Volume 647 Week 75 - Wednesday 21 May 2008 
Volume 647 Week 75 - Wednesday 21 May 2008 
[Volume:647;Page:16131] 
Wednesday 21 May 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Finance Minister—Confidence 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the migration figures released yesterday showing that 79000 people left New Zealand permanently to live overseas in the last year and that 44000 of those people went to Australia; and if Michael Cullen is managing the economy so well why are more people leaving New Zealand than at any other time since 1970? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I also note that overall migration is positive in net terms because people come to New Zealand to seek their fortune and a good life as well. 
John Key 
: What does it say about Michael Cullen’s stewardship of the economy when at the time he became Minister of Finance floating interest rates were 6.7 percent and now after 8 years of Michael Cullen’s economic management they are around 10.7 percent so someone with a mortgage of $200000 is now paying $150 a week extra in interest payments; and is she satisfied with that performance from Michael Cullen? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Exacerbating interest rates is something that the Government is very mindful not to do which is why we will not follow Mr Key in promising billions and billions of dollars in tax cuts before he has even seen the Budget fiscal update. 
John Key 
: What does it say about the finance Minister’s performance when under his stewardship New Zealand has moved from being the 20th highest-taxed country in the OECD to being the 12th highest-taxed country in the OECD; and does it worry her that in terms of OECD economic rankings about the only one we are in the top half for now is for being highly taxed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That most certainly is not true. I am very proud that under the Labour Government the rate of unemployment is one of the lowest in the OECD. That matters to our people. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister remember that on the election of her Government in November 1999 Labour moved quickly to increase the top personal rate—in fact the period from the moment the election was held to the moment the provision was in law was 125 days—and on that basis notwithstanding that New Zealanders have had to wait 9 years for a personal tax cut can she assure New Zealanders today that they will not have to wait any longer than 125 days to see the first of their tax cuts? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When Labour was elected in 1999 it immediately legislated for its policy on taxation. At least we had one and stuck to it. On  
Breakfast 
 TV this morning Mr Key would not confirm the headlines earlier in the week that he was offering $50 a week because Bill English has told him that the IMF report says he should not be as silly as that. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Michael Cullen when he said: “to cut taxes when the current account deficit is already above 6 percent of gross domestic product is to commit economic sabotage.”; if she does agree with Michael Cullen is she concerned at all that the current account deficit is running at about 8 percent of GDP? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am very pleased to see that the current account deficit is coming down. I hope it continues to do so. 
John Key 
: Well if the Minister of Finance is doing such a stunning job and has the Prime Minister’s complete confidence what does she say to the 1700 people who have lost their jobs in the last 2 months? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In respect of the restructuring in the meat industry it may have escaped the Leader of the Opposition’s attention that there has been considerable conversion to dairy farming and therefore restructuring across the pastoral industry. What I am happy to say is that under a Labour Government with very low unemployment we have a far better chance of seeing that our people continue to be in work. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister considered changing her finance spokesperson once every year—so she would have had three for the last 3 years—and would that lead to stability of economic advice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No macroeconomic stability can come from the gambling instincts of Mr Key being applied to the New Zealand economy. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Revenue Implications 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports has he received on the revenue implications of the proposed emissions trading system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen a range of reports some suggesting that the scheme will be a revenue-raising machine raising up to $80 billion. Any estimates are of course subject to assumptions but Treasury’s latest advice to me is that on the assumption that in the second commitment period the cap will be lowered under international agreements by 5 percent from the current caps the net revenue gain for 2013 to 2018 will be $159 million a year. If however the cap is lowered by 15 percent there will be a net revenue loss of $106 million a year. In either case these are relatively small numbers compared with total Government revenue. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What reports has the Minister seen on support for the proposed emissions trading system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen many reports—in particular a report from one member of Parliament indicating support for the scheme last year followed by an announcement last weekend that his party will no longer support it. I am reminded of course that the same member previously described the Kyoto Protocol as a hoax before going on to say that he had always believed in it. It does suggest a certain inability to have a firm and fixed position on perhaps the largest challenge facing the world at the present time. 
Hon Member 
: Who was that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That of course was Mr John Key. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement by David Parker the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: “the emissions trading scheme does not create any cost for the economy.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What Mr Parker was saying is completely correct in that the costs are created by Kyoto. Those costs bear upon—[ 
Interruption 
] The Kyoto Protocol imposes costs upon the Government. 
Hon Member 
: That is sophistry. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is not sophistry; that is a fact. The question is about how those costs are going to be shared. Are they shared entirely by the Government—that is the taxpayers—or are they transmitted through an emissions trading scheme? That has the added advantage of sending the appropriate price signals about changing behaviour whereas simply increasing taxes does not send that signal at all. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues say that there would be no windfall of profits to the Crown in the first commitment period when the climate change emissions trading Cabinet paper notes “The increased revenues for government associated with increased costs of electricity could also be significant. Estimates of the windfall profits that are likely to be received by SOEs … is $70-220 million/year.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those numbers probably reflect the impact of the marginal pricing arrangement of electricity considering that an emissions trading scheme raises the marginal price and therefore there would be increased windfall to renewables generation in particular. However the member forgets what the Minister I think outlined yesterday and that is that the State-owned enterprises have built those profits into their assumptions around reinvestment back into renewable generation. Without that revenue stream the Crown will have to provide equity injections in order to enable that investment to occur. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why will the Government not release the advice on the flow of revenue to the Government under the emissions trading scheme in which under the range of scenarios it shows that the best estimate is a $13 billion surplus from the sale of emission units and a possible range of $6.6 billion to $21 billion of surplus? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The numbers the member refers to are projected out to 2030 on the latest advice that I have. Most of those so-called gains are back loaded—in other words they occur during the latter part of the period. Of course by then the economy is likely to be some $300 billion - plus a year. So a gain of perhaps $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year by that stage will be a relatively small part of the total economy and will have been recycled no doubt either into expenditure to compensate for costs or into tax reductions. Treasury is quite clear that the direct gains to the Government in the initial period are very small and even those in the second period from 2013 to 2018 are actually quite small. I am happy to table that advice today. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that if he wishes to recycle some revenue into helping the most vulnerable consumers to meet the higher costs of energy then the best way of doing so would be to invest in making their homes and transport choices more energy efficient so that their bills go down even if prices go up; the second-best way of doing so would be to raise incomes; and the absolutely worst way of doing so would be to give consumers a reduced electricity price which would completely remove the whole incentive of the emissions trading scheme to get people to invest in more energy-efficient choices? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the last point is a fair one and I believe compensation is best made not through a price mechanism but through other mechanisms. I think the member is quite right that considerable assistance can be given through retrofitting in terms of insulation and obviously assistance around public transport. But of course people who already have a well-insulated home and perhaps do not use public transport very much would still face a net increase in cost. So the Government will be giving a lot more consideration between now and the introduction of electricity into the scheme at the start of 2010 as to how best to achieve compensation. Already there is commitment with New Zealand First to look into the issue of a rebate for superannuitants. But that of course is not a reduction in price—it will be a flat rebate. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker tena tatou katoa. Does the Minister agree that the nature of Maori land tenure may result in disproportionate effects on tangata whenua from controls on deforestation; and what initiatives will the emissions trading scheme introduce to mitigate this effect? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not entirely agree with that position. There has already been significant discussion with iwi leadership groups about how best to allocate forest entitlements units in a way that is consistent with overall equity and that addresses some issues and an agreement has been arrived at in that regard. I think it is a perfectly fair outcome. At the end of the day it is not possible to exempt a large part of the primary sector economy from the impact of the emissions trading scheme and expect to have a positive effect because the cost of that would be transferred to all other parts of the primary sector economy. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What response will he be making to the recommendations from the Maori reference group regarding compensation if the demands under the emissions trading scheme undermine the value of the Crown rental forest lands returned to Maori? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In terms of lands being returned certainly from at least 2002 onwards obviously including central North Island lands the impact of the emissions trading scheme or a similar scheme whether it is carbon tax or whatever has already been factored into decisions that are being made around the price for that land. In effect more land is available because the value of the land is less. It is the quantum that is the key factor in that regard. With respect to Ngai Tahu in particular which is the most affected in terms of negotiations in the past discussions are continuing at the present time. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he agree that the increased cost to the taxpayer of bringing in transport 2 years later is also a revenue implication of the emissions trading scheme and that this will amount to a revenue reduction to the Crown of over $900 million at $30 a tonne? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is certainly an operating balance and indeed a balance-sheet effect of delaying by 2 years the emissions trading scheme with regard to liquid fossil fuels. If it is at $30 a tonne it would be some $900 million and sooner or later that deficit has to be made up. There is no free ride for anybody in the whole issue around climate change. Those who argue we should have a climate change policy where no changes have to be made are simply engaging in a totally illogical position. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the report of the Emissions Trading Group on the revenue flows from the auction of emission units. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I seek leave to table the latest advice I have from Treasury on the net revenue implications of the emissions trading scheme. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Budget Spending—Economic Implications 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he recall advising Cabinet with regard to Budget 2007 that failing to stick to Budget spending limits risked “an interest rate response from the Reserve Bank the exchange rate staying higher for longer and a more pronounced economic slow-down” and has he given similar advice this year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes and tomorrow I will deal with the matters contained in this year’s Budget. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that in Budget 2007 Labour did not stick to the spending limits that the result was an interest rate response from the Reserve Bank and the exchange rate staying higher for longer—as have interest rates—and that we are now experiencing a more pronounced slow-down partly because Labour would not stick to its own spending limits? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot. The additional element in last year’s Budget was primarily the cut to business taxation which the National Party opposed. That was not of course spending; that was revenue reduction. Of course the major impact in terms of what happened subsequently was that the economy continued to grow faster than forecast. In conjunction with international pressures that led therefore to stronger inflationary pressures than had previously been forecast. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What reports has the Minister received on fiscal policy decisions made before consideration of inflationary forecasts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I saw a report promising tax cuts to the average wage north of $50 before seeing any fiscal projections. That was then revised to $45 to $50 then revised to $45 to $50 after 3 years and then further revised to blame the journalist for misreporting all of that. This morning it became: “Oh well. Look you know that the answer is of course if you know—anything is affordable but you know you have to look at all the different priorities. But I believe very strongly in personal tax cuts.” from which one could take anything. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen the comment this morning by the Public Service Association that any tax cuts can “only be funded through borrowing or cutting public services.”; can he recall making that statement every Budget up until this one and does he still stand by it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the member will see tomorrow the Government has reduced its forward-spending allowance. To have higher tax cuts than I will announce tomorrow would require a much bigger cut in the spending allowance and I will look forward to the member explaining when on the campaign trail Mr Key finally says what his tax policy is. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister recall stating many times that any reduction in the forward-expenditure allowances was a cut and how come when he does it it is a wise decision but if anyone else proposes it it is a cut in social spending that will see doctors and teachers sacked? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What it will mean—and let us be quite clear about this—is a slower rate of improvement in social services than would otherwise occur. If anybody believes that I am going to start arguing that tax cuts have no cost then they do not understand me. But I should be generous. I congratulate the member on hauling Mr Key into line over the issue of tax cuts this week. 
Hon Bill English 
: Would the Minister agree that the public of New Zealand see his refusal to offer any personal income tax cuts for 8 years despite record surpluses not as sound economic management but as an arrogant assumption that Labour knows better how to spend their money and that they see it that way so much so that political scientist Dr Jon Johansson has described him today as “Labour’s biggest liability”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: For the man who took National to less than 21 percent of the vote that is a pretty rich kind of accusation or quotation. What I do know is firstly we have cut taxes for families in New Zealand very substantially and although the member may be on an income where that does not matter if he was on an ordinary family income then with his number of kids he would be grateful for Working for Families. Secondly I know that New Zealanders want better health better education better superannuation and more investment in law and order and they want that from a Government. A National Government cut spending in all those areas when it was last in office and that member was the Treasurer when superannuation was cut under National. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us whether that little outburst means what we think it means—that he still hates the idea that after 8 years he has finally been pushed into offering personal tax cuts to 1.8 million wage earners in New Zealand who do not have children which would allow them to qualify for Working for Families; and does he regret the fact that when conditions were pretty good for several years for tax cuts he missed the opportunity? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No; I took the opportunity to lower taxes for business to lower taxes for families to lower taxes for savers to increase superannuation to introduce 20 hours’ free early childhood education to reintroduce income-related State housing rentals and on and on and that member voted against every one of them. Now his leader claims he was responsible for all those policies. 
Sea Change Strategy—Coastal Shipping 
4.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What impact does she think the final Sea Change strategy announced yesterday will have on coastal shipping? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 First of all I thank the member and New Zealand First for their support for the Sea Change strategy. It aims to double coastal shipping’s share of total domestic freight carried by 2040. In doing so it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions improve safety on the roads better link our regions to each other and better utilise all modes of transport for the benefit of New Zealanders. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that the report states in part: “Improving access to the funding is under way …” can the Minister assure the House that access to the fund will be straightforward and will apply to more than start-up initiatives? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I can assure the member of that. The funding that has been dedicated to the shipping strategy needs to be flexible innovative and help coastal shipping get moving in New Zealand. That is the aim of the strategy and that is why it has received widespread support around New Zealand. 
Lesley Soper 
: What other reports has she seen on coastal shipping? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen a report that in 1994 Maurice Williamson the then Minister of Transport introduced his shipping reforms which he assured us would lead to more choice and greater competition. Thanks to National today just eight New Zealand companies are operating just 13 ships between them which is about half the number we had in 1994. It is time we rebuilt this important mode of transport and we are committed to doing that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What reports has she received in respect of policies advocating a New Zealand transport system that is cost competitive that preserves added value for the New Zealand economy and that also is environmentally sensitive in respect of this country’s ecology and climate change issues all of which were announced years ago and are now finally being supported by the Government; and which party does she think has been advocating them in this Parliament for so long now? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Can I say to the member that I have enjoyed working with New Zealand First on this strategy. I have had no support from the National Party. The Green Party has also been very supportive—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have asked a simple question to do with a good sound forward vision for our environment and all I hear is a barrage of reports in here including from of all people “Bob the Quitter”. I would have thought by now that he would keep his mouth shut but no he is shouting out as loudly as he can although he does not have the guts to face me in Tauranga any more. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It was very difficult to hear the Minister’s response. I would also remind members that when they are making their points of order they must refer to members by their correct titles. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I was saying to the member before I was so rudely interrupted— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Surely Mr Peters should be asked to withdraw and apologise for that remark; otherwise we will be referring to him as “Winston the Bitter”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If Mr Clarkson wishes Mr Peters to withdraw and apologise then of course the convention is that he must do so. However I felt it was dealt with sufficiently. 
Bob Clarkson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would just like to mention that under Speaker’s ruling 36/6 I have been misrepresented. I am not a quitter. I am holding a letter here which Winston Peters has signed that talks about my outstanding contribution to Tauranga New Zealand. I would just like to bring that to members’ attention. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is all very interesting but that point applies only in debate. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have people in all our communities who suffer from the condition of recognition hunger. I thought I would help him but I did not really mean it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know that it is members’ day but perhaps we could now have the Minister’s answer—if she can remember the question. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I conclude by saying that I believe that the policy now in place is the right one for New Zealand and that is obvious from the support we have received for it including from New Zealand First. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister able to assure the House and more particularly the industry that such funding will continue on a long-term basis and not be at the whim of future Governments or individual politicians? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The only thing I can assure the House and the people of New Zealand of is that the commitment given by Labour New Zealand First and the Greens in particular will ensure that the funding continues. We have had no such assurance from the National Party. I could not say whether it would support that funding if it were in Government but its record is not good on this matter. 
Immigration Service—Oughton Report 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: When if at all did the then Minister of Immigration the Hon David Cunliffe brief the Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues on the Oughton inquiry following his April and August 2007 briefings and what did he tell them? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised by the previous Minister of Immigration that he did not raise the matter with the Prime Minister or Cabinet because he was briefed in only very general terms by the chief executives at the relevant times and was advised that the reports pertained to individual employment matters which are the responsibility of the chief executive. As I have told the member on a number of occasions neither the previous nor the current Minister received a copy of the Oughton report or the covering letter until they became publicly available; nor were we briefed on issues outside of the residency approval issues involving Mary Anne Thompson’s family members. The member may like to keep repeating it and repeating it but the fact that he repeats it does not make it an accurate statement of the facts. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by the statement made on his behalf yesterday that the then Minister of Immigration was not briefed on the residency issues within the Oughton report given that the opening sentence of the Oughton report states: “I can confirm that the residency permits granted to the particular family from Kiribati did not qualify in terms of then current policies.”? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I stand by my previous answer and yesterday’s. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by the statement made on his behalf yesterday that the then Minister of Immigration David Cunliffe was not briefed on the residency issues relating to the Oughton report during his April and August briefings given that the first of the four objectives in the terms of reference for the Oughton inquiry was to “Determine whether the residence decision was made within or outside … Government Residence Policy …”; if so does he expect Parliament to believe that James Buwalda and Graham Fortune would both ignore the first term of reference covering residency policy issues when they briefed the then Minister David Cunliffe? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I stand by my statements and I reiterate to the member that the Minister was briefed in general terms by those chief executives on an employment matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister expect Parliament to believe that a highly respected senior public servant of over 30 years’ experience Graham Fortune who is a former Secretary of Defence would receive an inquiry report into illegal decision-making within his department that found clear evidence of Government policy outcomes being deliberately circumvented and not brief his Minister David Cunliffe on the inquiry’s recommendations one of which required ministerial action? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I stand by my previous answer. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was that Minister aware of serious misconduct and corruption issues within his department prior to his 14 December 2007 briefing on the Oughton inquiry? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As I have told the member I was briefed on 14 December in respect of Mary Anne Thompson and the issues surrounding that employment matter. As I have told the member I was advised that the chief executive had contacted the State Services Commission and taken further legal advice that he could not proceed. When the Oughton report was made public along with the letter—neither of which I had seen until they were made public—other matters were then brought into the public arena. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Minister on the issue of inquiries within the Immigration Service whether the formula is intended to be followed that was followed back in 1996 in the investigation by the department into Bangladeshi immigration which after the evidence was adduced was covered up and hushed up with defamation fees being paid out because of allegations that National had made? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is a matter from before my time as Minister of Immigration but I can say to the member that the Auditor-General on my recommendation and on the recommendation of the Prime Minister has been called in. The Auditor-General has absolute unfettered rights to pursue matters in his own time frame and to pursue matters anywhere he sees fit; he is completely independent of Ministers he reports to Parliament and he may question Ministers and others. That process—along with the review of the Pacific branch by the chief executive of the department along with the investigation by the State Services Commission and along with the police inquiry—is I believe the way to proceed. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can the Minister claim that he was unaware of the extent of the problem prior to that December briefing and therefore could not brief the Prime Minister and Cabinet on the issues when he and his predecessor David Cunliffe together signed off over 40 written parliamentary questions last year that clearly listed the number of substantiated cases of misconduct fraud bribery theft corruption and other serious offences within the Immigration Service? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I became the Minister of Immigration in I think the Cabinet reshuffle in October. I think that where the member is going pertains to the press statement that he put out today. He is referring I suspect to the Buddle Findlay report of 2007. I suspect that his next question will be the same one that he poses in the press statement which is about our awareness of that. I am advised that that report was placed on the departmental website well before I became Minister. Indeed it pertained to allegations levelled by one Hon Tuariki Delamere and I am advised that that report which was publicly available for a long time before I became the Minister has no connection with other allegations that became public when the Oughton report became public and that those allegations made by Mr Delamere were proved to be incorrect. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Minister again as to why he is not prepared to follow the Bangladeshi immigration investigation formula which found that the then Government had brought into this country hundreds and hundreds of people claiming to have degrees from Dhaka University even though those degrees had been printed using technology that at the time of their supposed graduation was not available anywhere in the world and those people were then able to exit to Australia to avoid justice in this country particularly because National had shut the inquiry down and done nothing about it and National members who were then in Government but are now sitting in the Opposition front row called anyone who said anything about the department at that point in time “racist”? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am reluctant to comment on matters that pre-date my time as Minister of Immigration but I reiterate that when I was first briefed on the matters on 14 December my chief executive briefed me that he had already engaged the State Services Commission. Subsequently he briefed me that he had gone to the length of seeking legal advice as to whether he could reopen matters if he was of a mind to. He was on to the matter. I suspect that my chief executive having been in his post for just 2 weeks I think in advance of my being in mine was wading through an abundance of information and was making what judgments he could as he came to grips with that information. Subsequent to that he engaged a review of and inquiry into the Pacific branch; subsequent to that I engaged the State Services Commission; and subsequent to that the Audit Office has been engaged. I think that stands in stark contrast with the history of a different time that the member is alluding to. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the terms of reference for the Review of Apparently Unlawful Immigration Decision—commonly known as the Oughton inquiry. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the 27 answers to written questions on fraud and corruption within Immigration New Zealand that were signed off by the previous Minister of Immigration David Cunliffe. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the 16 answers to written questions on fraud and corruption within Immigration New Zealand that were signed off by the current Minister of Immigration Clayton Cosgrove. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Biofuels—Price Impact 
6.  
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What reports has he received on the price impact of biofuels in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I have seen a report from Gull Petroleum celebrating that it has already sold enough biofuel to meet the New Zealand sales obligation if it was in place right now. As to the cost its biofuel blend of petrol which comes from sustainable New Zealand sources is priced at less than the cost of the petrol sold by its competitor oil companies. I am further advised that bio-diesel blends from New Zealand tallow are expected to retail at less than 2c a litre more than traditional diesel. If traditional diesel increases in price bio-diesel blends could be cheaper than traditional diesel. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What misconceptions has the Minister seen about the cost of biofuels? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have heard John Key say that paying an extra 7c a litre for biofuels is not the way to go and that National will be opposing the Biofuel Bill. He is way off the mark; it is now clear that New Zealand biofuels will be both sustainable and affordable. I along with officials and biofuel producers can show National members that their concerns are unfounded. However they are clearly determined to oppose climate change initiatives in order to try to score political points. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen the United Nations World Food Programme report that described biofuel as “a crime against humanity” because of its effect on world food production and prices; if so why is he pressing ahead with the bill which will as he admits himself require New Zealand to import biofuels from unsustainable sources overseas or has he now changed his mind and is telling us that the biofuel obligation can be met from biofuel grown and produced in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member continues to make the mistake that some other people in this debate do. Just because some biofuels come from unsustainable sources does not mean all biofuels will come from unsustainable sources. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was an interesting contribution from the Minister but was hardly an answer. The simple question was whether he changed his mind about the capacity of the New Zealand industry to deliver sustainable biofuels or whether he is still saying it is OK to import biofuels that are grown on land where rainforests have been cleared. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Part of the problem there is that what the member just said is not the question he actually asked. The Minister certainly addressed the question that was asked. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: My recollection of the question and the answer is that the answer did address the question. That may not have been in the terms that the member expected but the answer did actually address the substance of the question and that is all that is required. 
Electricity—Thermal Generation 
7.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: How much of the electricity generated in New Zealand in the week ending 18 May 2008 was generated from thermal sources? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Three hundred and twenty-three gigawatt hours. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister accept that lake levels are now at 61 percent of average that thermal generation is running at full capacity and that the system has little or no room for even minor malfunction; if so when will he order the start of the public conservation programme planned by Dr Strange and the national winter power committee? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I certainly accept that hydro storage is less than the average for this time of the year because of drought but we are not at the stage where we propose to call for public conservation campaigns. 
