored the impact of alcohol too. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Exactly. We also know that in some families people under the influence of alcohol will do the wrong thing: they will bash the people they love. Although the rest of the nation is crying out to our Government to please forge forward with alcohol reform we do not know whether that bill will ever get passed by this Government this side of the election period.  
Again I come back to the fact that although Labour will support this bill and although we think yes it is a step in the right direction—and Labour will always support any initiative aimed at protecting our children from domestic violence and abuse whether sexual or physical—I do not want this Government to think that simply passing a piece of legislation will solve the problems. We need to ensure that we look upon families and children as an investment for the future. We need to ensure that young people are given every opportunity for their learning. We need to ensure that families are able to sustain themselves through this period of high cost of living through this period of low income and through this period of high unemployment. I have to say that if the Government does not take heed of what I am saying when I am reflecting to it the experiences of our communities then communities will have every right to point the finger at the Government and to say: “We’re going backwards. They have no plan. We’re not going forward.” Thank you. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to reassure the member who has just resumed his seat Su’a William Sio that the Government does not take anything for granted whatsoever. The Government recognises that although it can legislate for many things it cannot change the course of behaviour until people see that need. Unfortunately there are families in this country who seem to spend their lives teaching their young sons that the way to treat their partners is to beat the hell of out of them and teaching their daughters that their role in life is to accept a beating every now and then. It is not right. This Government—in fact this Parliament because as I understand it Parliament is supporting this legislation—is sending a message very clearly to the community that that is not the way that we see the various roles within our society. It is no longer the way that we wish to go. 
These bills seek to support the rights of young children to live in environments that are violence-free. This legislation seeks to reinforce the rights of young children to be represented before courts in decisions that are made about them and their futures and the ways that they will continue to live. It is good that counsel for the child is able to continue representing young people whether it is in proceedings pursuant to the Care of Children Amendment Bill or to the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2). We will do what we can to ensure their safety. 
This Government has passed numerous pieces of legislation frequently with the support of the other side of the House in order to further protect children. I am proud to be part of a Government that takes that lead and I look forward to seeing the implementation of this legislation. Even more so I look forward to seeing a change in this society where our country no longer has ugly statistics in respect of child abuse and neglect and we can take a rightful place as a caring community on the planet. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am also pleased to take a call in the dying stages of this very important legislation arising out of the Child and Family Protection Bill: the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Care of Children Amendment Bill and the Adoption Amendment Bill. The three bills we are discussing in the third reading relate to very important parts of very important matters that worry every member of this House and certainly worry society. 
The changes being made to the Domestic Violence Act 1995 are timely and important and will extend a greater level of protection to those who have been caught in family violence generally. We have heard probably for the last 7 or 8 years some quite serious concerns being raised throughout New Zealand about domestic violence. The current Government has continued the work of the previous Government which set up the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families and that is still continuing. The work of Government departments and ministries and the Families Commission etc. is important work. The courts have become much more involved in dealing with cases of family violence and the changes being made here will at least progress addressing the problems in the system. So Labour supports those changes. This side of the House supports any action that will make the lives of our vulnerable particularly our children and women safer and this legislation goes some way to doing that. The concern I have is that we have not gone far enough or fast enough in this country—and I say that generally—to address family violence in a comprehensive way. This problem requires comprehensive long-term intervention. Some of that can be addressed by legislation and this legislation does that but other pieces of the jigsaw still need to be addressed. There is a bill on the Order Paper that also addresses other aspects of violence and the lives of children which has not come forward yet—the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. 
The Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) has had a long period in this House. The original Child and Family Protection Bill was introduced quite early in 2009 and I would have thought that this was an urgent matter that we ought to be discussing and passing much more urgently. That has not happened either. So there are two points I want to make about the legislation. We are supporting it because it makes important changes that are required in addressing domestic violence but it is not comprehensive enough. It cannot be seen as part of the comprehensive programme. Neither can it be done fast enough. 