Dave Hereora 
: How much generation has to be built each year in order to reach the Labour-led Government’s target of having 90 percent renewable electricity by 2025 and how much is being built this year? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The 90 percent renewable target is achievable. It requires only 175 megawatts of new renewables to be built each year. Renewable projects now under construction this year have increased to 400 megawatts of which 300 megawatts are scheduled for completion by the end of this year. There are also exciting developments to tap our marine energy and biomass resources. These advances occur when we have a forward-looking Government that is committed to having sustainable energy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that under his Government so far 75 percent of the new generation that has been commissioned has been thermal and that although this year may see 300 megawatts being commissioned his year-on-year average has been well below that; and why should we believe that he has any capacity to lead the delivery of the 90 percent renewable target? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In addition to the statistics that I have just quoted in terms of the renewables that will be built I can show the member this graph which shows the trend from March 2000 to November 2007 of greenhouse gas emissions from thermal electricity in New Zealand. The trend is clearly downwards. There will of course be a blip upwards this year because we are having a drought. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that last week less than 1 percent of New Zealand’s electricity was generated from wind and less than 8 percent from geothermal heat which means we are very very dependent on thermal generation at the current time to keep the lights on; if so how soon does he predict that the renewable sector will grow enough to offset these very very frequent one-in-60-year events? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can confirm that in the week ended 18 May referred to in the primary question even after a prolonged drought in New Zealand more than half of our electricity came from renewable sources. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister worked out yet that in order to meet his 90 percent renewable target geothermal generation would need to grow by over 400 percent or energy from wind would need to grow by over 3000 percent or some combination of the two in a high thousand percent would be needed; if so how soon does he think that will happen? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In the sixth term! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We will probably be there by then. But it is absolutely clear from the New Zealand Energy Strategy and other publicly available documents that New Zealand has abundant sources of affordable renewables. That they are affordable is absolutely proven by the current investment patterns by generators who are already investing in current technologies like wind and geothermal generation which are both economic and available in abundant quantities. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister heard the criticisms offered today by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who has said that the thermal ban is “unworkable and should not proceed.”; if so what is his response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am sure that minor aspects of the restrictions on thermal generation will need to be addressed by the select committee—that is the normal select committee process. But I am absolutely sure that the transition towards 90 percent renewables in New Zealand is achievable and I think history will show that achieving it is probably one of the easiest parts of the transition towards sustainable energy in New Zealand. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table documents that show the very precarious state of inflows into the hydro lakes storage system. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that New Zealand would have had the lights put out last week had it not been for our thermal generation capacity. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table a graph that shows the decrease in emissions from thermal electricity over time. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Housing Affordability—Shared Equity Scheme 
8.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What further steps has the Government taken to address housing affordability? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 From 1 July under the shared equity pilot eligible households can apply for an interest-free loan on a house of between 5 and 30 percent of its value. This is another Labour-led Government initiative that like Welcome Home Loans and KiwiSaver will help New Zealanders into their first homes. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What recent reports has she seen regarding the Labour-led Government’s shared equity scheme? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I have seen various reports from real estate agents describing the scheme as “a fantastic initiative” and “very encouraging” for first-home buyers while a spokesperson for the Salvation Army has said: “I think there is such a demand for this that it will prove a huge success.” 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister have any plans at all to increase the number of State houses available in the Gisborne area given that there are absolutely desperate people on the waiting list who are being told that there will be no appropriate houses available in the foreseeable future? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: We are constantly looking to increase the numbers of State houses particularly those in areas where there is the greatest need. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Government have any plans at all for dealing with the problem of people living in very poor accommodation that is often totally unsanitary and at a standard no one in this House could in some cases even imagine and in houses that are comparable to slums in the Third World particularly in rural and provincial New Zealand where there does not seem to be any great attempt to increase the supply of Housing New Zealand Corporation houses or third sector community-based housing? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: There is an ongoing work stream in the Housing New Zealand Corporation to address issues of rural housing provision. It is true that there is some substandard housing in rural areas and we are working to address that. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why should Nelson be pleased when its shared equity criteria means that its population formula will help only 19 Nelson people—that is 19 people over 2 years—that it allows only homes under $240000 and one cannot find one of those in Nelson and that people still have to stump up with 90 percent of the house cost as Nelson’s limit helps with only 10 percent of the cost? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: First of all Nelson is an expensive place to live. Again if that member wanted to do some homework he might look at the most recent Nelson real estate magazines and find that there is something in the order of 60 properties within the range of the shared equity pilot available in Nelson. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why has the shared equity scheme so stunningly under-delivered when with 12 rehashed announcements since 2004 it was so stunningly over-promised? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The scheme has not under-delivered because it has not started yet. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table Nelson’s population—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. There is a convention that points of order come at the end of supplementary questions. However the member did start his point of order so we will finish it and then take the supplementary question. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the population of Nelson which has been given 19 houses over 2 years. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In the interests of parliamentary question time resembling in quality something akin to a First World democracy would the Minister insist when she hears that question from that Minister on receiving some evidence of what he predicates his question on because he has a habit of getting up and saying a whole lot of mindless things of the nature of what he just said—that is that not one house conformed to Housing New Zealand Corporation criteria even though property real estate is full of that—and then in the next question he repeated another falsehood which is frankly a waste of Parliament’s time? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well this— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is a fair question and the Minister should be allowed to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I rule the question out of order because it is not within ministerial responsibility; it is more of a matter of debate. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My point of order was going to deal with that. But while I am on my feet I would perhaps ask you to seek—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There will be no interruptions during points of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The member really should have gone for that—others have at various times I would note. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: But not today I have noticed. So from now on I ask members to please observe silence during points of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker I wonder whether you might seek from Mr Peters clarification of the information that Phil Heatley has been made a Minister and whether in fact he knows something that we do not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table Nelson’s average house cost of $325000—almost $100000 more than the Minister’s top price of $240000. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the cap of 10 percent help on buying a house in Nelson. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Climate Change Leadership Forum Recommendations 
9.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Did the Climate Change Leadership Forum recommend deferring the introduction of liquid transport fuels into the emissions trading scheme and the postponement of the industry allocation phase-out? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The timing of phase-out of free allocation was raised by the Climate Change Leadership Forum as it has been by many others. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Prime Minister when she deferred the implementation of the emissions trading scheme say that this was on the advice of the leadership forum when that was not true? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Issues relating to phase-out are clearly one of the central issues to be determined and have been under consideration by the leadership forum. But this should come as no surprise to the member because in the explanatory note to the bill that is being considered by him and others through the Finance and Expenditure Committee it is noted: “The engagement also included the establishment of a Climate Change Leadership Forum … The Forum will continue until mid-2008 and its considerations will be taken into account … Issues that are likely to be discussed include … phase-out of free allocation”. I am surprised that the member is surprised. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: In addition to the select committee process what other engagement has there been with the public on climate change policy over the last 2 years? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Last year’s consultation included over 50 public meetings attended by more than 4000 people and resulted in over 3000 written submissions. Subsequently we held other meetings throughout New Zealand. In addition over 100 consultations between officials and individual stakeholders throughout New Zealand occurred plus the select committee process. Consideration of a price-based measure has been happening since National under Simon Upton promoted an emissions trading scheme back in 1999 but still National says we need to delay. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee Charles Chauvel advised the committee that both deferrals were recommended by the Climate Change Leadership Forum when it did not do so; and that the forum was advised of the change only after it was publicly announced? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I was present at that select committee this morning when a similar question was put to both me and Mr Chauvel. Mr Chauvel made the point that the first he learnt of the proposed Government announcements was in a telephone call from me just prior to those announcements being made. He said he thought I said that it was being done because the leadership forum had recommended it. My recollection is that I had said that it was one of the issues that had been raised by the leadership forum. But I actually do not think that anything great turns on that point so I am not sure of the reason for the member’s interest. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Government not consult with the Climate Change Leadership Forum on the deferral of the introduction of liquid fuels yet publicly and privately use the forum to justify this change; and does this not show that the leadership forum is being used politically rather than as providing a serious dialogue with community leaders on trying to get New Zealand the very best emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What I am aware of is that National will try to undermine the probity and the effectiveness of the leadership forum. The forum has proven to be a very useful mechanism to engage with business scientists and environmental groups as we work through these complex issues. 
Budgets Labour Government—Douglas Initiatives 
10.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: In his last eight Budgets as Minister of Finance which of Sir Roger Douglas’ initiatives if any has he reversed and which ones has he kept? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I could give a long answer but I will try to just cover the highlights. The Labour Government has continued the policies of enhancing support for families through the taxation system. It has continued to increase spending on health and education and has continued to reject National Party fiscal profligacy. We have rejected policies of State asset sales a flat-tax regime and an uncritical belief in the power of the market. Finally I have never presented proposals with major fiscal implications to Cabinet without a Treasury report as Sir Roger did. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why if Sir Roger Douglas’ policies were so bad has the Minister not reintroduced a wage and price freeze fixed the New Zealand dollar brought back supplementary minimum prices abolished GST raised income tax back to 66c in the dollar re-established import licensing repealed the State-Owned Enterprises Act or abolished the Reserve Bank’s independence—or are those policies OK now although they were not in the 1980s? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that perhaps the member was the one who fell on his head while dancing. The wage and price freeze was introduced by National not Labour. Labour abolished the wage and price freeze and I never supported it. Supplementary minimum prices were introduced by National and abolished by Labour but I have noticed today that Mr English and Mr Key were arguing that we should have had increased sheep numbers in order to keep the number of meatworks open. The only way that could be done would be by subsidising farmers to have more sheep than they have at the present time. And it is not the policy of this Government to abolish GST. GST was introduced by the Labour Government and I have supported GST since its introduction though I had doubts about it before it was introduced. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Does the Government plan to follow the advice of Sir Roger Douglas to sell off the remaining assets? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Unlike the National Party we are very clear on that issue. We have halted the fire sale of the family silver and indeed we have bought back some of the assets that were sold. We are certainly not planning as Sir Roger is now proposing to sell off the prisons sell off the schools and sell off the hospitals and to follow Sir Roger’s famous motto which I tried to coin for him: “So little time so much to sell”. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister regard his major initiative—to not allow a return to the domination of politics in this country and particularly of economic policy by someone who ushered in a collapse in 1987 of the sharemarket that saw six of the 10 worst crashes in the world including the four worst occur in New Zealand—as some sort of record of his tutelage in running the finances of New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Fairness overcomes me. I do not think it is fair to blame Sir Roger for the 1987 sharemarket crash which was an international phenomenon. However it is true that the level of speculation in the New Zealand economy before 1987 meant that the crash was more severe in New Zealand than in many other countries and that the effects of it lasted longer than in most other developed countries. 
Rodney Hide 
: Given that the Minister has stuck by the policies of the 1980s why is he now against having a scholarship for every child as every party bar the communists in Sweden now supports; against welfare reform like that introduced by President Clinton; against health vouchers as introduced by the British Labour Government; against a flat-tax system like that in the ex-Soviet states; and against privatisation which occurs everywhere except in Cuba North Korea Burma and New Zealand under National or Labour? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Most of those policies have been very poorly described by the member but let me just take one. He seems to believe that Sir Roger still supports a flat-tax policy. I have news for him: Sir Roger’s latest version—no doubt with yet another whiteboard covered in indecipherable numbers as was his wont— now is to have a tax-free income of $20000 a year and then a progressive taxation system after that. That is not a flat-tax system. 
Rodney Hide 
: For the Minister’s benefit I seek leave to table ACT’s policies that explain exactly how a flat tax operates. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I ask whether this is ACT’s policies or Sir Roger’s policies. I am well aware of the differences from the past. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table ACT’s policies as I heard the member. 
Document not tabled. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Confidence 
11.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does she have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so why? 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes; because it works hard to house some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable families. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has she seen reports of increasing numbers of struggling families on the waiting list right across New Zealand living in overcrowded and seriously unhealthy conditions; if so what is the Housing New Zealand Corporation doing to alleviate such overcrowding? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The Housing New Zealand Corporation is working to alleviate those situations by increasing the numbers of housing stock year on year. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: What is the Housing New Zealand Corporation doing to ensure that its tenants have warm insulated houses? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: The energy-efficient retrofit programme announced by the Green Party last week will be boosted by $53.4 million in Budget 2008 effectively doubling the pace of the programme and that means that the remaining 21000 State houses will now be insulated within 5 years. That contributes to reducing those families’ costs. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why are hundreds of waiting-list families living in unhealthy overcrowded conditions when the Housing New Zealand Corporation has 1108 State houses with 1108 tenants living in big properties with two or more spare bedrooms? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: There is a short answer to that and it is to do with the history of the 1990s and where we would have been had we not had the culling of the State house stock. However the particular issue the member raises is being addressed on a regular basis day in day out by the Housing New Zealand Corporation. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why after 9 years are vulnerable families forced to live in overcrowded and squalid Mangere boarding facilities where “flea bites fungal sores and ringworm etch into children’s skin” when there are 38 State houses in Mangere and Manurewa with 38 tenants who live in big houses with two or more spare bedrooms? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I simply refer that member to my previous answer. 
Jill Pettis 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of mass sell-offs of State houses; if so when did that occur and who was responsible? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: As I have said in this House before it is an old song and although the National Party does not like us to sing it it remains true. If we were 13500 houses better off we would not have the kind of overcrowding the member pretends to be concerned about. 
Phil Heatley 
: How did we ever get to the point under 9 years of a Labour Government that on the one hand we have hundreds of struggling families on the waiting list who are living in crowded squalor while on the other hand we have over 1000 tenants banging around in large State houses with two or more spare bedrooms? 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I do not know how many times I have to repeat the previous answer. Let me try it from a different tack. Had we had more State houses than we did at the end of the 1990s these problems might not have arisen. Further to that the Housing New Zealand Corporation works constantly to fit appropriate houses to appropriate family sizes and will continue to do so. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table reports of families living in crowded conditions while on the waiting list. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a parliamentary question detailing the 1108 State houses with two or more spare bedrooms. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table figures showing 38 State houses in Mangere and Manurewa that are half empty. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Business—Reporting Standards 
12.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What action is the Government taking to simplify reporting standards for business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 During the Quality Regulation Review it became apparent that businesses were facing compliance costs associated with providing the same or similar information to different Government departments. The Government has decided to fund a cross-Government investigation into introducing and implementing a system of standard business reporting and the implementation of a single business number. This means that businesses will have to submit information once only in a standard form which will allow the information then to be passed on to the relevant Government agencies. It will further reduce business compliance costs which have been on a downward trend under this Labour-led Government. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Will the Minister tell the House whether she has been advised of the level of potential savings to New Zealand business from the reduced compliance costs that such a system would deliver? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. The advice I have received is that based on comparative data from other countries that have adopted standard business reporting the estimated benefit to New Zealand business could be on low projections $55 million per year and on high projections $75 million per year. These savings would be a major contributor to productivity improvement across industry and in particular within the small to medium sized enterprise sector. 
Questions to Members 
Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill—Submissions 
1.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: Does he stand by his statement to  
Carbon 
News 
 on 19 May with regard to the Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill that “Every submitter had been given at least 10 minutes’ hearing time and more if they asked for it.”? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 No. That had been my impression but I have now had the chance to look through the minutes of our committee’s last nine meetings. Of the 160 submitters heard 155 received hearings lasting 10 minutes or more. As to requests for hearings in excess of 10 minutes I am advised that committee staff sought to accommodate all such requests where they could practicably do so and managed to do so in most cases. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the chairperson consider that that is satisfactory given that an email from Temperzone Ltd states: “We were summoned to appear in a group with non-affiliated parties. We wonder why we were not consulted on this forcible grouping. We had to shorten our submission to 5 minutes. We had no time to present and debate the issues.”; is that a satisfactory situation for a company that employs 550 people that exports $100 million worth of air conditioning units and that says this legislation will put its existence at risk? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: The facts are that Temperzone Ltd was heard with the Institute of Refrigeration Heating and Air Conditioning Engineers of New Zealand and Fisher and Paykel Appliances Ltd and just before the Trust for the Destruction of Ozone Depleting Substances. All those entities wanted to speak to the committee about the issue of hydrofluorocarbons. The group submission received from 12.35 p.m. to 1.05 p.m. and the trust received a further 10 minutes—from 1.05 p.m. to 1.15 p.m. I think that was a very satisfactory process. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the letter of complaint that the committee has received from Temperzone. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Supplementary question— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No there are no further supplementary questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to ask a supplementary question on a very important matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. Sorry—I tried. 
General Debate 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Everybody has heard the saying: “Bread today and jam tomorrow.” Well as we lead up to the 2008 election a cocky arrogant National Party—its members boasting about their poll ratings around the halls of Parliament squabbling over which ministerial house they want choosing their ministerial staff and selecting their new cars—is not interested in building for the future for a better New Zealand. It is all about “Jam now and to hell with the future.” The jam I have to say is for the National Party and its mates. Its mates are those people who have kept their opinions very quiet for the last 2 years but who are now emerging out of their very comfortable offices to praise to plot and to prepare for the return of a National Government—a Government they have been told that will implement their agenda. 
Their agenda I have to tell the people of New Zealand would rip the heart out of workers’ rights here in New Zealand. It is an agenda that would see a return to the master-servant relationship that was promised to the Exclusive Brethren in 2005. Already we have National members of Parliament going around speaking to business groups and telling them that they have big changes in mind for the Employment Relations Act. 
It is an agenda that promises a referendum on MMP. Who is asking for a referendum on MMP? The public of New Zealand are not asking for a referendum on MMP. The only people who want a referendum are the big backers of the National Party—those who have the money and who want to change the voting system here in this Parliament so that the small parties represented here will not be here any more. The first payback for the big backers of the National Party is John Key’s announcement that there will be a referendum on MMP. In respect of that referendum today I read in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that “National might remind themselves a majority favour the present system”. This referendum will be a $3 million payback for the National Party’s big backers—the Business Roundtable Mr Graeme Hunt and others—who want to get rid of the small parties in this Parliament so that the National Party can once again become the “natural” party of Government. 
And then we have the sale of assets. It will be back on the agenda—mark my words. Of course National members are going to spend 3 years preparing themselves to sell the assets of New Zealand but they are going to get rid of them; there is no doubt about it. Rail will be gone Air New Zealand will be gone Television One will be sold our energy generation will be sold the Accident Compensation Corporation will be gone and many many more will go. People like Bill English Maurice Williamson Lockwood Smith Murray McCully and Tony Ryall are gagging at swallowing this political rat. What they are really promising the people of New Zealand is that they will be a non-Government for 3 years because they will change nothing and do nothing. They will just get ready to do it in their next term if they are elected. 
John Key has determined that he will win by doing whatever it takes—flip-flops bluster and ballyhoo. He will neutralise any issue he will mis-speak and he will fabricate. He will do anything to neutralise any political issue if it is going to lose a vote—and it does not matter even if it is a bedrock National Party policy. Of course the edict to National Party MPs is: “Don’t worry about principles. Don’t worry about policy. Don’t worry about integrity. Don’t worry about honesty. Win at all costs.” Their mantra is to win at all costs. And what a huge cost it would be to the people of New Zealand—people who look to a Government to ensure they are looked after. For 8 years this Government has been doing that with Working for Families KiwiSaver paid parental leave 4 weeks of holidays for Kiwis and affordable health care. The list goes on but now we have John Key promising everybody $50 a week in tax cuts. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The hearts of people around the world have gone out to the families of tens of thousands who have died in two recent major disasters. These are the typhoon in Burma and the earthquake in Sichuan China. Last week Parliament unanimously backed a resolution that I moved extending our heartfelt sympathy to the Chinese Government and people. This resolution also acknowledged the efforts of the Chinese authorities in mobilising people for the rescue effort which is continuing. To their credit the Chinese leaders are also allowing foreign aid teams to assist. 
By contrast the world has watched in anguish as the Burmese junta has let thousands of people die rather than relax its grip on every aspect of Burmese life. Firstly the junta did not tell the people in the Irrawaddy Delta that a major cyclone was coming. This cyclone was very much in the international media. I remember watching TV myself day after day as the typhoon approached Burma. Then the junta pretended that there was not much damage and it largely sat on its hands using helicopters mainly for sending bigwigs in and out for photo opportunities in an attempt to show the Burmese TV audience how compassionate the ruling generals are. 
For some time foreign relief teams were shut out of the country their presence being seen by the junta as a threat to its rule. The generals have also spurned assistance from US French and British warships that sit 100 kilometres off the coast with helicopters and plentiful supplies. Even now 18 days after Cyclone Nargis overseas relief bodies do not have access to many of those people in need. Foreign aid workers still find it hard to get visas. The rulers of Burma by allowing thousands of people to die of exposure starvation and disease when they could have been saved have committed a major crime against humanity. It has demonstrated to the whole world the ruthless nature of the generals’ rule which has been 46 years of misery for the Burmese people. Hopefully this latest callous betrayal of the Burmese people will tip many of its remaining supporters—middle-ranking civil servants for example—right over the edge and into outright opposition. Any Government that so disregards the people’s welfare deserves to go and go quickly. 
Let us discuss what New Zealand’s response should be. The first thing which we have done is to offer emergency aid for the post-cyclone relief effort mainly through respected international aid bodies. Our Government has advanced around $1.5 million for this purpose. The second thing is to be active on the diplomatic front to twist the junta’s arm to allow aid in. Our country is a dialogue partner with ASEAN of which Burma is a member. More pressure needs to be exerted on ASEAN not only to help get aid in but in the longer term to help the Burmese people get the junta off their backs. The ASEAN Secretary-General Dr Surin Pitsuwan admitted yesterday that ASEAN has been too slow in taking action post the typhoon. 
We should also be pushing for political action by the United Nations which would help to counter the efforts of Russia Viet Nam South Africa and China to stop this from happening. China has been the Burmese junta’s main backer for several years providing it with arms and supplies of all kinds. We must continue to expose the Beijing Government’s bad role in supporting dictators in Burma the Sudan Zimbabwe and elsewhere particularly in the lead-up to the Olympics when the Chinese Government is so desperate for good press. Hopefully the Chinese rulers will see that being a bit more open and supporting ordinary people taking their own initiatives as has happened in the Sichuan earthquake relief effort actually wins international plaudits. 
Thirdly we should put a greater squeeze on the Burmese junta. We should go beyond the present travel ban on junta members and freeze any assets they have in New Zealand as other countries like the United States have already done. 
The two big disasters in Burma and China also remind us of our responsibilities as a good global citizen. We probably could have been a bit more generous if our overall aid budget had been larger. From July our aid will be 0.32 percent of gross national income. That is an increase but it still leaves us less than halfway towards the international target of 0.7 percent by 2015 with only another six Budgets to make up the difference. We can do better. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 One of the interesting things is that the public of New Zealand has observed the mayhem among the current Government members. It is the sort of situation where no matter what they do it seems to turn bad for them. It is a situation where things that they think will go well for them go badly. 
One of the interesting things to observe amongst that mayhem has been the increased public scrutiny of the Hon David Cunliffe and what is more the increased respect he appears to be growing among the commentariat as the most likely successor to Helen Clark when she is defeated in this year’s election. They are saying this in coffee shops. They are saying this at bus stops. They are saying this in workplaces all over the place. But we know he is getting cut through when the Prime Minister comes to the House and refers to him as “David Conloffe” as she tries to knock him off his perch a little bit. 
But we also know he is getting a lot of traction when a very experienced politician like the Hon Phil Goff who has been here 25 years after first entering Parliament in 1981—he had a short stint out of Parliament but overall he has been in this House for 25 years—made the sort of comment he did on Alt TV the other night. He was not exactly up against a hard interrogator in Oliver Driver. This was no Lindsay Perigo no Mark Sainsbury and no Paul Cutler. It was Oliver Driver and many people will not even know who he is. I did not even know who he was until I heard about the interview. It was an opportunity for Phil Goff to express his long-held desire to lead the Labour Party. But more than that it was an opportunity to knock off all those near rivals. He had read in  
Trans Tasman 
 which apparently is now a sort of cheer sheet for Clayton Cosgrove that there are two contenders in the Labour Party—Mr Cunliffe and Mr Cosgrove—for the future leadership and he thought: “I haven’t been here for 25 years to have my chance knocked over by those two upstarts.” So he went out there and put himself right in it. It was fascinating to watch. Rather than backing off once he knew he had the media attention he simply announced: “It’s time for a change. The public want it and when it happens I’m available.” 
Why then are we in this situation? It is largely because Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have not been listening to what New Zealanders have been saying for a very long time. They have not been into a supermarket and seen what it is like to buy the weekly groceries. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’ve been into a supermarket! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is right. I go to a supermarket very often. I tell the member that I am a big buyer and I know the price of cheese. But Helen Clark does not. Helen Clark has no idea what it is like to ration the milk on the cornflakes in the morning for the kids—no idea whatsoever. She is out of touch and that is why the environment has arisen whereby Phil Goff can start to contemplate replacing her after the election. 
The interesting thing though is that when we look at how things are shaping up it is clear that Annette King will be his running mate. But after her speech today I would say that he needs to look around and think about his other options. I noted the warm congratulations she received from other team members Darren Hughes and Rick Barker. But the confusing thing is that when I look at the Cosgrove team the Goff team the Clark team the Cunliffe team and at the outlying Shane Jones team I see that Rick Barker is in all of them. He is a remarkable man; he is in every one of them so I do not think I would rely too much on him. 
Another interesting thing is that Rick Baker recently announced that he will write a book when he leaves politics. A further interesting thing is that he has already announced the topic—“ 
20 Years in Politics: What I was doing when all that was going on 
”. I am sure that will be a great read but it somewhat typifies where Helen Clark has got herself to right now and where Michael Cullen has got himself to right now. They are not in touch with what New Zealanders are thinking and we will see a big demonstration of that tomorrow. 
I will finish my comments this afternoon by asking a very important question: is Phil Goff advising Clayton Cosgrove and David Cunliffe on how to manage their involvement in the immigration fiasco? I saw my colleague Lockwood Smith questioning them in the House today and I saw the shifty looks on their faces as they danced around the answers evaded what was the obvious and looked furtively towards Mr Goff who had a most impressive grin on his face as he saw them both squirming under that sort of questioning. So I think Mr Goff is advising his two near rivals on how to handle that particular matter. 
Tomorrow we will have a Budget read by the Government. It will not deliver what New Zealanders want. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 We now know some interesting facts and I am gratified for that somewhat light but entertaining and jocular speech. I was wondering but I now know partly why the price of cheese has gone up. It is of course because of international commodity prices and the international situation but Gerry Brownlee gave us an astounding fact today. He said that the price of cheese has gone up because he eats a heck of a lot of it. He also told us—and I take him at his word—that he visits a supermarket very very regularly. But we also know this: Gerry Brownlee talked about various teams and all the sort of fictitious stuff that he goes on about but we know a couple of facts about the National Party and one is that there is no Gerry Brownlee team. There is no Gerry Brownlee team for anything. 
Secondly we know that Gerry Brownlee will never be in line for anything. No I stand corrected—I am advised that he was in line for the tuck shop at St Bede’s on many occasions. There is no Gerry Brownlee team. We know all about the succession planning that goes on over there and the myriad of five leaders they have had and whom Helen Clark has disposed of. 
Let us look at this thing called tax that my colleague Annette King talked about. We now have another revelation from Mr Key. He says everyone not just the top end and not just the bottom end will get a $50 a week tax cut. That is a lot of blocks of cheese including the big 1 kilogram jumbo size for our friend Gerry Brownlee. According to John Key everybody will get a tax break from National of a minimum of 50 bucks - plus a week. If we do the sums—and I know that is a bit difficult for Gerry Brownlee but he could use all his fingers and toes—we have to ask how that will be paid for. Then we have to ask ourselves what will happen to inflation especially given that the IMF has come out today and said there needs to be a measured approach to economic management and the issue of taxation. But the old “50 bucks - plus” wonders over there are promising that amount to New Zealanders. 
The question is what will happen to inflation and interest rates. What will bank managers do to the mum and dad battlers out there in the mortgage belt once they get on one hand 50 bucks - plus per week and then the bank manager will be on the phone and saying to them: “Hey your interest rates are going up. Let’s take a lot more than that back from you per week.” I can see that Mr Brownlee is having palpitations as he tries to get to grips with the facts. 
Then we should talk about Mr Key’s flip-flops. I want to read a quote from Tracy Watkins in the blog Inside the Beltway 
of 20 May: “Key”—that is Mr Key—“suggested his north of $50 comment was in response to me”—that is Ms Watkins—“asking him about our poll questions … Actually we hadn’t got on to those poll questions at that point in the interview.” The quote goes on: “I’ve spoken to Key”—that is Mr Key—“about this and he says there may have been some confusion as he had been aware from an earlier discussion in the week that we were polling on this question and thought that was what I was asking about.” 
So hang on Mr Key is confused. It is a bit like how Mr Key seems to be confused about everything. On 5 March he said about asset sales: “We wouldn’t have changed the rules as they have to preserve New Zealand’s strategic assets.” Then in April this year he said: “In the first term of the National Government there will be no State assets that will be sold.” 
We have to ask because people are not silly how National would pay for such massive promises as every New Zealander—every mum and dad every pensioner and everybody else—getting a tax break of in excess of $50 a week. Would it sell assets? Possibly. Would it cut expenditure? Possibly. Would it borrow? Possibly. If National is not prepared to say that it would do one two or all three of those things then I ask those members with their high intellectual capacity in economics to tell the New Zealand people how they will pay for a tax cut of north of $50 per week per head. If National members are not prepared to sell assets—not in the first 3 years for these boys—if they are not prepared to borrow even though they said they would borrow half of it last time although not for schools not for hospitals not for roads but for tax cuts and if they are not going to cut any expenditure then it is voodoo economics and they know it. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 That speech was made by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. He used to be good. 
Phil Goff the man who is about to take over the Labour Party was selected for the Labour Party when Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States. It is hard to believe that this man is the future of the Labour Party. One thing I have noticed today and over recent days is that Labour seems to have decided it is in trouble. National knows that there is a long way to go but Labour seems to have decided it is in trouble. Phil Goff is a politician of some 25 years’ experience—I am just wondering when the gravitas will kick in—yet he went on nationwide television and essentially said that he was in the race. The problem is that somebody forgot to tell Helen Clark that there was a race. 
Of course David Cunliffe sees himself as being well and truly at the centre of that race. On this side of the House we are reliably informed that David Cunliffe’s internal popularity will in the end drive him over the threshold for the deputy leadership; that the high personal regard his colleagues have for him and the way in which he has modestly and humbly conducted himself in caucus over the last 9 years will ultimately see him pushed into the deputy leader’s spot! 
We know that the other MPs in the Labour Party—the smart ones—are quietly smiling to themselves and they fit into two categories. One is the category of Jill Pettis Paul Swain and Steve Maharey. They are quietly smiling to themselves. Mark Burton should have been in that category but he forgot. 
At the same time there is another category of MPs who are also smiling and it is the category that I think is most interesting. It is the Ross Robertson George Hawkins category. It is the category that beat the internal Labour Party machine that was determined to get rid of them. Alongside Phil Goff they are the young youthful faces of Labour taking that party forward into the next century. They are the men who outwitted the internal Labour Party machine and survived the purge. Other talented members like Ross Robertson—well-known to you Mr Assistant Speaker—are George Hawkins and Harry Duynhoven. They are the survivors; the people who will get through the next short while. 
I have to say that having David Cunliffe driving around BP stations filling the gas bottles for Phil Goff is not going to help. Having Clayton Cosgrove wandering off to The Mad Butcher to collect the sausages and steaks is also not going to help. In the meanwhile George Hawkins Ross Robertson and Harry Duynhoven sit quietly smiling to themselves—on the weekends joining Phil Goff in his caravan—waiting waiting waiting for their opportunity to take over the reins of the Labour Party. 
Why is it though that after 25 years in Parliament the Hon Phil Goff still shows that sort of boyish vein-popping enthusiasm in his presentations in this House? What happened to the sort of statesmanlike gradual gravitas that one would expect from someone of that many years in politics? The Labour Party knows that this issue will not go away nor will the issue with Toll Holdings the immigration scandals or the fact that the emissions trading scheme is in a shambles violent crime is skyrocketing the real estate reforms have stalled the Financial Advisers Bill has stalled and the Electoral Finance Act is in a shambles. Indeed Labour’s own members have been pinged for infringing it. Well it seems that Phil Goff has all the answers. 
The curious thing about all of this is that the Labour Party itself has decided it is in trouble and we know that no one fights internally like the Labour Party does when the pressure comes on. We know that there is more to come and that even David Cunliffe’s immense popularity within his own caucus will not save Labour members from tearing each other’s throats out. He may well stand next week in the caucus room and give a Martin Luther King - type speech to the caucus about how they have to hold together in these times of trial and tribulation. The problem is that people have stopped listening to him. 
But National knows that Clayton Cosgrove is doing the numbers for David Cunliffe. We know that the two of them are closely in alliance and beavering away for the next generation of Labour leaders to come forth. The corridors are awash with rumours about how close those two are and their plans for the future. They have given up themselves. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 The previous speech may have been a very witty diatribe from a member of the Opposition trying to work out what is going on but we say “game on”; this is a serious time in the political cycle. It is game on for this Labour Government while we watch the Leader of the Opposition going around the country determined to be just a small target just a little target saying whatever he wants to direct to that audience what they want to hear or what the polls are telling him he should say to that audience but actually not coming out with any policy. When he does try to come out with a policy we see him slipping and sliding and changing that policy at the first opportunity when he comes back to face reality. 
We expect to see more depth from a leader or someone who thinks he is going to be a leader of a Government and we are not seeing it. If we go down one or two levels below the rhetoric and the smile of John Key we cannot see any political depth at all. We are even starting to see a bit of a swagger. It is a worry when we see a bit of a swagger from someone and some of his junior spokespeople who go around Wellington saying: “When I’m a Minister you’ll be with me as my political adviser.” It all comes back to us. We are hearing the stories. They come straight back to us. We hear who has contacted people to say: “When we’re in you’ll be there beside me.” That is not going down very well. 
We need a vision from the Opposition. We are not seeing it; we are seeing an impoverished view of “New Zealand Inc.” We heard it again today on net migration. Whereas we have an immigration gain and the Leader of the Opposition knows it he seems to want everybody to go over to Australia. He seems to be saying that Australia is a better place and telling people to “go forward”. If that is someone who wants to lead that is not a very good vision for New Zealanders who are looking at where they hang their hat. When things go wrong with his media statements he blames the journalists. He is already falling into that trap. 
The Opposition is not supporting those fantastic initiatives—building new classrooms lowering the teacher-pupil ratio more surgery funding—announced this week. Tony Ryall was really rattled. Is the Opposition intent on keeping the investment in more elective surgery over the next 4 years for 5000 New Zealanders as well as giving tax cuts which at the moment stand at $50-plus a week—because that is what the polls tell National that people will expect. I am not sure about that. New Zealanders will start to stack it up. 
I want to talk about John Key’s position on climate change. It is deeply worrying considering I am off to Germany for a conference on biodiversity to say that our Leader of the Opposition an aspirant to lead this country once thought that climate change was a hoax then he became leader and supported the emissions trading scheme and now he has changed his mind again. Imagine the world leaders hearing that in Bonn next week. It will be deeply worrying internationally. 
We also saw his call on the therapeutics bill. He was all over the place. What a fool he has made of himself there. The Opposition panned the therapeutics bill and voted it down but John Key the leader has said he is prepared to reconsider it and that as soon as they get in they will change their minds on that one. We tell him to come clean with the public of New Zealand and to stop playing politics on the big issues that matter to New Zealand’s economy as we are seeing. 
I want to talk about slips over policy that look good when he is here at home because they are what people want to hear but look dreadful when he goes overseas. New Zealand’s reputation overseas really matters to us. In terms of health will the Nats take the cap off the general practitioner fees and pull the veil on yet another policy? Of course they will. They have sidelined two of their three doctors in their health policy who stood there looking like stunned mullets. They are not even in the health team; two doctors were sidelined while Tony Ryall who has no credibility in the health sector went out and led on health policy. It is considered a farce out there. What did Tony Ryall come up with this week? All he could do was pick holes in the capital plan to improve dental services. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I want to take this Parliament back to just over 12 months ago when the senior private secretary of the Hon David Cunliffe would have knocked on his door come bowling into his office and said to him: “Minister I’ve just had a call from the Secretary of Labour. He wants to see you urgently.” The Minister would have said: “OK then. Find a time.” Later that afternoon the Secretary of Labour would have come across to the Minister’s office and said to the Minister: “Minister I’ve got to tell you that we’ve just discovered that it seems some unlawful decisions have been made in our department. It’s so serious that we’re going to appoint an independent investigator to have a look at this. I’m suggesting that we actually get the former Secretary for Justice to have a look at it. You need to know Minister that it actually involves the family of the workforce deputy secretary.” Naturally the secretary did not bring any officials across with him because to tell the Minister that the head of Immigration New Zealand was under investigation for illegal decisions in the department for which that Minister was responsible is not something one would have the officials involved with. 
That issue would have been something that James Buwalda would have spoken to David Cunliffe about personally. He would have said to David Cunliffe: “Minister I have here the proposed terms of reference.” and I can just imagine David Cunliffe saying to James Buwalda: “Oh no James. I don’t want to see those. Don’t. I want to be able to say that surely this is just an employment matter. Don’t show me the terms of reference.” It defies credibility when a Minister is told an investigation involves the head of Immigration New Zealand for the Minister to say: “I have no interest in seeing the terms of reference.”; it has to be untrue. 
I will take us forward a further 4 months. This time it is Graham Fortune; James Buwalda has gone along with many other senior people in the Department of Labour. That is a scandal in itself—the number of people churned through that outfit. This time it is the acting chief executive who makes the same call and asks to see David Cunliffe Minister of Immigration. Graham Fortune comes across this time with the Oughton report in his hand. The first finding of the Oughton report that Graham Fortune would have had to tell David Cunliffe about was that there were in fact serious outcomes in respect of immigration policy which David Oughton uncovered. People who should have got residence did not. The reason why they did not get residence under the special residual Pacific access quota for Kiribati was because some unlawful decisions were made involving the family of the workforce deputy secretary the head of the Immigration Service. Graham Fortune would have also told the Minister that David Oughton recommended that this has to be dealt with and the only way this can be dealt with—because it is an exception to policy—is for the Minister to take it on and deal with it. 
It is not credible for us to believe that David Cunliffe said to Graham Fortune the acting chief executive of the Department of Labour: “Look Graham I don’t want to hear about this. For goodness’ sake this is just an employment matter. Surely you can find a way of dealing with these people who missed out on getting residence without having to involve me. I realise under the law it’s only me who can make an exception to policy but surely there’s a way. Just go away and deal with it. Just go and bury it.” That is what this Labour Government and David Cunliffe expect us to believe. This is the Oughton report in my hand here and the very first finding in the cover letter from David Oughton to Graham Fortune spells out that there is a matter that has to be attended to and that the only person who can attend to it is the Minister himself which the Minister would have known. The Minister took no— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Stop making it up! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I ask Lianne Dalziel to read the Oughton report. It makes it very clear that there is a special treatment required for the people who have missed out because Mary Anne Thompson’s family got unlawful decisions in its favour. The only person who can make exceptions to policy is the Minister and the Minister swept these things under the carpet. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou e te Whare nei. I wonder whether those senior citizens who are watching and listening to this debate have noticed that there has not been one mention about what the parties each of the previous speakers represented would do for them. That is one of the many things that make New Zealand First different from other parties in this House. The contribution of our senior citizens is immeasurable. We believe that in return our country has a duty to acknowledge that through adequate superannuation and adequate health-care and social services. In most other parts of the world and indeed in other cultures age is respected for its wisdom and enlightenment. New Zealand First supports that philosophy. 
Well it is Budget time and every New Zealander will be asking the question: what is in it for me? We know many senior citizens are having trouble making ends meet with the dramatically rising cost of food power and transport. So too are many families. We are not fair-weather friends for seniors—unlike some parties in this House. Thanks to New Zealand First superannuation is now paid at the rate of 66 percent of the net average wage for a married couple. On last election night the rate was just over 63 percent. We will push for a 68 percent rate after the next election because the way that superannuation is calculated means that senior citizens are always playing catch-up. The Government has promised tax cuts in this year’s Budget and we have had concerns raised with us at the impact of those cuts on the rate of superannuation. 
Let us turn to progress on the SuperGold card. This card was launched about 8 months ago and the number of business partners has risen dramatically from 188 businesses at the launch of the card to nearly 800 business partners with over 4000 business outlets now. That indicates just how significant and how popular the SuperGold card has been seen to be not only by the businesses of this country but by those for whom it is intended—that is our senior citizens. In just over 6 months the New Zealand SuperGold card has now become larger than the cards operating in several Australian states and they started well over a decade ago. Businesses are on board there are tens of thousands of people using the card and it is making a real difference for our senior citizens. The SuperGold card was never designed to replace local discount booklets but to complement them and I believe that it has certainly done that. 
The time has now come for Government services to be enhanced. Budget 2008 will contain $18 million of funding that will ensure that SuperGold cardholders will travel free on public transport during off-peak times during the day. New Zealand First has also secured a significant funding boost of $4.5 million in this year’s Budget to ensure greater access to hearing aids. The response of a member from the National Party during question time certainly is an indication that that member would benefit from having a SuperGold card and the assistance it will give in terms of hearing aids. 
Both Labour and National have missed the boat when it comes to tax cuts. If New Zealand First was presenting the Budget tomorrow we would introduce some quite radical changes. These are difficult times and they require measures that are both simple and effective. We would introduce a tax-free threshold for the first $5200 of income earned. 
Dail Jones 
: How much? 
PITA PARAONE 
: Five thousand two hundred dollars. People who get up to $100 a week through a part-time job or whatever else they may be doing would get that tax-free. But most important it represents a tax cut that everyone would benefit from. You see with that tax-free threshold in place married couples on New Zealand superannuation would receive an extra $21 a week while those on other rates would receive between $12 and $14 a week. 
Dail Jones 
: How much? 
PITA PARAONE 
: Between $12 and $14. This is a tax cut that would really make a difference. 
We would also bring in an incremental reduction in the level of the goods and services tax on all products. GST started at 10 percent; we want to gradually move it back to that figure over 3 years. In the first year we would drop it by 0.5 percent in conjunction with the tax cut mentioned previously and then drop it by 1 percent a year for the next 2 years. The total cost over 3 years is about $4.5 billion but that is less than the cost of the tax cuts that have been promised now. We actually believe it would be less than $4.5 billion because the money returned to people on low and fixed incomes would be recycled creating more tax revenue. The combination of a tax-free threshold and lowering GST to 10 percent would have the effect of increasing people’s purchasing power and lowering their living costs. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour) 
: 
 Malo Mr Assistant Speaker and members of the House. The political discussions throughout Manukau City by ordinary people by workers by citizens—the hard-working citizens of that city—in the last few weeks have been generally centred on three themes. The first theme is around who is going to be the better leader. Who provides strong leadership? The second theme is around sound responsible and robust policies—policies that are real policies that have substance and policies aimed at taking everyone with us so that no one is left behind. The third theme is around which political party is going to be able to form a Government come election time this year. 
When it comes to leadership let me say a few things. Manukau residents know well how hard working the Prime Minister is. They know her commitment and her dedication. The diverse communities of Manukau—and we have about 184 groups—admire her strong and decisive leadership style. Leadership is the key to our communities throughout Manukau. Leadership provides a vision of a better tomorrow. Leadership enables people to stand together in hard times and provides hope and aspiration to the younger generation. Leadership is about uniting our communities and going forward. 
I was asked by one or two of my friends at one particular discussion last week what National was like. They asked me what National’s leaders were like. Frankly I had to say to them with the greatest respect to my colleagues on the other side “They are hard to pin down.” One young man said to me: “It must be like trying to catch eels.” That is exactly what it is like. These young people understand when we say that National does not know what its policies are. And it is policies that are the other matter that will be important in addition to leadership—good leadership strong leadership and leadership that unites our community. 
So I come to policy. Policy is significant and the health policies of this Government have improved the livelihoods of many in our communities from young people to middle-income earners to the elderly folk. That is something that we celebrate and are grateful to this Government for. It is interesting that in this coming Budget this Government has more money to put into cancer treatment immunisation programmes and for patients to receive elective services. These are the kinds of policies that resonate with our communities in Manukau. 
One has to ask what sorts of policies the National Party will have in terms of health. What is its policy in terms of health care in terms of prescription costs and in terms of elective surgery? What is its policy on those issues? What is its policy on housing? Many of our communities have benefited from the income-related housing policy of this Labour-led Government. But we have to ask National what its housing policy is. Will it go back to its policies of the 1990s and sell off housing stock to its friends—its rich friends its business friends? What is its policy on industrial relations? We have not heard anything and workers throughout Manukau City will be listening for that kind of policy and whether National has one. What is National’s policy on State assets? We heard at one point in time it was prepared to sell off State assets. Then it said no then it said it would sell them off and maybe in its first term. What is its real position on that? Again our young people are going to say that dealing with the National Party is like trying to catch eels. 
What is National’s policy on Pacific affairs? What is its policy on Maori affairs? As I look across at Georgina te Heuheu I feel sorry for her particularly given National’s policy of abolishing the Maori seats. 
The last theme is about the team—the team that will be able to form a Government. The Labour Party was able to form a Government because of its working relationship with New Zealand First the Greens and United Future. It is the only party that has been able to show our country what leadership is about and how to provide a Government under an MMP system. Members on the other side of the House are talking about getting rid of MMP—oh no I forgot they want a referendum first. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The newest member of this House raised the issue of leadership in his speech and the issue of leadership in the Labour Party is about who is going to lead the Labour Party. Labour does not have to worry about leadership anywhere else but in the Labour Party. I want to give that member a history lesson. Let us go back to 11 June 1996. On that fateful day a number of senior front-bench Labour Party MPs—actually five front-bench MPs—went to Ms Clark as Leader of the Opposition as she was then and asked her to resign. Guess who was part of that famous five group? Mr Phil Goff led the challenge. He has wanted to be the leader of that party from day one when he first came into this House. In 1996 he showed his cards. He went in with Cullen King and a few others and went for that job but he did not get it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use members’ full names. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Mr Goff is now trying again. This is another time for him to have a go. 
Let us look at what was said back then in July 1996 about Mr Goff. He met Ms Clark on 28 May to suggest that with Labour’s poll rating at around 16 percent she might like to reconsider whether she was the best person to lead the party. Do not those words sound familiar to the ones we heard a few days ago? Mr Goff said that he believed he did nothing wrong and has no regret for what he did that day. In fact Mr Goff was quoted as saying: “You will find nothing on record from me during my time as a member of Parliament where I have said anything that might embarrass any leader who I have served or any party of which I am a member.” Is that right? Well I am sure he embarrassed his leader last week. 