The changes being made to the Care of Children Act are also important. The changes allow the courts to address situations that arise under the Care of Children Act. More power is given to make decisions and change decisions because there are risks when a child is involved. The changes to the Care of Children Act do that as well. 
The third Act being amended is the Adoption Act. Here again is a very very small change to the Adoption Act. It is amazing: the Act we work with in New Zealand at the moment is the Adoption Act 1955. That says something: it is time to have a look at that Act far more comprehensively rather than what we are doing here looking at one or two pieces of it. It is a very old Act. It is an Act that is used quite regularly in New Zealand. 
Simon Bridges 
: It’s 57 years old. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well I am glad the member can count. I am really really pleased. The member can count. That is a very important contribution I say to Mr Bridges that he is making to this particular legislation. I worked with the Adoption Act when I was a child welfare officer in 1971. Even then we could see what the Act was—and here we are in 2011! I did not think for a moment when I was working with this Act in the field that I would be talking about this thing so long—almost 40 years—after I first used it. 
So here we are a very important area a change we support but really there is a problem. The Government did have an opportunity to modernise the Act because the nature— 
Simon Bridges 
: Rome wasn’t built in a day! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: As a lawyer Mr Bridges would know that the nature of the adoption has changed so much that this Act is really now a dinosaur. It is time to change the Adoption Act. There are open adoptions adoptions by same-sex parents overseas adoptions—even the attitude towards adoptions has changed dramatically over the last 40 years. Here was another opportunity to look at something comprehensively. 
This side of the House is very happy to support the provisions in these three Acts because they improve—they do not do any damage—and they address some problems. But I think there is a problem in that they do not address more fundamental questions in the area of adoptions care of children and family violence that we could have taken this opportunity to address. It is not as if we did not have material because the bill that is languishing on the Order Paper does take further a number of these matters as well. With those words we are happy to support this legislation but I alert Mr Bridges to the point that it is time to change the 1955 Adoption Act. He might use his considerable powers in his caucus to take this issue further because there are people who really want adoption to be modernised and the Act to be modernised. I look forward to debating that at a later stage. Thank you. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is funny but I actually agree with the member Rajen Prasad and I will talk about that. In the first and second readings of the Child and Family Protection Bill I took the opportunity to speak on the domestic violence and care of children issues in the bill and it is very worthy legislation that tidies up a lot of things and makes advances in relation to domestic violence and the care of children in this country. But Rajen Prasad focused on the issue of adoption. 
I have talked previously in this House about the issues of child trafficking a massive issue involving many millions of children in this world of ours. We think of it being an issue in the Third World—and that is true—but worryingly if we read about this we see that it is also an issue in wealthier nations. So we are not being complacent about that and we address that issue and meet our international obligations through this bill. 
I agree with Rajen Prasad that a future Government—this one has been exceptionally busy in the justice field—will need to overhaul and modernise the adoption legislation. I think basic demographics give us a picture of what has happened in this area. If we go back to the 1940s 1950s and 1960s—the 1950s and 1960s certainly—there was a baby boom. There were thousands of adoptions a year in this country and then for a variety of no doubt complex reasons—contraception of course and also a word we do not talk about much in this House abortion and a variety of other factors—today in 2011 there are something like 100 adoptions a year in this country. 
I think as Rajen Prasad has said we need to modernise the law. We need to have a good look at that because I think there will be many more prospective parents than just 100 in this country who want to adopt. Just as in this bill we are looking at our international obligations and we are placing a bulwark a protective measure against illegitimate adoptions and exploitative adoptions so too we may need to look at freeing up adoptions and doing more so that good prospective parents can adopt in this country and potentially can adopt from overseas. I would not claim to know a lot about the laws in that area but these are some of the controversial complex issues that a future Parliament will have to address. 
The issue of adoption often gets reduced to simply an issue of gay adoption. I accept that is one issue that will probably need to be broached and looked at with some seriousness but what I am trying to say in this contribution is that the issues are much more than that and modernisation of all of the legislation will be required. 
With those few thoughts it is good to see this legislation will pass today. It is worthy legislation that really does advance things in a number of respects in relation to domestic violence the care of children and the adoption laws in this country. 