He also said: “I have said nothing to you but the truth.” Well the truth is that he wants the leadership position. The truth is that Labour is in trouble. It knows it has problems it knows it needs a new leader and he is standing up because he wants to have that job. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Will he get it? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Well he did try again. In 1999 another takeover bid for Ms Clark’s job resurfaced after Mr Goff had invited MPs to his Auckland house for a barbecue. But no Ms Clark was not invited to that barbecue was she—the so-called party at Phil’s? However it did not lead to any challenge— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has been here long enough. He should know that he must address a person by his or her full name title or portfolio. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I was just quoting from the article. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member cannot get around the use of what is considered to be unparliamentary or the other use of titles by trying to ride over Speakers’ rulings and there are Speakers’ rulings on that. The member will use full names. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that ruling which we agree with. But the other point is that when you are on your feet the member whom you are addressing should be seated not standing. I would like to bring that to your attention as well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Swain. You are absolutely right. When the Speaker stands the member should be seated. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The so-called party at Mr Phil Goff’s did not however lead to any challenge and in that year there was no challenge to Clark. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. The member has done it again. He has one more chance or he will have a yellow card. The next time his speech will be terminated. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Mr Goff has shown a history of wanting to have leadership of the Labour Party. He has gone out there on numerous occasions since 1996 wanting to become the leader and this is just another example of that. Mr Goff is presenting himself as the natural leader for the Labour Party. Labour has to be asking some tough questions at its caucus meetings because it is in real trouble. It is backtracking on some of its big issues. It is backtracking on the emissions trading scheme. It is making legislation in name only with no practical implementation in the first couple of years. Labour is backtracking on its petrol taxes. It is not having any petrol taxes next year because it knows it is going into an election while people are hurting. Why are people hurting? It is because this Government has sat around for the best part of 8 or 9 years in good economic times and done nothing to build an economy that will progress this country through what we will come into over the next couple of years. This Government has sat through an increase in the debt levels in New Zealand high interest rates and a commodity boom that means it is difficult for New Zealanders with our low incomes to purchase goods on the international market and it has not given anyone a tax cut. It has not given anyone a chance to go out and progress his or her own business and make a go of it in this world. 
Unemployment will rise over the next year under this Government. It has already started in the first quarter of this year and will continue for the remainder of the year. The property market downturn has started and the Labour Party is just sitting back looking at that. Labour’s Budget tomorrow will not deliver anything for hard-working New Zealanders. Any tax cuts will be just a token effort by the Labour Party to try to neutralise any policy that National will come out with later in the year. Labour knows it is in trouble. Labour knows that it has a leader who is not performing and it has Mr Goff sitting in the wings wanting to take over. 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague who was just speaking David Bennett had a few problems getting members’ names correct and I acknowledge that. I would just like to draw your attention to the fact that when you were on your feet you said that you would use a yellow card. I have just taken the opportunity to look through the  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
 and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 the booklets that guide us through proceedings in this House. I wonder whether you could explain to the House where I could find a yellow card mentioned in one of those booklets. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is actually a figure of speech but for the member’s benefit I think I might actually have one. It means that the member is on a final warning; he gets one chance. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I know that the member for Hamilton East David Bennett deeply regrets being unable to mention the wonderful city of Hamilton in his speech. The member was supplied with compulsory speech notes from the Opposition that deliberately excluded the city of Hamilton from his speech. If he had been allowed he would have wanted to say: “Isn’t it wonderful that we had the Minister Pete Hodgson come up recently to announce the extension of the Waikato Innovation Park?”. That is what Mr Bennett wanted to say. Mr Bennett also wanted to acknowledge the very good work of my colleague Sue Moroney along with the other Government members of Parliament from Hamilton in bringing that about. 
What Mr Bennett also wanted to say which the research department in the whips’ office deliberately and cynically prevented him from saying was: “We are delighted to be looking forward to the opening of the new campus improvement of the Waikato Hospital in the near future which will reinforce its role as a major significant tertiary teaching hospital in our region.” That is what Mr Bennett deeply wanted to say. Mr Bennett wanted to observe the  
Waikato Times 
 reports of the still very positive consumer figures coming out of the Waikato in spite of international economic challenges. Mr Bennett also wanted to acknowledge the great leadership of Phil Goff and Helen Clark in signing the free-trade agreement with China and the implications this has for Fonterra farmers and milk powder producers. 
Mr Bennett was also talking about leadership. I know that in his heart of hearts he has some serious reservations about the in and out revolving door leadership of the National Party over the last 12 years. I asked the whip how many leaders National has had. There have been five or six. If it is a revolving door in terms of the leadership of the National Party it is a spinning door—a wheel of gravity—in terms of the deputy leadership. In fact I believe that in the whole parliamentary history of this country we have never had such a spinning door as we did when Dr Nick Smith was the deputy leader. For how long was he the deputy leader? That has to be New Zealand parliamentary history’s shortest term of deputy leadership of the two major parties. To even equal that kind of performance I think one would have to go back to the Liberal Party the Reform Party or probably even back to Governor Grey’s term when he served as Premier of this country in the 19th century. I know that is what Mr Bennett wanted to say in his speech but he was prevented from doing so. I know he wanted to give an objective account of leadership. 
If we talk about leadership let us talk about National’s leader Mr Key. Let us talk about his incredible leadership on a number of issues and the series of flip-flops. To speak about Mr Key in terms of leadership I will quote him from May 2005: “This Kyoto Protocol is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so. … even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it …”. That actually sounds like Maurice Williamson; I think he still has those views. A year later in November 2006 Mr Key said: “I firmly believe in climate change and I always have.” There we go. That is leadership. That is consistency. 
In the time that I have left I will talk about the mooted MMP referendum. I say to the smaller parties in the House particularly the Maori Party that it is very obvious what that means—with Peter Shirtcliffe pushing for it there will be a referendum on MMP. The plans are very clear: some people want to go back to first past the post. That means there will be an absolute dictatorship of one of the major parties in this House as opposed to there being the diversity of opinion and viewpoint in our modern democracy that is offered by the range of parties that is now represented. There is a very clear subtext on that agenda and I hope all parties and their supporters take very close note because what this says is very clear. These are coded words in the end for some people wanting to go back to the old days where they can have it all their own way. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 What an extraordinary couple of weeks and an extraordinary couple of days we have had all set against the background of a winter that can be best described as one of discontent. There have been 1700 job losses in the last couple of months. Business confidence is at an all-time low. People are leaving New Zealand in droves for Australia. Food prices are up petrol prices are up and interest rates are up. And what has this Government done? Well this Government seems to have given up. Just 5 months out from an election it feels that it is in trouble and is losing its nerve. 
We have a Government that is imploding and disintegrating in front of us. There is not just a bit of rearranging of the deck chairs; there is full-scale chaos in the Labour ranks. This Government is on the ropes. It has lost its nerve and just given up. This Government has had more prima facie cases credited to it than any other Government in living memory. This Government has had to fire or demote an unprecedented number of Cabinet Ministers. 
This Government brought us a State-funded pledge card in 2005. This Government brought in the Electoral Finance Act which is vile despicable legislation that is designed to get Labour re-elected no matter what. This Government will bring in tax cuts only in an election year. What a surprise! This Government is without morals or principles. It will do anything and everything to get re-elected. It is a desperate Government that has run out of ideas and is running out of time. It is out of touch with the people of New Zealand. It has decided to give up. This Government faced with an economy that is failing and discontent in its own ranks is throwing in the towel. 
Let us talk about the extraordinary behaviour of Phil Goff. Here we have a disciplined career politician of some 25 years who gave an extraordinary interview on Alt TV. What was he thinking? Did he think that no one would be watching? Was it intentional? Was it deliberate? Was it a lapse of judgment? Well that is the question on everyone’s lips and certainly it has been in all the major newspapers. The New Zealand Press Association said recently: “Phil Goff utters the ‘d’ word”. Articles in the  
New Zealand Herald  
recently were headed: “Goff turns clobbering machine on” and “Goff’s gaffe—blunder or power play?”. A recent  
Press 
 headline states: “Helen Clark v Phil Goff: is Labour cracking?”. [ 
Interruption 
] Those members do not like it. The  
Timaru Herald 
 talks about Labour speculation and a headline in the  
Dominion Post  
states: “Phil Goff drops leadership denials”. 
The inside information I am hearing is that it was intentional. Phil Goff is not the sort of person to have a lapse of judgment. It was deliberate positioning. The MP for Mt Roskill has been grooming himself for the No. 1 job for many many years. In fact this started in 1999 at Phil Goff’s barbecue when he first fired it up. Other members of Parliament joined him to discuss leadership. He has not retracted the comments he made on the Alt TV interview. He has been qualifying the comments by saying: “There is no question about leadership at this moment.” Well we all know what “at this moment” means. That is code for “It is going to happen—not just now but it will happen.” The Alt TV interview by Phil Goff was deliberate positioning. He was letting his supporters know that he is in the game. You know Phil Goff knows about timing. Timing is everything and he knows his time will come. 
Then we had the extraordinary case of Mary Anne Thompson and the Immigration Service. What a strange story has been emerging! [ 
Interruption 
] Government members do not like it; they are squirming on the other benches. We have seen Cabinet Ministers ducking and diving taking no responsibility and denying any knowledge of the mess that has happened. They have had lapses of memory and they have been blaming officials. I want to know why there was no action in December last year when both Minister Cosgrove and Minister Cunliffe were briefed about the serious concerns in the Immigration Service. Why did they not act immediately to rectify the situation? 
Today my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith revealed that he has had 27 written questions signed off by the previous Minister of Immigration confirming that there has been fraud and corruption in the Immigration Service. He has also had 16 written questions signed off by the current Minister of Immigration. That is absolutely astonishing and astounding. It seems amazing that they are denying any knowledge of the Mary Anne Thompson case and the fact that she helped to bring her family members into New Zealand under the strangest of situations and the only reason there is an inquiry now is that they got caught out. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 16 April. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It was with some dismay actually that I was cut off after only 1½ minutes of making a contribution on the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill on the last members’ day some 2 to 3 weeks ago. But I have emphasised to members of the House that the National Party will continue to support this bill. The bill of course amends the Corrections Act to allow children under the age of 24 months to be accommodated in the prisons where their mothers are incarcerated as long as certain specific conditions are met. This change to the legislation which was brought to the House by Sue Bradford and supported unanimously by the Law and Order Committee to come back to the House will bring New Zealand into line with most comparable Western jurisdictions. 
It is important to emphasise in respect of this bill that the interests that should be primary to any decision as to whether an infant baby remains in the possession or care of that infant’s mother—the primary considerations—have to be those relating to that child. The rehabilitative needs of the mother are not a matter of primary concern although certainly if addressing those needs is a by-product of the decisions this statute would bring into force we would hope that that also would bring positive outcomes. But the most important thing here is that if the interests of a child under that age are best served by being accommodated in the prison of choice then that is where we see the most significant factor lying. 
Eligibility to make such an application is an interesting matter and an amendment to new section 81A(1) inserted by clause 5 was in fact put in by the select committee. That section allows female prisoners to keep their children with them in prison up to the age of 24 months. As drafted originally the provision did not make it clear whether only biological mothers were eligible to apply for the programme. The committee recommended that that section be changed to indicate that the female prisoner who applies must be the child’s primary caregiver or that that is likely to be the case on her release from prison in order to allow for the situation of caregivers who for one reason or another may not be the children’s biological mothers. 
Clearly strict screening has to be in place before a decision on an application could be made. Again an amendment to new section 81A(1) was recommended by the committee requiring that the prisoner’s background be checked for previous convictions “involving sexual or violent offending against children;”. If a prisoner is found to have such convictions she would automatically be ineligible for such a programme. The committee also recommended that new section 81A(1) include a provision that women have to agree to be screened for mental health or substance abuse issues in order to become eligible for the programme. Indeed in the commentary on the bill we again emphasise that the child’s needs should be the primary consideration. 
So the House will see that there are a number of hurdles to be leapt before an application can be made to keep an infant child with his or her mother in prison. On top of meeting all of those criteria the ultimate discretion would remain with the chief executive of the Department of Corrections and in fact the committee recommended that section 81A(2) be amended by changing “must”—in other words an automatic triggering of the right—to “may”. That of course means that a discretion resides with the chief executive. Although we agree that the chief executive should approve a request where other criteria are met we still have to have that residual discretion remaining with the chief executive. 
We were advised by the department that significant alterations would be needed in order that sufficient space be available in one of the units—in other words there will be fiscal implications arising from this particular legislation. The bill I believe in the Committee stage will need to address that fiscal constraint and I know that Sue Bradford the member who is promoting the bill is aware of members’ concerns—well not concerns but members’ desire to make sure that we will not get a series of facilities that are not up to scratch or that bore into the core work that the department needs to do in some of these areas. 
It is also important for the mothers of these babies or young infants to realise that this measure is not a one-way street and that parenting agreements will be a major component of this bill under new section 81B inserted by clause 5. This section sets out the obligations of both the mother and the department when dealing with this particular placement. The arrangements of course will include health and well-being checks for the child Plunket checks counselling parenting visits and the like. Those things can be only positive for a child who is kept in the care of a mother who is incarcerated. There is an insertion of new section 81C(2) to include all babies’ types of feeding arrangements not only breastfeeding. Of course we await the Committee stage of this bill. 
In closing I tell Sue Bradford—through you of course Mr Assistant Speaker—that this bill was not without controversy when it was first introduced. National was pleased to be the first party out of the blocks to support Ms Bradford’s endeavours to get this bill through its first reading. The bill was not without the need for amendment at the select committee but that was a constructive and useful process. Ms Bradford’s sitting at those committee hearings made sure that the committee did not lose sight of her end goal in bringing the bill to the House in the first place. I think we will still need to make one or two amendments in the Committee stage but we will work our way through that process. As I indicated at the first reading National supports this bill at its second reading. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am delighted to be given an opportunity to speak to this bill. It was very heartening to hear that the Opposition—which I understand from Paula Bennett’s comments in the House the other day does not have a women’s caucus—does support this bill. It is a very good thing to hear that unanimously everybody on the Law and Order Committee saw the sense behind supporting Sue Bradford’s bill to this second reading stage. 
I congratulate Sue Bradford and the Greens. I think they are incredibly lucky in the bills that come out of the ballot. It is “Eat your heart out!” stuff really because they are great bills and they are about the social fabric of New Zealand. This bill really went to the heart of how we recognise parenting and the attachment of mothers and babies—regardless of what happens on that infant’s journey through life. And these children would be the most vulnerable members of our community. They did not ask to be born into a circumstance where a mother had got into overwhelming trouble and was having to face imprisonment. These children would be the most vulnerable and they deserve the best opportunity in life to break that cycle of the situation into which they are born. So I think it is a fantastic bill which will support that bonding and attachment. 
I want to point out that on hearing Simon Power’s speech I was a bit concerned when he talked about the infant as a possession of the mother. Infants are actually an intrinsic part of both of their parents and of a wider family but the primary caregiver at that vital stage of life whether or not they are breastfeeding is their mother. It would be appalling to separate them or for a child to be seen as a possession—that is not the way we look on these children. It is really important in this bill that we reflect how we can most effectively support these children. I think the Law and Order Committee has done a great job actually in its report back to the House. 
This bill will have a fiscal impact as was pointed out and that is of some concern to us. A little newborn baby can be very very easily accommodated as we all know but once a baby starts crawling walking and exploring the greater world he or she needs access to a very different physical environment. The prison environment is probably not the right place for mothers to be with their children. That comes to the point that Phil Goff raised in his speech—that we need to look at other sentencing options for mothers and children in the first place. Bail and electronic monitoring where these mothers could stay at home with their children in a family environment is of course where we would rather see them. We want to see law changes that support bail with electronic monitoring because to take that unit away from the wider family will set them off on the wrong pathway. 
This is a terrific bill and I think the Committee stage where amendments will come before the House will be a very important process for the House to consider. I look forward to some of the amendments that may be tabled during this stage. I think that this bill builds on what the left—the Greens the Maori Party and Labour—have been saying really about all these initiatives that build strong healthy and resilient families. It also links back to the work we are doing in the Government about family violence. I believe we need more and more programmes to support breaking the cycle of family violence. Access to doctors and treatment for drug and alcohol concerns for mothers is a very important aspect. The Working for Families package is too: when that mother goes home with her little one they need more income coming into the family in order to break that cycle of poverty from which lawlessness often results. 
I think this is a terrific bill. It adds to the fabric of the way we see the building of resilient families and it is putting children at the centre of all policy. I congratulate the Law and Order Committee on this bill I look forward to the second stage amendments and I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker tena tatou. The Maori Party comes to the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill believing that when we focus on the intersection between mothers and babies in the criminal justice system there should be one essential principle that guides all others—that is the principle of whanaungatanga. Whanau is whakapapa or genealogy; whanau is kotahitanga or about being united; and whanau is manaakitanga or looking after one another. In fact although whanau in Maori means “to give birth” it also means “family”. 
Whanau to be quite frank is more than merely a mum. A child who is born to a whanau belongs to us all. I have personal experience: I was not raised by my mother; I was raised by my grandmother and two aunts. I do not recall that that in any way hindered my development. In fact it gave me greater opportunities possibly than I would have had had I been raised by my own mother. So although we of course support the importance of bonding where that needs to happen we also believe that bonding can take place within the wider whakapapa and that it must not be undermined by a reliance on one birth parent. Again I refer to my own situation. I am raising a mokopuna. She knows her mother and her father but I am her mama. I am the one who does everything for her and she is the light of my life. 
I have to say from the outset that it is sad enough that tamariki get caught up in their mothers’ offending. Those children have committed no crime yet in many ways they are the ones who pay the price. No child should be raised in a prison. It is a volatile and hostile environment—the very antithesis of what we expect our children to grow up in. So I support the korero of Ministers Phil Goff and Steve Chadwick when they say that ideally these children should be raised at home with their mothers serving a home detention. Prison is hardly a safe environment for women let alone babies and young children and it is certainly not the best place in which to support the mental emotional and physical development of a child. But some women will offend and some women will end up in prison giving birth and having to take their tamariki into that environment. So we acknowledge Sue Bradford for thinking of those women and children. The Maori Party recognises that there may be some women who do not have family to call on yet seek to maintain contact with their children while they are incarcerated. Those women need all the support available to guide them in such a vital role. The well-being of our children depends on support and education being readily available and on hand to ensure that their needs are met. 
Let me again return to the notion of whanaungatanga. This is the collective investment in the generations the genealogical commitment to the well-being of the whanau hapu and iwi. This should be uppermost in our consideration of how best to provide for children under the age of 24 months. Children should be able to benefit from the unique bonding caring and nurturing of their mother and also their father whatever setting they are in. But the question I would ask is whether it has to be in a prison. Every newborn baby provides every whanau with a new opportunity to protect and respect the cultural heritage that he or she has emerged into. The sad thing for me is that too many of our parents become parents without ever having had the privilege of receiving the kind of support and the kind of parenting that enables them to be the very best parent possible for their child. The Maori Party welcomes the opportunity in this bill to give practical support to positive parenting. We were interested that the Law and Order Committee gave emphasis to the facilities the accommodation the treatment of inmates and the institutional context in which these mothers with babies are found but surely the key priority is in thinking about how to promote the value of being an effective parent. 
There is also another critical component of this situation—that is our children will not be our children forever. They will eventually become other people’s husbands and wives the parents of our grandchildren and the grandparents of our mokopuna tuarua. So it is important that we get it right for their sakes. The absolute irony in all of this is that we are discussing the beauty of having children child rearing and childcare within the context of incarceration. We know that Maori women are disproportionately represented in the penal system and it stands to reason then that Maori babies will be overrepresented and therefore more likely to benefit from the provisions of this bill. We were pleased to see some flexibility added in as a result of the select committee deliberation. Mothers who are not breastfeeding are included in the provisions of the bill. Caregivers who may not be the children’s biological mothers are also able to apply for eligibility on this programme. 
This bill focuses on the best interests of the child and certainly that is what the Maori Party would expect. In a Maori world view the best interests of the child include nurturing and promoting connections within his or her wider whanau. We wonder whether the parenting agreements although currently fixed on the circumstances of the individual could be expanded to include the wider whanau and hapu responsibility not just for the child but for the mother as well. We noted the advice from the Law and Order Committee that the agreements be limited in effect only as far as our vision determines. If the list of obligatory conditions is truly to serve as a starting point we would expect whanau responsibility and obligation to be inserted into that template. So in the segments of the proposed parenting agreement where “the mother” or the “alternative caregiver” is referred to we would be very keen to see a broader approach taken here also to transform the parenting agreement into a whanau arrangement. 
We note the importance of international evidence to this debate. In New York there is a correctional facility for women that enables newborns to stay with their mother until the age of 2. At 2 years of age the child is then transferred to his or her extended family or the State system where the child can continue to visit his or her mum. The research concludes that this process is far healthier than taking away the baby at say 6 months of age. Some sceptics may say that babies will remember they were born behind prison walls and that they will never be able to get over the limitations of that early start. This bill gives us all an opportunity for another view—to believe that these babies may know that they were nurtured breastfed held and loved by the person who brought them into the world. What this bill does not deal with and what we must attend to is the impacts of life after incarceration for children. In the state of Oregon three centres have opened called the Centre for Family Success. The centres deal with parents who have been incarcerated and provide services such as parenting employment mentoring and counselling. The centres have also started parenting classes in both male and female prisons. These classes have been so successful that the waiting lists are apparently legendary. 
We must do all we can to ensure that the children of the incarcerated become the children of family success. Although the State can do so much our greatest opportunity is to commit to family decision-making and to family success as our most important role. This bill values the significant relationship between mother and child and gives honour to the unique foundation such a relationship provides for every whanau and their future. We will be supporting this bill but we do so with some reservations. Our key priority is supporting children to be raised in loving whanau. We simply do not accept that a prison no matter how much effort is made to humanise it will ever be an appropriate environment for a child. We believe that all circumstances should be traversed. Kia ora. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge Sue Bradford for the work she has done in promoting the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill and for encouraging us to recognise the negative impact of maternal imprisonment on the children of women prisoners. I think everybody in this House would recognise that the children of prisoners are amongst the most vulnerable members of our community and that therefore anything we can do to support children in this situation is very important. It is important in the context of this debate that we address how we can most effectively support those children. I also acknowledge the Law and Order Committee for approaching this topic in a non-partisan way and for its contributions to the bill. 
Tariana Turia has I think just drawn attention to one way to reduce the impact on children of maternal imprisonment and that is where possible not to send women offenders with dependent children to prison. I like to think that our justice system today in situations where it is compatible with public safety and the interests of justice will use community-based sentences instead of imprisonment. The Government has taken a number of steps to strengthen sentencing options. Stronger community-based sentences are now available to judges which means that home detention community detention and intensive supervision may often be suitable alternatives to a prison sentence. Such community-based sentences avoid our having to separate mothers and children. The sentences also allow women offenders more easily to be linked into a range of community and social services to support them and allow communities to be much more active in their role in supporting women and leading them away from the path to reoffending. Most important they would mean that children who are often in the position of not having a father at home would not lose a mother as well as a father in terms of their carers. 
Having said all of that which I think would be agreed to by most members of the House I know that most of us also acknowledge that there are times when a woman’s offending means that a prison sentence is the only appropriate response. Currently babies up to 6 months of age can reside in prisons with their mothers. The women and their children are housed in self-care units with other women offenders preparing for release from prison. But there are restrictions on who can take advantage of that arrangement. Women must have a minimum-security classification in order to participate in the programme for mothers with children in prison. The prison system also attempts to assist by having breastfeeding and bonding facilities available to women prisoners who do not have minimum-security classification or who for example may be on remand. The children can come in on a daily basis to feed and to bond with their mothers but for the rest of the time they reside with alternative caregivers. I also accept Tariana Turia’s argument that often people in the wider family can care appropriately for those children. 