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. It is my pleasure to speak on the child and family protection legislation in its third reading. I note that the Child and Family Protection Bill was divided into three bills at the end of the Committee of the whole House stage: the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) the Care of Children Amendment Bill and the Adoption Amendment Bill. 
I have not had the pleasure of speaking on this legislation before today and I will talk particularly about domestic violence and the impact of domestic violence on our communities. I was in a position in my previous employment as principal adviser in the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to sit on the Waitakere Taskforce on Family Violence. It was a pleasure to sit on that task force with people such as Penny Hulse who is now the Deputy Mayor of Auckland City. The meetings were facilitated by the New Zealand Police. They involved non-governmental organisations and people who were involved in the care of not only the children but also the families involved in family violence. We met on a regular basis and one thing that struck me in the process was that unfortunately the focus on children did seem to be missing when we looked at family violence engagement in New Zealand. 
The police are very good at ensuring that protection at the immediate point is dealt with. I have had the pleasure already of going out with the police. On the day I went out there were three incidents and one was an incident between a husband and wife with a 5-year-old and a 2-year-old in the house at the time. The thing that has struck me is the impact of family violence on our families but particularly on our children. 
We have a process called the Family Violence Interagency Response System or FVIARS whereby the police Women’s Refuge Child Youth and Family and non-governmental organisations come together. They come together to work towards solutions that will ensure that our families are safe and that our families have the support they need. But often in the meetings I think that the particular needs and specific needs of the children are not adequately addressed. 
There are issues about what other agencies can be involved. I think that it is important particularly for children of school age that in the schools they belong to the principals teachers and people who are working with those children are informed when the children have come from a family violence incident. I know from visiting a Randwick Park school on Monday and talking to the principal that she was very clear that children do behave differently if they have been involved in a family violence incident. The people working with those children know that something is wrong but they might not know what is wrong. I think that a much more strategic approach is needed to ensure that the people who will be looking after our children—and I consider that in the context of schools teachers are looking after our children—are aware of when children come from families that have family violence issues. 
From my experience of the Family Violence Interagency Response System process I think it seems to be really focused on helping either the victim or the offender; children are not so much considered in that process. To me there does not seem to be a focus on the family and on how we can make families functional. We have contracts where one group will look after the offender and another group will look after the victim but I think there is very little engagement in ensuring that families are supported. The Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (No 2) is incredibly important because it places the focus on the children but on a different aspect of that focus. 
I came into the House and was asked to speak on the bill because Labour is supporting this bill. The history of the bill is interesting. The history is that the bill stemmed from a Ministry of Justice review of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and other related legislation. The House will know that Annette King introduced the Domestic Violence Reform Bill which took into consideration the submissions from 103 submitters who represented private individuals academics the legal profession and non-governmental agencies. They represented domestic violence specialists social assistance and public interest groups. So we have had this I guess compilation legislation put together. 
As I said before it is good to see that we will focus on the needs of our children and on the needs of families but I still think we should be reviewing the Family Violence Interagency Response System process with a specific emphasis on the needs of children. Some of the questions that I think need to be asked are whether the children have a general practitioner whether the children are enrolled with Well Child providers and whether the children are attending early childhood education centres. Because a number of the children come from families where unfortunately family violence is a normal set of behaviours a whole lot of social issues contribute to the circumstances. Those social circumstances relate to the fact that parents may not be working and that they may be living in conditions where their housing is not as adequate as it could be. They may be living in conditions where poverty pays a large role where families end up being stressed and where someone in the family partakes of alcohol and then becomes violent. So some of the peripheral and environmental issues related to ensuring that our children and families are protected I think also have to take into consideration for example the density of liquor outlets and whether there is a correlation between family violence and some of our communities where there is a density of liquor outlets. That situation normalises alcohol not only for families but for the children who come from a community where a liquor outlet is attached to their particular dairy. 