Importantly this bill seeks to make it possible in appropriate circumstances for more children to reside in prison with their mothers. It does that by raising the upper age that children can reside in prison from 6 months to 2 years. It also opens up participation to all women prisoners with dependent children under the age of 2 not just those who have a minimum-security classification. Our first instinct is that children and prisons do not go naturally together. If we are to allow older children to reside in prison we need to make sure we have an environment that supports their developmental needs; otherwise there is a risk that we could do more harm than good. The existing self-care units are not specifically designed with older children in mind. Most of us who are parents understand that the developmental needs of a 2-year-old are vastly different from those of a 6-month-old baby and that a 2-year-old requires more varied stimulation for growth and development. 
The initial advice to me from the Department of Corrections was that to fully meet the needs of women prisoners with children aged up to 2 it would need an additional specifically designed 24 places in prison. This the department said would cost around $20 million in capital expenditure and around $6.5 million in annual operating expenditure. That cost is very difficult to justify when we consider other competing needs; that $26 million might alternatively be used to for example assist disadvantaged children in the community. Those costs were based on building and staffing for separate accommodation for mothers with children to optimal standards in all three of New Zealand’s women’s prisons. If the level of demand did not fill those positions it would be a very expensive and perhaps unnecessary provision. Of course we hope that with alternative community sentencing we may lower the level of demand for women and their children to be accommodated in prison. Finding $1 million to accommodate a woman and her child is hard to prioritise against other needs. 
As a result I asked the Department of Corrections to come up with alternative and perhaps more financially realistic proposals to allow the department to respond to this bill and to have a more immediate impact in terms of avoiding separating mothers and children. The department did that. Its representatives came back and spoke with me. I met with Sue Bradford to discuss what we might do that would have an immediate impact and would be affordable in terms of the Budget. The department came up with a total of eight places in Auckland and Christchurch women’s prisons at a cost of about $2 million in capital and $1.5 million in operating expenditure. In addition children at all three facilities it said could remain with their mothers for 9 months. I think this would certainly be a good first step. 
I took the time to discuss this with Sue Bradford because I knew we shared the same objectives and wanted a realistic way in which to deliver those particular objectives. Sue Bradford said to me—and she will respond in the House—that she thought this was a sensible approach that was capable of being built on for the future. To do it however I needed a Supplementary Order Paper. Otherwise we would have to find the $26 million upfront. Therefore I have circulated Supplementary Order Paper 174 to all members. It amends subsection (1) of section 81C which is inserted by clause 5 to make the construction of accommodation for women prisoners with children who are less than 2 years of age subject to the availability of resources. This would mean we could bring this in in a way that lowers the costs without sacrificing the objective. It would mean we could phase in necessary changes in accommodation giving us time to see how our new sentencing practices work in terms of avoiding the need for mothers and children to be in prison and allowing the department to build up the required facilities gradually and in a more cost-effective way. 
I have had the chance to discuss this alternative with a range of members of Parliament from different parties and there appears to be quite a strong level of support for proceeding in this manner. I therefore commend this amendment for the consideration of the Committee of the whole House. Again I thank particularly Sue Bradford for the concern and hard work she has put into this. I also thank all members of Parliament who have risen above the sort of politicking that often comes up in a discussion relating to prisons and law and order in order to look at how we might best do something that will make a real difference for these children and in a way that also preserves the integrity of our justice system and the safety of the public. Once again I thank Sue Bradford for her contribution to this debate and I thank members for their consideration of the Supplementary Order Paper that is on the Table of the House in my name. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future is happy to support the second reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Like everybody else I want to congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also congratulate the Law and Order Committee on the work it has done and the changes it has made during the select committee process. 
I am interested however in a couple of issues that I raised in my first reading speech—issues that I would have thought would come under the parenting agreements section of the bill. I still do not see any reference to the fact that all the provisions around parenting agreements listed so far are limited to the mother and the child and to the arrangements that will best support them. There is no mention of the fact that there may be a father who wants access to the child and to how that would be facilitated in terms of parenting arrangements. I find that an interesting oversight as also is the lack of mention of the ability for grandparents and the wider family who also want regular contact with the child to have visiting rights and so on as they would if the child were being raised out of prison. There is currently nothing mentioned in the bill. I accept that it may be intended at a later date to add more under the parenting agreements schedule but I find it interesting that currently the select committee has overlooked that. I agree with the Maori Party that although the intention of this bill is to ensure that appropriate bonding and everything that goes with babies and mothers is not disrupted by prison a child has needs that are a lot wider than just the bonding that happens with his or her mother. I think we need to be really mindful of that. 
I agree with the Hon Phil Goff’s comments previously. Let me put this to the House: if a mother is safe enough to have her child in prison with her then are we not saying she is safe enough and of such low risk that a community-based sentence would be a more appropriate response to that woman? United Future would be hugely interested in hearing whether there is some ongoing investigation around that; I think that it is quite possible. I am interested that the Australian Government has signalled that it is looking at some new mechanisms for much more intensive case management of certain at-risk families in the community—around management of their benefits and a whole lot of things like that—where there has been a real history of problems. I am unaware of anything that is being considered in the New Zealand context right now but it occurs to me that with community-based sentences for mothers these kinds of things could very easily be done so that there was some consequence for the actions that put the women before the court in the first place. So it is not a getting away with a crime that we are talking about here but actually a facilitation of a mother’s ability to be with her family and do the job that is of the highest priority to her while serving out a community-based sentence. I think there is a huge amount of potential for that to be developed in the future. 
I also accept that if we extend the age at which a child can be housed in a prison facility from 6 months to 2 years then the resourcing for that really does need to be put in place. I am interested in the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister has just referred to because I think it is an important issue. However I would hate to think that this matter was stymied by an unwillingness to supply resources or to move at pace to see what can be done. It does not sound to me to involve the kinds of costs that are on the high end in terms of Government expenditure but if there was the will to do it—and certainly regarding the situation in this bill we have demonstrated in the House there is a real openness for that to be the case—then surely it means that regardless of who is leading the Government after the election this matter will be advanced and progressed in some way that is measurable with some time lines around it so we can see that it is implemented as soon as possible. 
So United Future is happy. We are pleased with what the select committee has done. We think that this is an issue we need to progress deliberately but to observe mindfully in order to see what else needs to be done around its edges. I am particularly interested in the extended family having access to those children and the ways we facilitate that and in looking at the whole way we sentence mothers. I really do accept and believe that if we are saying a mother is safe enough to have her child with her in prison then we are also saying she is safe enough for a community-based sentencing provision. Again let this not be the end of the story but let us take some really strong steps in that direction to discover what could be accomplished. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I would like first of all to thank my colleague Sue Bradford for bringing this bill before the House. I also thank the different parties in the House for their support—I think that that support is now universal—and all the previous speakers for their universally thoughtful and considered contributions to this debate. It is an important issue and it goes to the heart of how we see the criminal justice system. It seems there is a general abhorrence across the House for the practice reported by some inmates that access to their babies and breastfeeding rights are being used as a disciplinary and control measure by some Department of Corrections staff. 
It seems that there is recognition across the House of the importance of contact between mothers and babies both for the well-being of the babies and to enhance the rehabilitative prospects for the mothers. It seems also that there is a general recognition that in relation to mothers with babies the justice policy needs to humanise rather than dehumanise—not just to rehabilitate but in the words of the Roper report to habilitate. 
So although I welcome the support for this bill I think it is worth extending that thinking that approach a little bit further and having a look at how a more humanised approach might improve the prospects not just of imprisoned mothers and their babies but of imprisoned women and men more generally. We in this country have the second-highest rate of imprisonment in the Western World after the United States. We know that some 80 percent of inmates reoffend within 3 years of release. For young people offending tends to become more serious once they have entered the prison system and bizarrely given those facts we know that over half of the prison population is inside for non-violent offences. So although I agree with Mr Goff that sometimes prison may be the only appropriate sentence and in particular where there is a need for containment to ensure the safety of others I have to say that that condition occurs far less often than prison sentences do. 
The rate of imprisonment in New Zealand is just too high. We need to look at a better way forward and many of the ingredients of that way forward are already clear to us. A number of speakers have referred to the increased use of home detention for mothers with dependent children and I support that. Judy Turner made the point that we need to look at sentencing because if we consider that mothers are safe to look after their babies in prison it would seem on the face of it that there is a good case to say that a community sentence would be appropriate. 
But it actually goes much further than that. We need to move much further in reforming the criminal justice system if we want to see something that works all around. Meaningful recognition and support for the needs of victims of crime is crucial both to improve the system for victims of crime and because it can have rehabilitative value as well. The recent Justice and Electoral Committee report offers a number of ways forward on that including better use of and greater access to restorative justice as a key alternative justice path. 
We need to see better access to mental health services in the community and in custody and a full implementation of the mental health blueprint. We know there are high numbers of untreated mental illness among inmates and offenders. We need to see substantially better provision of addiction treatment services for gambling and for alcohol and other drugs both in the community and in custody and in particular in youth residential facilities. 
In particular we need to see much more focus on early intervention at community family and individual levels. We need to strengthen families and parenting skills promote non-violence and effective communication skills and address poverty poor housing truancy and school suspensions. Those last few are actually vitally important. Judge Becroft has said that the single biggest thing we can do to deter youth offending—and by implication later adult offending—is to keep young people in education. Yet many of our schools still see the expulsion of young people as the easy way out in the face of sometimes relatively minor problems. The Court of Appeal case taken by Lynfield College is I think a demonstration of that mentality. 
Even for those in prison we can do much much more in providing addiction treatment employment guidance and reintegration strategies such as maintaining healthy connections with family and community and other initiatives. This bill is obviously one step in that direction towards greater reintegration of people in prison. Again I thank Sue Bradford for the bill. I thank members for their support of the bill and I hope that all parties will continue to demonstrate the same insight that they have shown on this bill on wider justice policy issues. 
Bill read a second time. 
Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The second reading of this bill is very timely. Over the last two episodes of  
Fair Go 
 a story has been running about children who are employed as independent contractors to deliver junk mail. The children some as young as 12 and others aged nearly 16 are earning as little as 25c an hour and to make matters worse they have recently had their pay cut.  
Fair Go 
 reports that it has had more responses to that story than to any other story this year. There has been outrage about what is happening to those children but there were interestingly as many stories about adults who are employed as contractors being pressured in the same way as those children. I am not surprised at that. This bill started with a concern about leaflet deliverers but since the bill was introduced almost 2 years ago many workers employed as contractors in a wide variety of occupations and industries have come forward to say that this kind of abuse is happening to them as well. 
It is a privilege to speak up for those workers who are currently without minimum wage protection. It is a privilege to speak on behalf of those workers who will not have had the benefit of increases to the minimum wage this year and who will not have them next year or indeed in any year unless this legislation is passed. Labour has done a lot to restore fairness for workers over the last 8½ years but this bill does break new ground at the harder end of the labour market. Most submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee agreed that the principle behind this bill is absolutely correct: no one who works in this country should be paid less than a socially acceptable minimum wage. In the select committee process we heard of contractors who are in need of minimum wage protection in many occupations and in many industries. For some workers the situation is so bad that they cannot even prove whether they have been paid fairly or paid at all because the contractor who engaged them does not keep any records. 
Contract workers have told me about how they have been affected by the lack of any minimum wage protection. For example a pizza delivery man told me he was employed as a contract driver not as an employee. Then his franchise boss decided that he should work 10 hours straight on at well below the minimum wage. A home-care worker on 24 hour shifts looking after a man with Alzheimer’s disease signed a contract with an agency that said she was self-employed and therefore not entitled to the minimum wage. A waitress was told she was not an employee but an independent contractor with a waitressing business. A hotel housekeeper was contracted on a room by room cleaning basis. A worker in her brief experience as a subcontractor hired to mop floors and dust offices later discovered that other workers had also signed an independent contract with the licensee of a commercial cleaning company. She was told where and when to clean and told to buy hundreds of dollars worth of supplies. Ten months after signing her contract after working for what amounted to less than $6 an hour she has no cleaning business and the company is still recruiting workers with employment ads that say: “Be your own boss”. 
Under these and other types of shocking contracting arrangements many low-paid workers who deliver services are being denied the minimum wage. But actually it is not just those workers whom we think of as vulnerable who are being affected. Actors Equity and the Musicians Union are also calling on politicians today to support this bill. They say that the poor pay and conditions of many actors and musicians are not commonly known and that because they are classed as dependent or independent contractors they are expected to work for a whole lot less than the minimum wage. Under New Zealand’s labour laws minimum standards protect an employee’s right to annual holidays statutory holidays sick leave the minimum wage and holiday pay. But the catch is that one has to be an employee. So at the end of the working week the wages of many contractors can amount to a lot less than half the legal minimum wage. The most disturbing part of this trend is that big and small companies alike are passing on the risk and the cost of doing business to the lowest-paid workers. 
I talked to a truck driver who was employed as an independent contractor. He was promised $1000 a week worth of driving work. He thought that driving would be the perfect job for him and would deliver a decent income for him and his family. For 2 months he received no jobs. Then he received a call to come in for training and he watched an hour-long video on how to drive trucks. Then he heard nothing again for weeks. Frustrated and worried he made repeated phone calls to the principal contractor and was finally assigned a job driving every Saturday on a contract worth less than $100 a week. The driver eventually got two more contracts but the three jobs altogether paid only $450 a week less than half of what he had been promised and he had to work long and sometimes dangerous hours. When the driver approached the principal contractor he was told that every driver the principal contractor employs runs an independent business and that the principal contractor bears no responsibility to the workers. The principal contractor told the driver it was up to the drivers to do their own thing and that he had nothing to do with the workers. His advice to the truck driver was that if he had a problem he should go to the disputes tribunal. 
That kind of employment practice is a real problem here in New Zealand. It has the potential to grow if we do nothing. We have the opportunity to do something about it and my bill provides that opportunity. The changing labour market in New Zealand needs to be acknowledged. Study after study has found that non-standard work has become a mechanism for lower pay fewer benefits less job security and fewer career opportunities. 
I know that National members will stand up in a minute and say that this bill interferes with commercial relationships and that they will utter other homilies that would be quite at home in a Bill Birch speech from the 1990s. If they have a problem with basic minimum pay and protections for such workers they should tell us that and also tell the people of New Zealand so that when they vote later this year they will do so with their eyes wide open. And a similar question can and will be directed to New Zealand First United Future and Gordon Copeland who are not supporting this bill. 
This bill is about workers who are paid substandard wages in cash and who do not exist in any records. It is about the businesses that hire those workers which claim they have no legal responsibility for them and use contracting arrangements to avoid labour rights and decent pay. The basic principle behind my bill is that it is not fair that some workers should be paid less than others simply because they happen to be in a working arrangement that does not fit within our current employment laws. 
During the select committee process the Labour members of the select committee accepted that the bill needed to be narrowed in its application. As is evident from our comments in the select committee report we acknowledged the validity of some of the concerns around individual arrangements such as those involving the person who mows lawns paints houses or provides catering for a family wedding. So in the Committee stage I intend to move a number of amendments by way of Supplementary Order Paper to limit the scope of the bill to specified occupations. There will be no differentiation in pay between workers aged 16 and 17 and older workers in the Supplementary Order Paper amendments as well. Other amendments will also spell out how minimum remuneration could be calculated when many contracts for services are not hours based. Others will provide more clarity to the definition of principles and will specifically exclude householders. 
In finishing I thank the previous and present Ministers of Labour the officials the advisers and my colleagues on the select committee for their dedicated work on this very important bill. I thank the submitters and all of those workers who have spoken out. I also thank the Greens and the Maori Party for their support. I say to them that by supporting this bill they are helping to provide the most basic of protections to minimum pay—in other words a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. I look forward to this bill progressing through its stages in the House. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 When the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill was originally introduced National was very clear that it considered the bill to be fundamentally flawed. The reason we did so is that we considered that Labour and in particular the member promoting the bill was trying to turn people who are self-employed into employees essentially against their will. By and large it is a matter of choice as to which status one has—whether one is self-employed or whether one is an employee. Over a long number of years both the Employment Court and the income tax legislation tribunals have set up a series of tests so that for instance employers cannot just say of their employees that they are independent contractors and assume that is the end of the matter. The independent tests rest on whether a person has a level of independence in how he or she conducts the work when it is conducted and under what conditions it is conducted. It is known as the control test. 
I suggest that many of the cases referred to by Darien Fenton would not pass the level of control that would make them truly independent contractors. I would be very interested to know if some of those people have taken cases to the various tribunals whether the Employment Relations Authority determined the true status and similarly whether the Inland Revenue Department determined it. As I say it is not something that is determined just by people saying they are something even if the objective reality says that they are not. I think that the test would not be satisfied in many of the cases the member referred to. It is a pretty tall ask to suggest that children delivering pamphlets are anything other than employees in truth. How many children can determine the nature of their work the way in which they do it and so on and so forth? These things do have an element of objectivity. 
Along with most New Zealanders I am sure I was shocked and surprised at what has occurred in relation to the delivery of pamphlets and it is a genuine concern. However the question is whether this bill is the way to resolve those kinds of problems. National members concluded at the time of the introduction of the bill as did those of our members who were on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the answer was no and that the bill was altogether far too sweeping in that it effectively turned people who were self-employed into employees and gave them all the protections of the Employment Relations Act as if they were employees. The truth is that most people who are self-employed have made that a deliberate choice. They want more flexibility. They want different working hours. They want less accountability to the employer—to their boss so to speak. In short they want a separation between themselves and the employer so that they have a certain level of control over their lives and the law has always recognised that free choice by people. 
As I have said there is a series of independent tests to see whether the threshold is achieved. So for instance if people become self-employed they end up having to register for GST they are responsible for accident compensation levies and they have to provide a business tax return as well. Those are the responsibilities of being in business. In short the self-employed take risks that employees do not. The principle risk that is taken is the business risk and the business risk is that one’s income is not guaranteed. But conversely there is the prospect of much greater income if one was to measure it on an hourly basis than otherwise would be the case. That is effectively the distinction between those people who are self-employed and those who are employees. 
The bill as drafted was flawed at the most fundamental level. The select committee sought to rectify those problems. It is clear from reading the select committee’s report that they were unable to be rectified because of as much as anything I guess some fundamental drafting problems. However I also note that many of the submitters did not think this bill was capable of satisfactory rectification. That was certainly the conclusion of the National Party because ultimately the bill would cut across the choice people have made. It cut across their choice to stay away from the Employment Relations Act precisely because they wanted more flexibility. In short those people wanted to be business people and that has the status of being self-employed. 
Labour will always have us believe—and I have heard this from Green Party members also—that there is a third category that is not a legal term but rather a term of art and it is the dependent employee. It is someone in some sort of middle status who is not self-employed or an employee but who is a dependent contractor. Along with my colleagues I will be very interested to see the nature of the Supplementary Order Papers that Darien Fenton proposes to introduce. Certainly it was clear that she was unable to satisfy the National members on the select committee that those amendments would be suitable and practical. 
My colleagues who have worked right at the forefront of industrial and employment relations know the challenges. Paula Bennett in particular has a very clear understanding of those issues because she has worked in the area of human resources. So more than most people in this House she has a very clear understanding of the impracticability of the issues that were raised by the member—that is the way in which law is not always a satisfactory solution to those issues. 
National will be voting against the report back in the second reading. We are not satisfied with the way things initially turned out with the bill as introduced. I spoke in the first reading debate and said that this bill was perhaps one of the most ill-conceived measures that I had seen in my time in Parliament. This bill is just a blatant crossing over of long-established legal distinctions between the self-employed—that is business people—and employees as if the two could be just easily and smoothly meshed. It is clear the select committee was unable to resolve that particular dilemma. I suspect the reason was that the bill as introduced has fundamental flaws. Can those be fixed during the Committee stage? Frankly based on the advice of my colleagues the answer would have to be no. But this is an issue that one has to keep under advisement. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The previous speaker has never been in touch with the issue. There is no fear about his getting out of touch because he has never ever been in touch with the realities of what he was just talking about. He is advising these people who deliver pamphlets that they are really in it because they are business people and that they have to understand the risk they are taking in self-employment; that they have to line up and register for GST. Yeah right! Those people who earn 25c an hour from Reachmedia to deliver pamphlets into letterboxes really do need to be able to go and get a highly paid lawyer like Dr Wayne Mapp to challenge Reachmedia and prove that they are not actually contractors but employees. 
Dr Wayne Mapp says Labour members are out of touch with reality. Well anybody who just listened to that nonsense coming out of his mouth would be just astounded that the National Party thinks this bill is about self-employed business people getting out there to deliver Countdown supermarket leaflets into letterboxes or for the Warehouse or Farmers or Michael Hill Jeweller or Progressive Enterprises companies that use Reachmedia to deliver their pamphlets into my letterbox for a pay of 25c an hour because to quote the company’s chief executive: “We think our pay structures are appropriate for the work that’s undertaken … we believe the contract model works successfully for Reachmedia.”  
Of course it does! It is slave labour basically to pay somebody 25c an hour. That is not acceptable to this side of the House; it is not acceptable to the average New Zealander out there to think that people whatever their age should be made to work for 25c an hour. Members on this side of the House get out on the streets regularly and we notice that a huge number of these pamphlet deliverers are adults. They are not kids. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we heard that they are quite often elderly people who look for a bit of income to supplement the pension. We heard a great deal about the people who do this work. We heard it from the industry itself which said that it would not be fair to reward a fit young 18-year-old who can get out and deliver the pamphlets in an hour less than the elderly person who took it easy had a stroll along met some of the people in the neighbourhood had a chat to them maybe stopped for a cup of coffee and took 4 hours to deliver the pamphlets whereas the fit young 18-year-old did it in an hour. 
So we listened to that and that is why my colleague Darien Fenton who has already spoken said we would change the bill to reflect that issue. We would make sure we could strike a reasonable rate between the deliverer and the principal and that would be what a person would be expected to be paid. So the 18-year-old who could do it in a reasonable time of say 2 hours would get paid 2 hours and the person who decided to stop along the way admire the view feed the ducks have a cup of coffee and a chat and took 4 hours would not get paid for 4 hours but for 2 hours which is the reasonable amount. So we listened to all of that and we think it is sensible. That is why there would have been changes made by the select committee to reflect that sort of thing. 
We heard also about a lot of people who get essentially put into the situation where they are on a contract rather than in an employment situation. That is not uncommon; it is not just pamphlet deliverers. We heard from people who are being employed in this city as security guards and being told they were contractors. In that way the employer could subvert the minimum wage provisions of the Act. Well we are just not prepared to cop that on this side of the House. The National Party might be prepared to; it might be able to say: “Good luck to them and if the workers don’t like it they can go and get some lawyer to prove that it’s wrong.” That is not how fair industrial law should operate. That is not how fair contracting should operate. All we are asking for is a fair contracting situation so that people do not get misused by being labelled as contractors so that the minimum wage legislation can be subverted. 
That is happening. I tell Dr Mapp to get out into the real world stop reading his textbooks and stop advising people that they are really entrepreneurs looking for a self-employed situation when they are actually young people or elderly people looking to supplement their income either at the beginning of their lives as they are wanting to study so they go out and get work of this nature or at the end of their working lives where they are wanting to get a bit of extra money to supplement their savings or their pension. They should be treated the same as anybody else who is out there trying to do that. They should not be used by way of some slippery practice in the law to say that they are a contractor and that we should be able to get them to work for as little as 25c an hour. 
Nobody on the other side of the House will be able to get up and convince any New Zealander that this sort of rort should be allowed in law. Nobody on that side of the House will be able to get up and convince anybody of that. What they are convincing them of is the fact that National supports that practice they condone it and they want the law to stay the way it is. Well thank goodness in this House there are people who say that the practice is not acceptable. During the Committee stage we expect to tidy up the bill so that we deal with some of the very valid issues that were raised by submitters and that the select committee or at least five of us felt would be able to be sorted out. So if members of the House would like to look at the committee’s report they will see the Labour Party’s view on this matter. 
In terms of the scope of the bill I say that no we do not want to get the people who are catering at the family wedding caught by this bill. No we do not want to get in the way of people who have a fixed-price contract to paint a house. We do not want to be able to force that sort of situation in law. Therefore we will alter the bill to take away those sorts of fears. We will put in a Supplementary Order Paper to make sure that that happens because any good select committee—and it was a good committee after Dr Mapp left—will do this sort of work. The National Party kicked out Paula Bennett because she was starting to agree with the members on this side of the House so National transferred her to another committee. But she knows in her own heart that this is good legislation. She would love to support it but she is not quite brave enough to do so. We will forgive her that because that is what happens to women in the National Party; it bullies them into submission. On this side of the House— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: No that is what happens. On this side of the House we are not afraid of a good debate. So I am looking forward to Paula Bennett’s excuses as to why she has been whipped into line and I am waiting for David Bennett to tell us his perspective on this bill because that will be amusing as well. 
We have a number of changes that we would promote if the bill had been supported in the select committee to deal with who this bill would actually cover. There would be a schedule which my colleague Darien Fenton will table as a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage. The other issues that were raised were very legitimate issues around the nature of work the type of situation that this would occur in and the types of people who would be deemed to be the contractor and the principal. 
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate as a Labour member of Parliament. This is the sort of thing we stand for on this side of the House—fairness not ripping people off and not misusing the elderly and the young to go out there to make massive profits for people who can get on national television and say they find it acceptable to pay somebody as little as 25c an hour. If National members on the other side of the House do not think that happens I tell them I got something in the mail today from Levin about employees getting paid $5 an hour under piece rates. We contemplated the idea of piece rates as well. The Minimum Wage Act does not allow that and this would not allow piece rates to be used as a rort either. 
We have looked at all the aspects. We believe that the types of changes that can be made in the Committee stage will sort out this bill make it very workable and most of all make it very fair. We know that the National Party members cannot support anything when it comes to the payment of workers that is fair. They would break out in an allergic reaction if they had to do that. That is why they will vote against this legislation and show the country yet again their real agenda for working people in this country. John Key said they want to knock down wages. Here is another example of how they would do that. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was a very offensive speech from the member who led the Transport and Industrial Committee through the select committee process. I felt offended by his comments about the women in our caucus—the first woman Prime Minister of New Zealand was the leader of the National Party. That member should look in the mirror at his own party and see its treatment of women. Our party certainly has a proud history and in no way will we stand for those comments to be made in this House by that member. 
I think that member also made a number of comments that are plainly just not the case. He said that in a number of instances this legislation is a matter of fairness for the Labour Party. It is a matter of “fair” but not “fair” spelt the way he was talking about; it is “fear” in that that party is trying to build an element of fear amongst New Zealand’s hard-working public by saying that the National Party has a problem with workers and seeing workers get their just rewards. It is the “fear factor” that the Labour Party is known and always has been known to be campaigning on. The Labour Party will campaign saying that National will do this that or the other thing. It is trying to build fear into ordinary New Zealanders because its members know that is how they get votes. It is really a shame for a major political party to do that and for a member of that standing to talk about fairness when the real “fair” he was talking about is the fear that members of his party use to try to convince voters to vote for them. 
There is an issue out there and I do not think anyone denies that. Nobody wants to see anyone get taken advantage of. But we have some limits in our law. Some people are determined as independent contractors and some people are determined as employees. An employer-employee relationship is quite different from an independent contractor relationship. There is a whole vast body of case law that dictates what some of the differences may be. The Inland Revenue Department has spent much time defining what an independent contractor is. 
To have a two-page piece of legislation put before us by a new member of this House to try to rectify a body of law that has gone through years and years of trials and tribulations is a real sham. This is not an attempt to deal with this issue; this legislation is just part of the Labour agenda of trying to create fear in the body of voters out there. It is not legislation aimed at dealing with the issue. Labour members are going to deal with the issue through Supplementary Order Papers because they had no idea when they set up this legislation what they were dealing with. They are just flying by the seat of their pants. They are just waiting to see what is going to happen at the next level and then determine what they want to put in the legislation. 
That is simply not good enough. If this is such a big issue why has the Minister not been promoting it? Why have the unions out there not been fighting on this issue? No the unions have been campaigning for the Labour Party. They do not worry about the workers; they just want the money to campaign for the Labour Party so they can get their old mates into power. That is all they are about; it is nothing to do with what is best for the workers. We would not get a two-page piece of legislation coming up in the ninth year as a member’s bill to solve what the Government sees as one of the biggest problems for vulnerable workers. 
The process does not work that way. The legislation would be the first thing off the rank if Labour were a genuine party looking at those issues. But the Labour Party is not; it is after self-preservation. It is after using fear tactics against the ordinary punters out there to try to get them to vote for the party. That is what that party is about and that is what this legislation is about. That is all it is about. It is not about trying to define what an independent contractor is—that is what it should be doing if anything. But it is not. Labour members are just going to pass the legislation and say they have solved the problem. They will not have solved the problem because they have no idea what they are going to do about it. They are going to have to have all those Supplementary Order Papers to try to fix problems as they come up in the negotiation of this legislation through this House. 
Another thing that this political party—the Government—is talking about is that it knows best. That is its one rule—it knows best for people. It does not believe it is important for New Zealanders to have choice. It does not believe it is important for New Zealanders to have freedom. It does not believe it is important for New Zealanders to want to make something out of their own work. It believes that everybody can be put in a box and be told he or she is a member of an employment relationship and therefore has to join a union and have a collective and be represented by that. That is its theory; that is what it is trying to do in this legislation. This is another blatant attempt to get more people to join more unions so that Labour can have more power in this Parliament. That is what it is about. 
Labour does not look at what makes a country strong. What makes a country strong is the ability of people to follow their dreams and to achieve what they want to do. How many businesses have been started by people who have started off as independent contractors built up a business built up the number of staff they employ and built a recognised brand in our country? That is the history of New Zealand business—people getting out there and having a go by themselves. If you want to take that away you are taking away the heart of New Zealand small business you are taking away the heart of the future of New Zealand medium-sized business and you are taking away the heart of the future of New Zealand economic growth. 
But that is what that Government is all about because what has it done to economic growth? It has stifled it and it has made this country one in which it will be very difficult to get through the economic conditions that we are coming into. Legislation like this is not going to assist in that process. We are getting into a situation where people struggle to get jobs. They are going to be losing jobs over the next year. We are probably going to have 100000 people out of work before the end of this year. There is an election campaign coming up at a time when people cannot feed their families they cannot buy petrol they have high interest rates they probably have a new car and a new house and they are going to lose the second income in their household. That is the reality of what is happening out there and you want to make that harder for those people? You want to go out there and make it harder for those people to get ahead? Well good on you because there is only one result you are going to get if you do that and it is not going to be in your best interests. The reality is that we have got— 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is bringing the Assistant Speaker into the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: You were using “you” I think. Can you not use it? Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The reality is that we are going into tough economic conditions. There will be a lot of people out of work and why would the Government want to make it any harder for New Zealanders? Why would it want to make it harder for people to earn some money? Why would a Government want to do that? There is no logical reason why a Government would want to do that especially a Government facing an election. 
Now this is the situation the Labour Party is in. It is using the fear of this legislation to try to build a voting base. Labour members will go out there and say: “The big bad National Party will not look after your rights.” Well that is wrong. The National Party is a party based on freedom of choice a party based on the ability of the individual to go out and work and achieve his or her goals but also a party based on fairness in its proper name not fear in the sense that the Labour Party is based on where it uses fear to encourage people to vote for the party. 
I say to Labour members to go out and be positive. If they want to be fair then be fair in the right sense. Give people a chance to make the most of their opportunities and give people the chance to take a risk. We need people who are risk takers we need people who are going to back themselves and we need people who are going to have an environment that enables them to back themselves and take risks. That is the debate we will have at this election. This election will be fought over a vision on this side of the House that gives people that chance. We want to back New Zealanders to go out there and make the most of themselves. Members on the other side of the House want to use this legislation to define everyone keep them in their boxes tell them what they can and cannot do and make everything crystal clear so that Labour can control them. They are after control and with that control they believe they can portray the fear that they want so they can get the votes at this election. 
I think it is a shame that the Labour Party has used such fear tactics in this election. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill being read a second time tonight. I would like to congratulate Darien Fenton and to thank her for her work in championing the cause of this particular group of vulnerable workers. 
I must say however that as I mentioned when speaking recently on the Holidays (Transfer of Public Holidays) Amendment Bill and on the bill that deals with breastfeeding and breaks it is a pity that the Government has not been able to put together an omnibus reform of the Employment Relations Act that could contain all these smaller matters important as each of them is in one bill and deal with some other matters as well. We would have preferred one big bill to deal with all the defects but at least they are being dealt with and we will continue to support the reforms step by step. 
I am also disappointed that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee was unable to make a recommendation on this bill. That means that we will be dealing with a plethora of amendments by way of a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage and that is always a bit of a confusing experience especially for members who were not on the select committee and always bears with it the problem that mistakes can be made. New Zealand First members must take some blame for this. In their view as reported from the select committee they stated that they had sympathy with the intention of the bill but that it creates “too many administrative grey areas”. That reveals New Zealand First as a party perhaps lacking some rigour— 
Peter Brown 
: I used to be nice to you! 
SUE BRADFORD 
: —and not prepared to do the hard work and negotiation to improve a bill the intent of which it seems to support—which is great. I tell Mr Brown that his giving up on it during the select committee is a bit of a pity. Now that work will have to be done by the whole House. 
The bill will close a serious lacuna in the Minimum Wage Act that permits some of our most vulnerable workers to be exploited by being paid less than the minimum wage provisions of the Act as a consequence of contract for services arrangements. It will complement my own Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill which for the most part removes the ability of unscrupulous employers to pay exploitative wage rates to 16 and 17-year-old workers. There are a number of totally valid reasons why good employers may choose to engage workers under a contract for service rather than a traditional employer-employee relationship. These include greater flexibility in dealing with their workforce simplicity of human resources administration and avoidance of the need to maintain a complex and expensive payroll system. Unfortunately some employers utilise contract for service arrangements to deny workers employment rights and to avoid complying with labour laws including the Minimum Wage Act. 
The increasing trend towards utilising contract for services arrangements has resulted in a growing group of workers who receive inadequate pay including people like pamphlet deliverers pizza drivers and deliverers security officers commission sales people personal care workers and homeworkers. Homeworkers are a growing but very vulnerable group of mainly women who attempt to stretch the family income through taking in work like sewing light manufacturing computer-based work and childcare. In some cases these people may actually be in an employment relationship as defined by the Employment Relations Act but a low level of awareness of employment rights and the near impossibility for unions to organise groups of workers such as these under our current employment law allows unscrupulous employers to get away with designating them as contractors thereby denying them employment rights. This small but growing group of employers is not only grossly exploiting those working for them but also potentially putting good employers who play by the rules out of business by undercutting their prices. 
This bill will help to bring the underground economy further into the open and will help to ensure that tax that can currently be readily evaded under contract for services arrangements actually is paid. I am especially pleased to see that Labour is proposing to recommend an amendment to the bill to remove the ability to prescribe minimum rates of remuneration by reference to age. Young people who deliver a few pamphlets after school or on the weekend in order to have some money independent of their parents or even sadly to supplement inadequate family incomes are among the most severely exploited of all workers. 
The Green Party supports Labour’s proposal to amend the bill to provide clear definitions of who constitutes a principal and a specified person and to clarify which components of a contract for services should be included when calculating remuneration. We also support Labour’s proposal to amend the bill to require contracting principals to keep their pay records for a 6-year period. Contrary to the National Party’s assertion this will not add significantly to business compliance costs; it is little more than what any responsible business is required to do for tax purposes. It is however necessary to ensure that the bill can be adequately enforced. Furthermore it will have the spin-off effect of helping to prevent contract for service arrangements being used by unscrupulous principals and those they contract as tax evasion devices. 
The National Party’s response to this bill is disappointing—rather predictably so but it is a pity. I would have thought that the National Party would support legislation that levels the playing field for good businesses that play by the rules and ensures that all workers receive fair and equitable pay. But no the National Party in its usual Pavlovian reaction to any legislation that improves workers’ rights opposes this bill. In doing so it abandons its constituency of good employers and takes the side of the undercutters the fly-by-nighters those who make their ill-gotten gains by exploiting their workers and those who are complicit in defrauding the taxpayer by paying under the table. 
Unlike the National Party with its abysmal record of promoting legislation such as the Employment Contracts Act which saw wages and employment conditions become seriously eroded and Dr Mapp’s appalling bill which would have left workers with almost no employment rights at all in the first 3 months on the job the Green Party has a proud record of supporting vulnerable workers. We have consistently voted for and promoted legislation that has that purpose and we will be doing so again today by supporting this bill being read a second time. Again thanks to Darien Fenton for all her work on this bill and thanks to all those parties that are supporting it. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First with some degree of heavy heart has to say that it cannot support the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. When the bill came before this House initially and then to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it was dramatically flawed—it was hopelessly flawed I would suggest. It would have embraced the painter who worked 20 hours or put in a contract for 20 hours painting a house. If it rained and it took 40 hours because of rain or something else that reduced the hourly rate and then the person who engaged the painter would have had to make up the contract to the minimum wage. That is how the bill came to the House initially. I have to say to Sue Bradford’s assertion that New Zealand First has given up that I think Darien Fenton will tell this House if she is truthful that nobody worked harder than the New Zealand First member on the select committee to get this into an acceptable shape. 
The bill is so complicated now that it is still not acceptable. Let me try to explain why. Basically the bill covers 14 occupations. Half of them are occupations where the individuals are just selling their labour like pamphlet deliverers. But there are four occupations that would include a significant capital cost in the contracted price. Truck drivers have to have a truck—that is included in the price they will put up to the principal. A courier driver has to have a van. It could be argued that there are a couple of other occupations—namely fast-food delivery services where the guy might have a motorbike or a car and it could well be that a musician has to have an electronic organ or what have you—where all capital costs are encompassed in the price. In other words this bill covers a mixture of people who are just selling or offering their labour and people who are offering their labour plus a significant piece of capital equipment. 
Let us talk about the truck driver. In this day and age when petrol and interest rates are going up the principal who has engaged this driver to conduct deliveries around town will say: “Right it will cost X dollars per tonne to deliver that.” Fuel goes up the lease of the van goes up or the driver might change his or her van so that the cost structure is quite different. So the driver has to go to the principal and say that he or she is not making the minimum wage per hour. The principal is then forced into a position of assessing if he or she is doing his job correctly how that trucking company is working financially. But the reason for engaging the trucking company on a cost per tonne basis in the first place is to avoid getting into that sort of detail. Mixing these sorts of occupations together creates confusion. The bill assuming the member promoting it Darien Fenton has the numbers to pass it will create a lot of difficulties for some businesses. It will compel them to do homework on an activity that they have tried to buy themselves out of or to engage contractors for so that they are not directly involved. That is why New Zealand First is not supporting the bill. 
Yesterday morning I was given on behalf of New Zealand First a Supplementary Order Paper that amends the bill. That was just before I went into caucus. I was asked to look at it and get the view of the caucus by 5 o’clock last night. We had a full caucus agenda. I was lucky. I pleaded with my colleagues to give it some consideration. But just dropping that on us at such a late time is really beyond belief. Here is the Supplementary Order Paper: it is almost as thick as the bill; it is thicker than the initial bill. To digest this in a matter of minutes to explain it to caucus and to get our members to review the position is not on. I would suggest to the member promoting the bill that this is not acting in good faith. She could have given me this Supplementary Order Paper had she been inclined to do so weeks ago or she could have as she suggested to me last night postponed this bill until New Zealand First was fully briefed. I put to her that my caucus told me to get a thorough briefing from the member and then we would consider it in more detail. But no the member pushed ahead and New Zealand First is not in a position at all to change its mind on the issue. 
This bill is dealing with occupations that are not really compatible. How can one compare the engagement of a young person to deliver pamphlets with a truck driver who is delivering tonnes of cargo around an area? How can one compare that? It is very very difficult and I do not know how one can do that in a reasonable way. How can one compare a young guy who can deliver pamphlets—100-plus an hour—with an older guy who goes around talks to his neighbours and delivers 20 an hour? I heard the Hon Mark Gosche try to explain that but I have to say that if the older guy gets 12 bucks for delivering 50 pamphlets an hour at a slow rate and the young guy is delivering 300 400 or 500 an hour is the young guy not going to say sooner or later that on a per pamphlet basis he is entitled to a good bit more. The next person will say: “Under precedence this guy is getting X cents a pamphlet and this guy is making a dollar a pamphlet.” It is not the way to do things. 
Contracting was actually set up to avoid the complications of employment. That is not an excuse for not paying a reasonable rate and New Zealand First would support any move to ensure that the contractor got a fair return on his or her efforts. We do not want people here in this country getting less than the minimum wage—certainly if they are over the age where they are entitled to that wage—that is not the aim of the game at all. But we want legislation that is workable that is easily understood that is straightforward to apply and that generally works without having industrial disputes or involving lawyers every 10 minutes. 
I can say with sincerity—and I am sure that the member who has this bill knows this—that New Zealand First has looked at this bill inside out and upside down umpteen times. We have spoken to union officials we have spoken to the member herself on umpteen occasions and she has spoken not only to me but to my colleagues. I do not know of anybody who has shown any concern about this bill—actually there was one; a lady sent me an email the other day and I have not been able to speak to her. If anybody has sent us communications of concern in respect of this bill we have sat down and spoken with him or her and addressed those concerns. We have put the issues as I have briefly outlined them tonight to these individuals and nobody has given us a satisfactory answer. I am sad if the situation is that people are earning less than the minimum wage—I genuinely am and my colleagues share that concern—but this bill is not the solution. I say that on behalf of my colleagues. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 A report hit the headlines yesterday that should be compulsory reading alongside this Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. The  
Growing Pains: Evaluations and the Cost of Human Capital 
 report described an underclass of New Zealanders: those who constitute the highest number of unemployed in every age group; those who are disproportionately more likely to be in the lower-income bands; those whose median income is a shattering 78 percent of the national average. The report describes such workers as likely to be working in forestry construction courier services transport labour hire personal care pamphlet delivery and other industries where the contract workforce is regularly exploited through unfair contracting. 
The question was raised by Chris Tremain that a Minister was not present in the Chamber. The bell was rung and the Speaker declared that a Minister was present. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The  
Growing Pains 
 report gave this group a name—“Pacific”. Pasifika communities were described as being more heavily represented in the less specialised lower-skilled occupational groups. The report’s author summed up by suggesting that the Pacific Island population was less productive and less likely to contribute to economic growth. It may come as a surprise to some but tangata whenua share more than whakapapa alone with our Pasifika whanaunga. Our employment and income position bears a close resemblance to that profiled in the  
Growing Pains 
 report. Indeed when we look at average earnings we see that while Europeans are on $20.91 per hour Pasifika people sit at $16.31 with tangata whenua earning barely a dollar more. 
This bill sets out to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1983 so that it applies to people under a contract for services and ensures they get at least the minimum wage. We in the Maori Party believe that all jobs should have minimum wage protection so that all workers are paid at least the minimum wage. What is more we go further and suggest that the minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. We tautoko we support the call issued by the Council of Trade Unions that the minimum wage should be lifted to at least two-thirds of the average wage so we suggest that the minimum wage should be $15 an hour. The Council of Trade Unions had the very inspiring message that if we are really dedicated to our pursuit of economic transformation low wages cannot be tolerated. Low wages can trigger a cycle of disadvantage that cascades into poorer housing worsening health lower educational achievement fewer employment prospects greater economic insecurity family stress and worse. 
As we approach Budget day it is blatantly apparent that despite all the crowing about the so-called high-income high-skilled and highly productive economy an undesirably large proportion of New Zealanders earn a lower income than we would expect. We call these people Pasifika; we call these people Maori; we call them contractors. They do not volunteer to live in poverty. They are dragged in a downward spiral by an economic system that does not care to protect their rights. What is more we are very aware that wage inequality is growing. Take for instance the salary of the average chief executive. In 2000 a chief executive officer could expect to earn eight times the pay of the average worker. By 2006 just 6 years later that pay packet was a whopping 19 times as big as that of the average worker. 
The people my colleague Hone Harawira refers to as the lumpenproletariat—the cleaners caregivers call centre workers teacher aides hospital aides clerical workers and workers in the retail and hospitality industries—are all struggling to cope on a bare minimum wage. It is little wonder that the Electoral Enrolment Centre announced yesterday that the number of New Zealanders who have left our shores for overseas is 35 percent higher than before the last election. In particular we recognise the impact of the net outflow of people to Australia at 30600 for the year ended in April. What is there to stay for when so many New Zealanders are being subjected to the economic violence of low rates of pay? 
Even lower than low are those people engaged as contractors who are treated to few of the protections of employees and who are paid at a rate that is less than the minimum wage. The workers who are the focus of this bill are perhaps the most vulnerable of all workers. They are not covered by the Employment Relations Act or by the Minimum Wage Act. Their rights—if we can call them that—are wrapped up in commercial law. Their relationship is deemed to be a commercial one without any provision for minimum remuneration. Members of this House whose stock response to policy dilemmas like those in this bill is to say that the market always provides would no doubt say that contract workers could still benefit from employment law if they took their case to court. Sure they could—if they had sufficient resources to pay the legal fees to do so. Yeah right! 
This bill is in its very essence about the application of core principles and kaupapa. It is about promoting and supporting full and meaningful employment. It is about supporting pay and employment equity legislation. It is about supporting the development of a user-friendly minimum code of employment conditions. It is about being worker friendly rather than perpetuating discriminatory practices. Paying lower minimum wages to one group of workers undermines the principles of non-discrimination and is simply not justifiable. Supporting this bill is in effect upholding international human rights instruments such as the International Bill of Human Rights. This bill is about nothing more threatening than the well-worn catchphrase “equal work for equal pay”. The bill provides us with an opportunity to support the right of all workers to receive fair and non-discriminatory remuneration for work of equal value. 
We have had enough of analysts and economists telling us that systematic inequalities and ongoing disparities are merely the growing pains of an evolving nation. We say instead that a fully maturing nation would set minimum benchmarks around remuneration whether or not those employed are on contracts for services contracts of service or employment contracts. Our expectation is of course fuelled by the unanimous agreement reached around the House last night when all parties confirmed support for some basic protections for all new members of Parliament. As they say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 
The Maori Party is happy to support this bill in our desire for protections to be put in place and in order to ensure that the Minimum Wage Act 1983 actually has the teeth to mean something to any person working under a contract for services. The Maori Party supports this bill. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I am rising to speak to and oppose on behalf of the National Party the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill at the second reading. This member’s bill has gone right through the select committee process. It was well scrutinised and came back with the recommendation that it not proceed and that is exactly what should happen. 