I do think there needs to be more of an emphasis on children if we are to look at child and family protection within the context of family violence. I do think we should be looking at ensuring that the children who come from those sorts of situations have the best start in life and have the best opportunities particularly in their early years to start on a pathway that will ensure that they can enjoy our public and free education system. 
One of the issues we have is that in the Family Violence Interagency Response System meetings the only time when children are discussed is if Child Youth and Family needs to intervene. These are our most vulnerable children so I find it really interesting when the Government has a green paper and National members talk about how vulnerable children are. We know who they are: they are the cohort of children that this bill is trying to protect. But it is broader than that because not only is it the children who need the courts to intervene to keep them safe but it is the children who get caught up in family violence in the first place. They are in a position not of their own control. 
You know I think it is very interesting when looking at the intent of this legislation and at children who live in situations where family violence has a major impact on their lives to consider whether those children are getting all the public-good services they need. We have the Tamariki Ora Well Child Schedule in New Zealand which guarantees every New Zealand child from when they are born to the age of 5 eight visits on the schedule. The ultimate visit is called a B4 School check and I think it is really interesting to look at these children and ask questions about whether they have a general practitioner whether they are enrolled with Well Child whether they have had their B4 School check and whether they have had the early childhood education subsidy if they are entitled to it. At the layer below Child Youth and Family intervention we have a Strengthening Families model which is supposed to ensure that children—and a lot of children who live within the context of family violence—have the best start in life and have access to public-good resources that will ensure that they can grow up and fulfil their potential. 
It has been a pleasure to speak at this late stage. Thank you very much for the opportunity. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak on this important legislation the Adoption Amendment Bill. The aim of this bill is to amend the Domestic Violence Act the Care of Children Act and the Adoption Act. 
This bill is intended to deal with the serious issue of domestic violence thereby protecting children and families from violence and abuse. This bill is to address the risk of children being wrongfully removed from New Zealand. The Government believes it is essential that the issue of domestic violence be confronted with some urgency. Offenders should be made accountable for their behaviour. In particular it is important to protect our children the future of this country. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak to this legislation and it is nice to see consensus in the House. I somehow always have an affinity towards those members who have a focus on domestic violence and on the future and the potential of our children in New Zealand. I congratulate the Government on the introduction of this legislation. I wish that there could be a bipartisan approach to the care of our children and to domestic violence because I believe that all parties in the House have measures that they are desperate to see introduced that collectively would make a difference. It is sad that having consensus between political parties on the way forward is an opportunity that was not taken up by John Key when it was offered by former Minister Annette King. 
I congratulate the Government on what it has done about domestic violence so far in New Zealand but I have to say that a piecemeal approach to solving problems of child and family abuse is not working. I have a background in setting up the first Women’s Refuge in Rotorua as a midwife seeing the number of young women coming into maternity who had been physically abused. One never knew about the emotional abuse; one could only see that from their withdrawal and their inability to give birth confidently. I know that the Minister opposite is trying to do something about these problems of abuse. We believe that there is urgency to this and that is why I personally like the approach that Annette King has shown leadership on saying that we know what needs to be done we now just need to get on and do it. This legislation is part of the answer but only part of the jigsaw of domestic violence. 
I wanted to mention and get on the record the lost opportunity to include some things that sadly are not in the legislation proposed today which has been broken up into three bills. There was the need to define the age of a child for the purposes of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and for those who are covered by parenting orders. Currently a child is defined as anyone under 17. Under Annette King’s bill we would change that age to 18. I would have liked to see that amended. 
We also said that when a judge declines a without notice application for a protection order through the courts process the judge should given written reasons for why they are declining. Then the applicant will know what they have done wrong in the process and they will be able to decide whether to proceed or withdraw from proceeding on notice. This bill does not include that provision and I think taking the opportunity to include it would have meant a more comprehensive approach. 
The other issue that was raised when we drafted our Domestic Violence Reform Bill came from the National Council of Women who are predominantly very sensible pragmatic women involved in family violence prevention support services or who are actual practitioners in the law themselves. A lot of women choose to go to a woman lawyer if they are undergoing domestic violence. They said that one of the most important aspects was for an applicant to attend information sessions so that they understood what a protection order was about so that they would comply and also so that they would then know where to go for any further social assistance. The requirement to attend information sessions is not in the legislation before us. That is opportunity lost three times. 