The bill started off intending to impose the minimum wage on all independent contractors and one has to wonder why. It was ostensibly drafted to—as the author of the bill proclaimed—set out “a process for minimum remuneration to be determined for contractors and [enable] that to be enforced.” What exactly was the mischief that this bill was trying to address? Well worryingly the Minister of Labour at the time herself stated with such authority that this bill “addresses a very fundamental flaw in our employment relations legislation in that we do not have a minimum wage provision for those who are working under a contract for service … not only will this bill give those contractors legislative provision under the minimum wage legislation but it will also ensure that we have fair competition when we are looking at the contracts we provide for.” 
That Minister thought there is a fundamental flaw in our employment relations legislation because for example painters who are painting a house may have underquoted for a variety of reasons—perhaps the weather or a deliberate loss-leader. The owner of the house would have to make up the difference if it turned out that the painter did not earn the minimum wage for that job. Then there is the question of what the job entailed. Did it include all the paperwork the travelling to and from the job the cleaning the painting etc.? Independent contractors have their own incentive to get the job done as efficiently as possible. They are accountable for their productivity and therefore their rewards. This bill would be a bizarre incentive for contractors to prolong the job especially if they had no other work. 
Then the Minister made the extraordinary claim that “we should not have people who are able because they need to undercut another competitor to do a contract for something that may be doing them or their subcontractors no good at all.” Well I would have to say that it is no wonder we lost the Rugby World Cup—we are taught to compete but not to win. We had a Minister of Labour who said that competition is bad. She said that one cannot possibly quote less for a job than another contractor does and I say that that is bizarre. 
We have to try to work out what mischief this bill is intending or attempting to address. Why do we even need such a bill in the first place? Well that answer may indeed be addressed in the recommendations of one of the submitters the National Distribution Union which “urged the committee to recommend that the scope of the bill be extended to include an extension of collective bargaining rights to contractors.” That would mean that all contractors—all self-employed persons—would have to be members of a union because as we all know collective bargaining is the monopoly of the unions. So maybe this bill is really a hidden agenda simply to augment the membership and power of the unions. 
Nobody condones the exploitation of vulnerable workers whatever their occupation and whatever their employment status. If this bill is intended to prevent as much as possible the exploitation of workers then that is how it should have been drafted. But what it does is to absolutely confuse contract of service with contract for service. It says to contractors that they can quote whatever they like for their services they can paint houses for whatever price they think appropriate but if it turns out that the hours worked have been miscalculated—perhaps the weather has conspired against the contractor—if for whatever reason the hourly rate turns out to be less than the minimum wage then the house owner the innocent party has to make up the difference. 
Independent contractors should be free to set their own price and their own terms of the contract. I want to quote from a recent article that I have seen: “contractors should be regulated by commercial not industrial law. … unions should not be able to interfere in commercial arrangements involving contractors”. One might ask who the author of those quotes was. I would have to admit that it was Julia Gillard the Deputy Prime Minister of the Australian Labor Government. 
If we look at the mechanics of the bill we also have to ask what work is to be remunerated here. If a musician—an independent contractor—spends time rehearsing and practising is that chargeable time? Does that time have to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the hourly wage rate? If writers are contracted to write something do they get paid for just thinking? If they have a blank on creative thoughts—writer’s block—do they still get paid the minimum wage for that block? Practically speaking we would have legislation that is unworkable and impractical. 
If this bill is passed we would have situations where quotes are not worth the paper they are written on and are no longer able to be accepted at face value. People wanting their house painted will not be able to rely on a quote given to paint that house; they would have to get a quantity surveyor or a similar expert to determine how many hours the painting should take then allow a bit for weather allow another bit for unforeseen circumstances work it out and see whether it tallies to the minimum wage. There will be no such thing as a loss-leader and no such thing as a contract being performed just to advertise and market how good and reliable that contractor is. We would have a situation where some people will be able to demand payment for work that has not been completed for something that they have not produced or for a service that they have not provided. Writer’s block for several hours days or weeks could be very costly yet nothing has been produced. Real estate agents being paid on a commission basis would be paid even though not a single solitary sale was achieved. 
Requiring a principal to keep records for 6 years particularly if the principal is not even aware that the contractor may be a specified person or fall within the ambit of the bill is impractical unwieldy and another compliance burden. An example has been given of personal home-care support where a private carer is engaged on a per visit basis rather than an hourly rate basis. I ask whether we should expect elderly people needing such care to keep timesheets for 6 years. Even if unfortunately they subsequently die those records still have to be kept for 6 years just in case the caregiver falls within the ambit of this bill as an independent contractor and just in case for a variety of reasons the actual hours worked meant that the carer was paid less than the minimum wage. They would then have to try to explain or justify exactly what it was that the carer was being paid for—whether it included travel to and from the house sitting down for a cup of tea at the end of the job or whatever. 
If we look at the author’s justification for this bill we see that it was that contractors have few of the protections enjoyed by employees and are able to be paid at rates that are less than the minimum wage. But those workers have other freedoms and choices. They have the choice to work when they want to. They have the opportunity to deduct proper expenses from their taxes. They have the choice to work for less pay than others maybe because they want to market themselves as good-quality contractors. They choose to be independent contractors they choose not to be wage earners they choose to have some control over what work they do and what work they do not do and they choose within realistic parameters the hours of work they want to work. If they make a mistake in quoting or in the contract price then they have other remedies under other legislation such as the Contractual Mistakes Act or the Contractual Remedies Act. 
So what does this bill do? Firstly it blurs the distinction between a contract of service which is an independent contract and a contract for service—an employment contract. The bill creates uncertainty as to what work is to be remunerated—for example rehearsal times for musicians. It is not the right instrument to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable workers. Its record-keeping requirements would be unwieldy and impractical. It will impose administrative burdens on many who cannot meet them. National opposes this bill not because it condones the exploitation of vulnerable workers but because this bill is simply unworkable and unrealistic. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 Of course National opposes this bill. Of course National wants to get rid of any restriction on the rate of payment to vulnerable workers. Of course that is the mantra National will take to the next election. National destroyed the common law relationship between employee and employer when it brought in the Employment Contracts Act in the terrible early 1990s. National removed entirely the balancing power of unions to negotiate with an employer in order to bring in just terms and conditions. National brought in the Employment Contracts Act which saw the proliferation of contracts replacing arrangements of employment. Employers engaged in these contracts in order to avoid their responsibilities as good employers. 
If Kate Wilkinson had bothered to read the bill that she so sternly criticised she would have read clause 4 the purpose clause. What does the purpose clause state? It is not long so I will read it out for that member: “The purpose of this Act is to amend the principal Act to extend its provisions to apply to payments under a contract for service which are currently remunerated at below the minimum wage.” This Act is aimed specifically at vulnerable workers. Vulnerable workers cannot employ the likes of that member to take a matter under the Contractual Mistakes Act or under any common law provision. Vulnerable workers cannot bargain because they are not employed in a position where they have any power to engage lawyers to argue such esoteric laws. 
I will give that member an example. In Wairoa there is an AFFCO freezing works that employs about 700 workers. In the lamb cuts division the company negotiated with the union a contract for payment and commenced paying the workers. But lo and behold it was discovered part-way through the contract that during negotiations the employer had made a mistake in the calculations and had offered in the agreement to pay more than it wanted to pay. So what did the company do? Did it ring the union and say “We want to talk about this.”? No it sent out a note to those vulnerable workers who start work at 5 a.m. and have lunch at 10 a.m. saying they had made a mistake and that from that week the hourly rate would be going down to what the company wanted it to be despite the fact that the union and the employer had negotiated in good faith an agreed remuneration. That type of behaviour exemplifies the need for bills such as this. 
My friend Mr Finlayson would do well to remember the motto that used to appear on the top of the old courthouses when courthouses were a matter of pride. It was I think a Justinian quote: “Jus est ars boni et aequi” which means I think “Law is the technique of justice”. So when a member stood in this House earlier and said that the law of contracts is quite simple and straightforward it is about independence it is well-settled law and we should not be interfering with well-settled law he forgot that the law and Parliament have an obligation to step in when things are not going well. What that speaker failed to recognise as did the speaker before him is that the bill under clause 6 outlines what remuneration is. All the fears and concerns that the previous speaker Kate Wilkinson raised about people having uncertainty in contracts are removed by this quite elegant definition of the word “remuneration”. Under the bill remuneration is defined as “includes any payment made under a contract for services.” The contract for services will address such things as rehearsal time for musicians thinking time for writers and pondering time for politicians. The contract for services will cover those things so the hourly rate will be determined from that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’ll be on an hourly rate very shortly. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: That loud-mouth would do well to ponder occasionally before he burps in this House. That loud-mouth who is well known for being one of the mistakes of politics would know that the vulnerable workers in life need the protection of statute given the evisceration of the workforce that followed the Employment Contracts Act. 
The right to work is a basic human right. In fact writers of labour law for the past 50 years have described the right to work. They say: “Work is about income about individual fulfilment about the constitution of one’s identity about social inclusion.” That point was made by Dr Pita Sharples in his speech. Yet the implementation of the right to work is weak. It is almost non-existent. Accompanying the human right to work are rights at work. This bill addresses rights at work. It does not apply to contractors who can negotiate on equal terms. This bill applies to those people in an employment situation that is defined by the person paying as a contract situation a “take it or leave it” arrangement and where the person works for less than the minimum wage. 
This bill brings justice into the employment market. It would never have been required if we had retained the power of the unions which were so totally abolished and diminished by the Employment Contracts Act. I want to talk briefly about the Employment Contracts Act following on from the last speaker. She is on record as saying that National would return to the employment contract days of the past. That links in with the words of her leader who has said on numerous occasions that he believes productivity should be based on an arrangement such as the old Employment Contracts Act. The unspoken script there is that the employer can screw over the worker to maximise the profit and can describe it as productivity. 
Bob Clarkson 
: There’s nothing wrong with that. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Bob Clarkson says that there is nothing wrong with that. The employer can screw over the worker. Of course that member would say that is a good mantra; of course he would. [ 
Interruption 
] Tau Henare has never been an employer in his life but has been screwed over by many I guess— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right. Never been an employer in my life. Wouldn’t want to. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: He has never been a worker I should say. He has never worked a day in his life. 
This bill is elegant in its simplicity. It will be amended no doubt during the Committee stage to better define vulnerable workers. It protects the least empowered in society. It means that those who have to work to feed their families those who do not live on the profits of their investments are entitled to a decent wage no matter what the person dictating the job and specifying the rate of pay says no matter what that person describes as a contract. Sure the bill blurs the line between employment contracts and employment but when we have an imbalance in the workplace we need some legislation to bring back that balance and that is precisely what law is all about. Law is about providing infrastructure that gives rights to both parties to a contract and this bill does just that. Labour supports this bill. I think it is one of the more important pieces of legislation to come before this House in recent times. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise tonight to speak in support of my colleague Darien Fenton’s Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. I say to the House that this bill is essential. Once again Labour is the voice of the working people the vulnerable workers on an issue where minimum employment protections are very much at stake. Those protections need to be in place for all New Zealand workers. Ms Wilkinson who spoke before my colleague Russell Fairbrother knows very well that my colleague Darien Fenton has already very well signalled that there will be Supplementary Order Papers that deal with all the issues that she has tried to raise as problems—that list the occupations that exclude the painter of the house—that mean that this is workable legislation and it is. 
Are there vulnerable workers in New Zealand to whom the minimum wage protection legislation does not apply because their employment status does not fit within current legislative protections for employees and who do not get the benefit of increases to the minimum wage that this Government has now legislated for every year we have been in power? Yes there are. They are called contractors. They may be in a large range of occupations—everything from forestry to construction to the driver I was speaking with last weekend to the personal care worker to the pamphlet deliverers who work for Reachmedia and have had their salaries reduced from $2 an hour to 50c an hour. We found that out in the last few days. 
Those are the vulnerable workers known as contractors and defined by their employers as contractors who do not have any choice at all about the way in which they are employed. They are the people who are being employed and exploited on chimney sweep Victorian wages. They earn far less than anywhere close to the minimum wage—the minimum wage now or the $7 minimum wage that the National Party was so proud of in 1999. Those are the workers this Labour Party is supporting through this legislation from my colleague Darien Fenton and we are very proud to do so. 
By contrast is what we have from the wittering of the National Party their spokesperson Kate Wilkinson and every National Party speaker. They have shown a total lack of acknowledgment that there are vulnerable workers for whom we have an obligation to bring in such legislation. This is the National Party that has voted against every decent piece of employment policy we have brought in over the past 9 years. This is the National Party that has a spokesperson at the present time who sounds exactly like the Bill Birch of the 1990s. It sounds exactly as though she would like to bring back the Employment Contracts Act and if there is any suspicion about that may I point out that Mr Bill English was heard on  
Agenda 
 as recently as the 18th of this month saying: “We’ve also floated the idea in the last few years about the 90-day trial period for new employees.” 
We all know what that means in employment legislation. The bill is already in place and would be used by that party to attack every single worker every single new employee and everyone who changes his or her job. Indeed it might affect some members opposite who will not be here after the election but will be starting a job. It would affect the youngest and newest employee starting a new job. The National 90-day probation bill would affect every single worker throughout his or her career. 
Let us have a look at a few more quotes from Ms Wilkinson as recently as today’s  
Dominion Post 
: “Ms Wilkinson: ‘Workers should be able to offer their services to an employer on terms and conditions that they want.’ … But Ms Wilkinson has also indicated that National will cut into public holiday pay letting employers offer contracts with three rather than four weeks’ annual leave.” National is also considering reducing rights for workers in small businesses and I have already mentioned the 90-day probation bill. She wants to repeal— 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. I am wondering whether the member knows the repercussions of misleading the House and whether she would like to reflect on what she is saying and misquoting. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry that is not a point of order; it is more a point of debate. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That really was not a point of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The member might like to read the Standing Orders and quote from them. She should put up or shut up because my colleague who was speaking was quoting from an article. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I ruled on this point of order to say that it was not a point of order but a point of debate. I ask Lesley Soper to continue. 
LESLEY SOPER 
: To quote a little more from this  
Dominion Post  
article of today: “She wants to repeal provisions that make good-faith bargaining work.” We know from her speeches that National will reduce unions’ collective bargaining rights. I ask you Madam Assistant Speaker whether this is a party we can trust on industrial legislation. This is a party where the leader has such slipperiness that no vulnerable worker could trust the safety of his or her rights under such a party. Any workers listening to the National Party’s speeches need to think about the risks their employment is under. John Key the leader of that party pretends that National will not change much if elected but National members have already voted against significant employment legislation containing good things for workers. They have already voted against protecting vulnerable workers. Their true colours are showing rather bright and apparent. 
Workers have the right to decent fair pay and conditions. National does not seem to care that some pamphlet deliverers are being paid the equivalent of $3 an hour if they are lucky. The fact is that that party on the other side of the House has no awareness of or care for vulnerable workers. No matter what industry they are in as far as they are concerned vulnerable workers are fair game for the employer and any conditions the employer wants to set and they will back that up as a National Party in everything they speak on and everything they vote on in industrial legislation—and that is not good enough. 
The Supplementary Order papers that will come in at the Committee stage will improve this bill. It is good legislation. It deserves support in this House. I hope even at this stage that my colleagues in the New Zealand First Party will see their way clear to offer that support. 
I commend the bill to the House. I am very proud to stand and speak in support of this bill and the vulnerable workers for whom it will do good things. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of this bill and to congratulate my colleague Darien Fenton on having the fortitude to bring this very important bill forward. Of course the National Party opposes it because it has to do with guaranteeing the minimum wage to a group of hard-working people and National has never liked that. When members opposite were in Government for a whole decade in the 1990s they made that very clear by ensuring that they did not move the minimum wage except once. In a whole decade they moved the minimum wage just once. Of course they do not want the minimum wage extended to another group of vulnerable hard-working New Zealanders. 
Before the dinner break David Bennett a member who is more famous for his after-dinner speeches spoke about freedom of choice. He sounded just like Bill Birch but without the pizzazz and without the ability to actually be able to sell it. David Bennett talked about the freedom to pay hard-working New Zealanders less than the minimum wage. That is David Bennett’s freedom of choice. I oppose that and I support this bill. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I congratulate Darien Fenton on the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill. This bill started as an amendment to the legislation I drafted. 
Simon Power 
: The Minister is taking the credit now. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would like to take not the credit but some of the responsibility for this because most people in this House agree that we should have a minimum wage. I know that the National Party would like it to be lower than it is now but even it agrees that we should have a minimum wage. It is nonsense that someone can be doing the equivalent of waged work through a contracted arrangement and have no protection at all under the current law. 
A person who effectively works for the equivalent of a wage by delivering pamphlets can be absolutely abused by his or her employer by being paid what could be as low as 25c an hour and that person would have no legislative protection. That is wrong. That is the mischief this bill addresses by giving those people some level of protection. They do not get all of the other protections that people who are employees get. They do not get holidays and they do not get sick leave. They do not get some other protections that people who are employees get but they should get a minimum rate of remuneration. Because they are vulnerable people working in a lower-paid occupation because they do not have other choices they should not be paid some piddling little amount like a dollar an hour. That is quite wrong. 
I think it is absolutely wrong for members of the Opposition to prevent the position of those people from being improved by giving them some level of minimum entitlement. That is why I started to bring this matter forward. As a Minister I cannot bring forward members’ bills so Darien Fenton offered to take it forward for me. I congratulate her on that. I also thank some of the business lobby who have made this legislation more workable. Some good ideas have come forward from the likes of Business New Zealand which even though it is opposed to the provision has offered its help to make it more practical so that as we introduce it it will work. 
The fundamental of this matter is that it is wrong that employers can avoid the minimum wage by taking on people as contractors—such as people who deliver pamphlets and advertising material around the streets—and avoid paying them a minimum level of compensation upon which they could live. That is the basis for our minimum wage legislation. People who do a fair day’s work should be paid enough so that they can survive without reliance on a benefit and without resorting to crime. That is why this sort of legislation is absolutely appropriate for this Parliament to pass and I for one am very pleased to cast my vote in favour of it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I ask for members’ order of the day No. 3 to be called can I just give some clarification. There was a lot of noise earlier and I was coping with interjections. I am perfectly happy—and I think the House is happy—when interjections are related to the bill. When the interjections become more personal and are totally unrelated to the bill and more about elections and whatever I will call for order. When the noise in the House gets to such a level because of personal conversation members will see me gesturing but I will also call for order. 
Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill 
Second Reading 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill be now read a second time 
. It has been a rather long and torturous road to reach this point and I fear that the indications from the Law and Order Committee report and from discussions I have had with members of the National Party team are such that some of us in this House will be presented with a bit of a disappointment. 
I want to take a moment to remind the House why we brought this bill to the House. I guess tragically that we need look no further than this morning’s  
New Zealand Herald  
headline: “Grandfather dies after bus stop bashing”. Once again we are seeing another case that has all the hallmarks of youth offending written all over it. As I look at this headline and read the story having heard  
Morning Report 
 this morning I think that the great tragedy is that we will probably find with regard to the offenders who committed this horrendous crime and killed Graham Wallace Arcus while he was walking home from church the same litany of reasons and excuses and we will hear the same calls from the same quarters asking for more social justice more consideration more care and more understanding. I have no doubt that they will be labelled as brown and from a broken home. That will be the catchcry that will require us all to look at our shoes and wonder how those poor young men could have ever fallen to such a level that they would kill an innocent elderly man walking home from church. That is the fear I have and I guess time will tell over the next few months as to whether my assessment and the assessment of other MPs in the House is accurate. 
The fact is that for decades—since 1989—we have had a youth justice system that has been touted lauded and applauded as world-leading and something that is envied all over the world. It is said that it has reduced youth offending. Well the facts are quite the opposite. The facts are—and members will see it in the select committee report—that violent offending by young people has gone up by 47 percent. In the interdepartmental reports that we had an opportunity to examine at the select committee we learnt that privately and confidentially behind closed doors officials are writing to each other and expressing grave concern about the ferocity and the increasing frequency of extreme violent crime. 
Yet these same officials have the audacity to tell the public members of the House the select committee and Ministers that it is all under control that the youth justice system is working and that we are envied all around the world. I ask those people to take me to a country where they envy a 47 percent increase in violent vicious crime and where they envy the fact that 43 percent of all apprehensions for all crimes committed across all categories in all age groups involve people aged 10 to 20. Forty-three percent was the figure we were given. We were told that one of the four mitigating factors that are considered when allocating the extra 1250 police is the youth density within a population in a community and the amount of time police spend with youth crime. Twenty-four percent of all police time is spent dealing with youth offending. Members should remember that in court the legal definition of “youth” is a person aged 14 to 16. 
I said right from the outset that this bill which has had a lot of criticism was drafted for New Zealand First by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. There were a lot of rather interesting comments by some learned people about the quality of the drafting. I am not a lawyer. I do not write these things myself. I got people who do know how to write law to write it for us. But we made it clear at the time this bill was drafted that a number of the things had happened that had astounded and appalled the public. Michael Choy and Kenneth Pigott were both murdered by young offenders and it was not the issue of the unaccountability for murder that was raising the public’s concern. Rather it was the fact that had Michael Choy survived the horrendous beating Bailey Kurariki would have walked away because he could not have been charged for causing grievous bodily harm and he could not have been dealt with in the way that he was. So we raised this bill. It took 4 years to come out of the lotto and when it finally got here we made it clear to the House that we were no longer seeking to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 10; we were seeking to lower it to 12. 
The title of the bill is important to us. The title is the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill not the “Youth Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill” and there is a clear reason for that. The term “youth” narrows the mind to those aged 14 to 16. We are interested in young offenders aged 10 to 20 because that is where 43 percent of apprehensions for crimes lay—nationwide in all categories and in all age groups. I have explained the reason for that and sadly there is more evidence in the newspaper today for the need for such legislation. As for the purpose of the bill it was proposed that beyond a certain point society needed to be able to take stronger measures to protect itself against these top-end offenders and that young offenders who commit serious offences should be held accountable for their crimes more in the same way as adult offenders are. The intention was to target the top-end serious repeat offenders not Cindy Kiro’s Moro bar stealer. That was a ridiculous analogy by that woman. The means by which the bill sought to achieve these aims was to change the legal position in respect of the age of criminal responsibility to 10 years; to broaden the circumstances in which young offenders could be sentenced to incarceration to include cases where offenders were convicted of serious offences and we went on to define that; to move children and young people aged 10 and over who commit serious crimes and offences to the same category and jurisdiction as those who commit murder and manslaughter—the District Court—and to define a serious offence as any offence for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term of not less than 3 months or a fine of not less than $2000. In our innocence we thought that if someone went to jail for 3 months that person had committed a serious crime. However it appears that people in this House do not think that. 
In time we accepted some of the criticisms—and I will cover that—and we indicated a desire to take an amendment. The advice of the officials highlighted a number of consequences in respect of the bill’s impact on the Youth Court and lower level offenders and indications are that if the bill were to proceed in its current form neither of the two major parties represented at the Law and Order Committee would support it at its second reading—it is something they have said they will not do. New Zealand First has always said that its intention is to improve and enhance the youth justice system as it applies to young persons and to better equip the New Zealand Police so that they can intervene more effectively with persistent and serious young offenders. New Zealand First wishes to preserve those aspects of the youth justice system that are proving effective but to amend those that we believe are not effective. 