Also—and I think this is the biggest—in our approach we felt that the court should have the power to direct attendance at an addiction treatment service. That is not in the bill. I think one of the underlying factors that we all now accept in timeliness that has changed so much from 1995 is that alcohol and addiction are becoming one of the precursors and the drivers of domestic violence. The courts having the power to direct one to attend an addiction assessment and treatment programme was another opportunity we put into the provisions of our bill. I think it is an opportunity lost. 
I hope that at some stage when there is a comprehensive review of the legislation rather than a piecemeal approach one after the other we will see the omission—not commission but omission—of those small but significant steps that make a huge change to how we look at the role of police and enforcement in protection orders the role of the courts in domestic violence matters and how the Family Court could have widened powers. It is not done by just one bill. Sadly in these three bills that amend these Acts all the aspects I spoke of today are omitted. 
That is a pity when all of us in New Zealand know that the facts are clearly on the table. Even the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor has said that we have the evidence and now we must get on and do something about it. Four to 10 percent of New Zealanders experience physical abuse and we do not know the percentage of those experiencing emotional abuse. So we support this bill and hope we are not back in the House within the next year with another little bright idea and another amendment bill. In the future when Labour gets back into Government we will bring forward our bill which languishes way down the Order Paper. Thank you. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I will speak briefly to say that the Green Party is very very happy to support this legislation and to join in what seems to be a consensus in this House. We support the comments made by previous speakers. But I say in particular that although this legislation will do much to provide support for families and to streamline some of the procedures to assist families we must do more to address the underlying causes of violence and family violence in New Zealand. 
The previous speaker Steve Chadwick mentioned addiction and alcohol. We heard compelling evidence in the Justice and Electoral Committee that alcohol is one of the major fuels of violence in New Zealand. We hope this House will adopt a very very comprehensive and far-reaching approach to try to reduce the harm of violence and to extend addiction treatment and alcohol treatment around New Zealand. 
The other issue that nobody has mentioned—and I think it does deserve a mention—is the amount of violence on television in films and in computer games. We know that the violence on television in computer games and in films is contributing to a culture of violence in New Zealand. Extensive research has found that children who are exposed to a lot of violence on television end up thinking that violence is a legitimate way of solving problems. They think that violence is more normal and they become more aggressive and more violent themselves when they grow up. This is particularly the case with boys. 
I managed to get some funding to look at the amount of violence on New Zealand television and one of the most concerning findings of that study was that the cartoons children watch tend to have the most episodes of violence in New Zealand television. In fact some of the cartoons particularly on the Nickelodeon channel were little more than animated thuggery. If we are to be serious about addressing violence and the causes of violence one of the things we need to look at is trying to reduce the amount of violence on television particularly in cartoons and the programmes that children watch. We need to look at the amount of violence in computer games and on television. 
Above all the other thing we need to look at is poverty. We know that impoverished families tend to be more violent and we know we must do more to reduce the underlying poverty and inequality in our society. We know that the more unequal a society is the more likely it will have more violence and more social breakdown. 
The Green Party has proposed a series of policies that would do a lot to address poverty in New Zealand and that would deliver $60 a week to some of our most impoverished families. As we observe the terrible happenings on the other side of the world in what we thought was one of the safest places in the world—namely London and England—as we observe the violence that is erupting there many are saying yes it is alienated youth it is poverty and it is inequality that are some of the underlying causes of that astonishing outbreak of violence. We would do well to address the underlying causes of poverty in New Zealand and issues such as alcohol abuse and the amount of violence on television otherwise these bills although they will be steps along the way will not really do much to reduce the underlying causes of violence in New Zealand. Thank you. 
Bills read a third time. 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to rise given that such extraordinary progress has been made this afternoon. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. 
The House adjourned at 5.38 p.m.