It was my intention to read out this letter which was tabled at the Law and Order Committee and clearly lays out all of the amendments that we were prepared to accept. I will seek leave to table the letter so that the House can see precisely the extent of amendment that we were prepared to accept at the select committee and in the Committee stage to achieve some of the things that notably Mr John Key said in his latest speech that he wants to achieve such as widening the jurisdiction of the Youth Court and widening the sentencing range available. I will also seek leave to table the document I have here. It is the revision-tracked version drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to achieve these amendments. It is an amendment that could have been passed by the select committee and brought to this Table as an amended bill. One of the select committee members said to me: “But Ron this guts your bill.” My answer to him was: “I left my ego outside the door. The aim is to improve the youth justice system.” 
It saddens New Zealand First greatly that the opportunity to take these amendments put them into the bill and present the newly amended bill to this Table has been thwarted by the refusal of National and Labour to accept the amendments drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. We think that is a perversion of the democratic process and of the select committee process and we are not happy. I will seek leave to table this document. Let us be clear that these amendments produced at the select committee would have achieved everything that Mr Key says he wants to achieve. They would widen the jurisdiction of the Youth Court not shrink it; enhance the sentencing options available to the Youth Court judge not restrict them; broaden the definition of serious offending and make it stronger and more acceptable to the two major parties; and ensure that young offenders do not go to jail but go to a youth detention facility. We were saddened by that. I seek the leave of the House to table PCO s7176/3 the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill proposed amendments for the consideration of the select committee. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RON MARK 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from me to the members of the Law and Order Committee Parliament Buildings Wellington dated 16 October outlining New Zealand First’s ultimate intention and our willingness to accept amendments to definitions and the bill to make it more workable. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I want to start by acknowledging the comments made by Mr Mark in the first half of his contribution this evening. On this side of the House we are in no doubt that Mr Mark was well intentioned in his desire to deal with what is quite frankly an appalling state of affairs in respect of youth violent crime. Mr Mark made clear tonight the course he wished to take and we acknowledge that his attempts to achieve this end through the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill were intentions that were well placed. 
The bill and the submissions we heard during the course of its consideration enabled the Law and Order Committee to hear evidence from a wide range of people. It soon became clear that there were grave concerns about the rate of violent youth crime in New Zealand. Mr Mark is quite right when he says that since 1999 violent youth crime has risen 43 percent. The problem though is that this bill will not do what it needs to do in order to address those issues. 
To say that the criticism of the bill was strong would be to understate the case. It is worth listening to what Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft had to say about the bill during the submission process. He said: “In short it would effectively end our current youth justice system it would abolish the way that we have acted for the last 19 years and whatever … have been the intentions it is clear that this bill in my respectful view is profoundly poorly drafted. One could even say it is abysmally drafted. And I would have to say that I am concerned that such an important issue that is youth justice and youth offending has had to address such a poorly drafted piece of legislation.” 
Judge Becroft went on to say: “Frankly it is a bill that would require massive amendment in its present form. It simply could not proceed in its present form.” The important point though about the judge’s submission was this: “If any amendment were contemplated of the degree that would be necessary it would really result in a whole new bill. … So in my submission it would be quite wrong to amend what is here because that would deprive”—and this is an extremely important point given the comments just made by Mr Mark—“the youth justice community and the public from making meaningful submissions to what would effectively be a whole fresh product.” 
In other words we would be starting again if the massive amount of work required to get the bill into a workable form had been undertaken and the public would be denied the opportunity to make submissions on the amended version of the bill. That is a profoundly important point. The judge went on to say: “These are all in my view profound deficiencies in this bill. … I think this bill needs to be withdrawn and it needs to start again.” The Children’s Commissioner although perhaps less focused on the legalities of the matter made similar comments as did the New Zealand Law Society and the Human Rights Commission. 
When National put together its minority view on this bill—although we supported the recommendation of the select committee—we wanted these comments recorded. There were as Mr Mark rightly points out contrasting views—from the practitioners who thought that the youth justice system was working well and from the lay people who ran up against it and repeatedly expressed their lack of confidence. That meant that a discussion about the youth justice system was timely and warranted. However it became clear during the submission process after objections from the Principal Youth Court Judge the Children’s Commissioner the Human Rights Commission the New Zealand Law Society and the advisers to the committee that the bill was flawed. 
In spite of that and despite the impression that may have been given the committee did work in good faith to try to resuscitate the bill with targeted amendments. National viewed the lack of progress in this regard as a lost opportunity. But I return to the judge’s comments which were in effect that had the massive amount of amendments been made to the bill that were required to make it operational and workable the public would be denied the opportunity to have another say on the new bill. 
In effect the bill in its original form wiped out the jurisdiction of the Youth Court. In effect it abolished the police diversion scheme. All of these are big steps to take. Despite what Mr Mark has just expressed to the House National Party policy in this area is quite the opposite. Our policy is to extend the jurisdiction of the Youth Court in a downward fashion to capture younger offenders not to abolish the jurisdiction of the Youth Court as this bill would have done. In fact in our submission any attempt to abolish the police diversion scheme would be the wrong step to take. 
All that having been said there remains a serious problem in New Zealand society around violent youth crime. Mr Mark is quite right when he says that it has increased by 43 percent since 1999. This is an issue that will not go away. This is an issue that the Parliament will have to address in some shape or form. Unfortunately this bill was not capable of addressing that issue in a coherent and workable way. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a relatively short call in opposition to the bill but I do so because the bill canvasses very important issues and issues that are very important for our community. Like the previous speaker Mr Power I join the New Zealand Law Society; Unicef New Zealand; the Human Rights Commission; the National Council of Women; Women’s Refuge; the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Society; the Child Abuse Prevention Services; Activate which is the Ministry of Youth Development’s advisory group; the Youth Justice Independent Advisory Group; the Wellington Community Law Centre; the Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand; the Office of the Children’s Commissioner; the Churches’ Agency on Social Issues; and the Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft in opposing the bill. 
It is not often that anyone can stand in this House and list support that is so comprehensive in terms of rejecting legislation like this. I will come back to the comments that Judge Becroft made because some of those comments that Mr Power alluded to have a degree of details to them that should be shared with the House and written into the public record. 
As members know and as the community knows the bill seeks to change a procedure for young offenders who commit crimes and although no one would object to that I think most people would acknowledge that crime in all its facets at all age groups is an extremely complex issue as is social policy of any kind and the dividend that is to be reaped from social policy changes and social policy funding is one that people wait for for quite a considerable time and I will come back to that point later on in my comments. 
The attitude the House and communities should reasonably take about issues of this kind is that a number of broad-ranging interventions are more likely to be effective than a more Draconian response to those issues as is advocated by some of the less moderate in our communities. The debate we had yesterday around the Government’s programme Stop Tagging Our Place and the bill that was read a second time in this House last evening about tagging and graffiti vandalism are part of that suite of initiatives that will turn round attitudes. 
As Mr Power has already commented Judge Becroft was very damning in his comments about the draft legislation but he was not the only one. Those individuals and groups that I itemised earlier who have a huge amount of experience in working with young people asked that the bill be not proceeded with or else be rewritten. The bill suggests changes to the process for dealing with 10 to 13-year-olds and one of the most telling things in the advice I have is the comment from Judge Becroft: “If this bill were passed it would in one stroke end the family group conference as we know it in its entirety.” Now I am not standing here and saying the family group conference is without problems but I do believe that the family group conference is one of the elements of the European approach to social policy and the judiciary that have been extraordinarily successful here. 
I am not even suggesting it has been as well resourced as it might have been. I think most people who deal with family group conferences and the associated issues would acknowledge that and that is an issue for our communities but it is sad that it is one of the few parts of a much more effective series of interventions that European jurisdictions have developed around family issues—which are always fraught and family and youth issues equally—that have been extraordinarily successful. I hope we can strengthen the family group conference approach to matters resource it better and in fact continue a shift in the focus of our judiciary and our judicial system that moves much more towards that sort of European approach rather than the highly adversarial system we inherited from our English forebears. 
It is important also to note that Judge Becroft commented that there were around 1000 to 3000 persistent youth offenders usually boys and commented further to the Law and Order Committee that the real solution to that group is early intervention and I will come back to that in a moment. But one of the most telling things he said is as follows: “Violent offending for 10 to 13-year-olds … the rate has dropped in 10 years from 47 individuals per 100000 to 38 per 100000. The rates for dishonesty offences for 10 to 13-year-olds’ apprehension … the rates have significantly fallen.” He simply made the point: where is the statistical evidence to suggest that offending by 10 to 13-year-olds is spiralling out of control? 
It might be convenient for members of the House to quote wider figures but if we are talking about that particular age cohort would it not be nice to apply the facts to this argument? Those facts quite simply show as Judge Becroft said to the select committee in his evidence that the 10 to 13-year-old age group is the only age group where the violent offending rate is coming down. So why would any Parliament in its right mind proceed with more Draconian methods or with watering-down a very effective method for those people? 
Judge Becroft made the point also that we send—to our shame and embarrassment actually—too many people to prison by international standards and we know that. We also send about 60 under-17-year-olds to prison every year and no one should think therefore that we are soft on crime in that area. But the key message I wish to share with the House is simply that early interventions as I said earlier are things that take a long time to flower and that is why I am so proud that this Government has extensively continued over the last 9 years—and will continue to do so after its success at the end of this year—to offer those interventions for young people. 
Rather than responding by way of this bill to issues around youth behaviour we need to continue with things like lower doctors’ fees and lower prescription charges; with B4 School checks and Well Child checks because we all know that the children who are not fed not monitored not looked after and not supported by their communities are the ones who cause these difficulties. We need to continue with programmes like 20 hours’ free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds and we need to continue with good social policy like the Working for Families tax credits. 
We know that this Government in recent times has responded also to a crying need—with large non-governmental organisations that provide a lot of the social service support in our community—for further funding and I hope that will be able to be continued. We know that Schools Plus creates really good opportunities for our school-age children in the future and anyone who was listening to question time in the House today would know that housing is a major issue not just the affordability of housing but the problems that this community faces as a result of the sell-off of over 13000 State houses by our predecessors in Government. 
So I am afraid I cannot listen—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not think very many members of the community who were watching television this afternoon have forgotten that many of the problems that have been created in our communities are ones that we are working hard and working successfully to correct. 
As I said no one has any doubt about the intent of the mover of this legislation. It was clearly canvassed at great length and my colleague Martin Gallagher will speak about some of that further detail covered in the select committee. I believe that the approach we are taking—namely a broad set of social initiatives to support and help young people and their families into more appropriate behaviour—is a much better way than the sort of reaction advocated by legislation of this kind. Thank you. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 As impotent as it might make some politicians feel the fact is that legislation cannot fix everything and this legislation can certainly not fix the problems that my colleague Ron Mark my whanaunga Ron Mark has brought to the attention of the House. There are serious concerns and he has within him a legitimate concern that he wants dealt with. But this bill will not fix it; no bill will fix it. I am proud that the Green Party opposed this legislation from the beginning continues to oppose it through this second reading and looks forward to its failure in this House because this is not the solution to deal with the very real concerns that Ron Mark has raised. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Last Sunday the  
Herald on Sunday  
ran a snoop story on Bailey Junior Kurariki. It talked up his home detention like he was in paradise when all it had was shots of a young man standing around talking on his cellphone which he could already do in jail and the fact that he had a birthday and got some presents too. Big deal; one can get that stuff in jail too—even the birthday cake. This young fellow will have it tough enough trying to make it on the outside as a man after spending all of his teenage years in jail without a camera highlighting his every move and rednecks calling for his head every second day. 
Today we consider this Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill which aims to severely punish young offenders who commit serious crimes as a means of deterring others because somebody thinks that the youth justice system is too lenient and that we should be hitting young crims harder. To no one’s surprise on analysing the statistics of those who are arrested most prosecuted most and convicted most Maori youth get the prize three times more often than anyone else. The Maori Party thinks this bill is rubbish; it is another knee-jerk reaction to a problem in society that the Government does not know how to fix. And how do we know that severely punishing young offenders who commit serious crimes as a means of deterring others does not work? It is easy—because the Americans have been following that route for decades and they have thousands upon thousands of seriously violent criminals whom they are too scared to let out on the streets because they are 10 times worse than when they went into prison and many of those started off as teenagers. That is how we know it will not work here because it does not work anywhere. 
Do members want to know another reason why it will not work? The reason is that the Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft says so. He has seen more of those cases than every single one of us will ever see—that is why. And who is this judge? He is the guy we have appointed to deal with all the seedy problems of our youth that we do not want to deal with—that is who he is. OK so Judge Becroft is the guy who knows it all. What did he actually say about all of this youth offending? He reckons: “The over-representation of Maori in the youth justice system is probably the most pressing issue confronting all of those who are involved daily in our youth justice system in Aotearoa. 
And what does he say about this bill? What is his opinion on this bill? Members will all want to hear what he says about this bill because he knows more about this stuff than all of us. He said that this bill was “profoundly poorly drafted in fact abysmally drafted”. “No no” I say to the judge “do not try to spare our feelings. Tell us what you really think.” He said: “profoundly poorly drafted in fact abysmally drafted”. Judge Becroft has also spoken out previously about how biased the criminal justice system is against Maori kids noting Ministry of Social Development research that suggests half the Maori population is under 19; there is an increased vigilance of Maori youth by police; Maori youth are highly visible in the youth justice system; Maori youth are more likely to end up in the Youth Court where tougher sentences are handed out than go to a family group conference; and Maori youth are likely to get more severe sentences than other kids. 
With all this going against our kids we knew that somebody had to make the safety and well-being of our rangatahi an absolute priority. Angeline Greensill Maori Party candidate for Hauraki-Waikato reminded us that that is exactly what the Maori Party is here for: “to defend Maori rights and to advance Maori interests for the benefit of the whole nation.” That is an excellent philosophy because it seems that the two major parties have become obsessed with trying to bash Maori kids into submission with tagging bills and youth offending bills without any thought whatsoever to the consequences of continuing down the pathway of heavy sentencing. Even the New Zealand Law Society was heavily critical of this bill and we could hardly say that that society is a puppet of the Maori Party. It said: “the Bill demonstrates a misunderstanding of New Zealand’s youth justice system adult criminal justice system and international obligations in respect of children and young persons”. We would go further. We would also say that the bill demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of New Zealand’s young people and their families. 
But no it seems that this bill simply does not accept the fact that a Government that shows scant respect for its youth is asking for trouble from those very ones it has discarded. A Government that allows rampant illiteracy must also accept the consequence of having so many disaffected people within society. A Government that would charge teenagers for an education that its members got for free can hardly expect respect from its youth. A Government that would ban the smacking of children but reacts to the problems with teenagers by simply getting a bigger and bigger stick is a Government destined for the Opposition benches. 
Yes crime violates people and yes serious crime is a crime upon society itself. But given how poorly prisons actually rehabilitate inmates all we will actually achieve by fast tracking teenagers into serious offenders is leaving our kids a time bomb to deal with that we did not have the guts to deal with ourselves. Determining blame and administering pain is not the answer and banging on about youth crime in election year is an ugly and pathetic way to get votes. Restorative justice has a far better success rate. It may take a little longer and it certainly takes a lot more intelligence but as Nelson Mandela himself would say if renewal is your game then reconciliation beats retribution every day. 
New Zealand’s ground-breaking Children Young Persons and Their Families Act and the family group conference are not perfect by any means but they are steps in the right direction. Families are actively encouraged to help address crimes committed by their young people and the conferences are where whanau hapu and iwi can resolve disputes for the betterment of all parties. Locking people away simply does not work—again ask Nelson Mandela. They locked him away for 25 years and they could not break his spirit. They could not get him to renounce his beloved African National Congress and they could not get him to accept apartheid. All they did was make him more determined to win and win he most assuredly did. 
Talking about the great Nelson Mandela he also said that a nation should be judged not by how it treats its highest citizens but by how it treats its lowest ones. That is the challenge we are faced with whenever bills like this come before the House. We have to be smarter we have to listen to the alarm bells signalling a breakdown in our society we have to be willing to admit that we do not have all the answers we have to listen to one another again and again and we have to actually decide whether people are more important than property. We have to decide whether to build a nation going forward by empowering those on the bottom to believe that the world is theirs and not just the shadows; or to take the easy road chuck the kids in jail and hope they never come knocking on our nightmares when they get out again. 
The Maori Party will oppose this bill and all that it stands for. Tena koe. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to take an unusual position on the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. We will support the bill’s second reading although we are unlikely to support it any further. The reason we have taken this particular stand which is an unusual stand to take is that we believe that this bill and its sponsor have been given extremely shoddy treatment by this House. 
Our concerns about the bill were signalled in the first reading debate. What amazes us is that despite the fact that the bill’s sponsor willingly drafted substantial amendments to change the bill in the direction that its submitters had requested there was no will or effort shown in response. Given that there was such willingness to improve a lot of the concerns that people had I would like to label the response that was dished up to the bill as plain laziness. Let me draw a comparison. When the Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill was put before Parliament it was very dysfunctional and poorly drafted legislation—everybody understood that. But because the sponsor of the bill was willing to have it worked on to negotiate and to consult interested people around the community and within this House a considerable amount of time and effort was put into helping him get it into a much more acceptable format to be returned to the House for the second reading. But this bill has never been afforded that luxury. 
Let me give members another example. When the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill was introduced into this House it scraped through to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and then considerable work was done. The sponsor allowed the bill to be parked. The Department of Labour jumped on board and for 12 months behind the scenes in consultation with the sponsor it worked vigorously on that bill to bring it back into a completely redrafted state where it could be introduced into the House at the second reading reconsidered. I could name a lot of legislation that has turned up in the House for a second reading looking markedly different from how it looked when it entered the House for its first reading. 
We all understand that getting a member’s bill balloted and taken through the process is a very precious thing to members and I think that Ron Mark has been served a very raw deal in regard to his bill. I have explained to Mr Mark that some of his amendments could not be supported by United Future but that is not the point I am making here. The point I am making is that every bill is deserving of good process and I do not believe that this bill has been given that. For that reason and that reason alone United Future is prepared to support the bill’s second reading. I feel critical even of the Government in this regard because the Green Party whose bills I mentioned before has a deal with the Government whereby it abstains on issues of supply and confidence. It does not put its vote forward and support this Government yet the Government will bend itself over backwards to do additional work on any of the Green Party’s bills in order to get them into a fit state to return them for a second reading. The Government will not give the same courtesy to a bill from a support party. 
If a bill has been given a fair chance to improve in a select committee as much as it is capable of being improved and is then rejected that is a different matter. In that case one chooses to reject it on the basis of its potential and what has been worked on. I think Ron Mark has been given a very shoddy deal here and for that reason and that reason alone United Future is supporting the second reading of the bill so that it can come to the floor of the House and the amendments that he wanted to have made at the select committee can be given the chance to be considered by the Committee of the whole House. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. I want to make it clear that although National opposes this bill it is certainly of the view that violent youth offending rates do warrant intervention and serious consideration. It is clear that there has been an increase in the intensity of violent crime committed by young offenders and this is one issue that does need to be addressed in the future. Certainly the many discussions held at the Law and Order Committee highlighted a number of other matters that are deserving of our attention in this arena. 
However in light of a number of the submissions including as has been mentioned but not limited to submissions from Judge Becroft the Principal Youth Court Judge the Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro and the New Zealand Law Society it became apparent throughout the process that despite the best intentions of the member and indeed of the select committee the bill in its original form notwithstanding the proposed amendments was simply unworkable and should not and indeed could not proceed. 
We in the National Party want to get tough on crime and we have proven that we have not put the issue of youth crime in the too-hard basket; instead we have come up with a fresh innovative strategy to help deal with some of the problems that this bill intended to fix. Our youth plan released earlier this year tackles the problem of youth offending and will help to get these at-risk children off the conveyor belt to crime. An overwhelming number of prison inmates begin their criminal careers as young offenders. In fact young people between the ages of 10 and 16 are responsible for a quarter of the crime in this country and youth offending has been quoted as being 21 percent of all offending. National’s youth plan will help turn these statistics round by giving the Youth Court new powers to get young people back on the rails and providing tougher sentencing options to deal with those who pose a serious threat to the safety of our communities. 
We will not turn our backs on those who most need help. We want to give all young New Zealanders the opportunity and the responsibility to better themselves no matter what their circumstances abilities or track record and simply locking up young offenders and throwing away the key will not address this. 
I want to dwell for a small time on the criticisms of the process. I think it is incumbent on us as members of Parliament to make sure that the laws we pass in this Parliament are good laws and ones not so riddled with flaws that they need to be revisited time and time again. It is important to note that if amendments to this bill were indeed even possible then the only clauses remaining in the original bill in its original form would have been the title clause and the commencement date clause and in fact the only clause remaining totally unchanged would have been the title clause. The amendments were so substantial that it really would not have been fair. Submitters would not have been given the opportunity to present on such a dramatically amended bill and we would have had to start all over again. 
Given the huge legal implications this bill would have on our youth justice system it would be irresponsible for us to support it at the second reading. The Law and Order Committee had serious concerns about the structure drafting and operational implications of this bill and the Youth Court. We have already heard the words of Judge Becroft: “In short it would effectively end our current youth justice system it would abolish the way that we have acted for the last 19 years and whatever … have been the intentions it is clear that this bill in my respectful view is profoundly poorly drafted. One could even say it is abysmally drafted.” 
The bill also aroused concern from a number of legal practitioners experienced in the criminal justice system. The New Zealand Law Society echoed concerns and in its submission stated: “The Society opposes this Bill. As it is presently drafted the Bill demonstrates a misunderstanding of New Zealand’s youth justice system adult criminal justice system and international obligations in respect of children and young persons.” 
I mentioned earlier that this bill would have huge legal implications for the youth justice system and I think it is important to examine some of these this evening. Irrespective of the member’s motivations for the introduction of this bill and his intent effectively the bill would abolish the Youth Court by removing almost all criminal offenders from its jurisdiction. We heard that it would remove 95 percent of cases from its jurisdiction leaving only depositions hearings involving 10 to 16-year-olds. 
The definition of a serious offence was one that was widely discussed at the select committee and it is extremely wide: far wider than other definitions of the same phrase in other legislation. We have heard that it defines a serious offence as any offence for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term of not less than 3 months or a fine of not less than $2000 and yes that would include the “Moro bar thief” or any other offence committed by an offender who has previously been convicted of an offence or has more than three previous convictions for offences. 
There would be no Crimes Act offences outside this definition and only 18 Summary Offences Act offences that are not serious according to this definition. Examples of such offences include acting as a medium with intent to deceive; publishing a false notice of birth marriage or death; and trespass on a ship. All are very rare offences some of which are not even relevant to youth offenders and Judge Becroft noted that he had never seen these offences before the Youth Court in all his years of involvement. 
The bill would introduce a new system where almost all children and young people between the ages of 10 and 16 who need to be charged in court rather than diverted will have to be charged in the District Court as opposed to the Youth Court. It will ensure that children and young people will be tried and punished as adults. If this bill were to pass we would see many offences committed by children deemed as serious although the same offence carried out by an adult would not be considered in the same way. This would see a situation whereby children were given harsher treatment than adults. Although the term “adult time for adult crime” has been bandied about it is worthwhile to consider the huge body of research that shows that teenagers do not have the same developmental level of cognitive or psychological maturity as adults. 
The bill as originally drafted would amend the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act of 1989 so that children as young as 10 might be dealt with in the adult courts thereby establishing a new system for those between the ages of 10 and 13. What is confusing about this however is that there is already a procedure in place to deal with 10 to 13-year-olds. The current system whereby child offenders are dealt with under section 14 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act remains entirely unchanged. Thus we would be left with two parallel and contradictory systems. 
In conclusion I reiterate the National Party’s stance as being one that is tough on crime. However unfortunately this bill does not achieve that objective. Although the bill has brought a number of issues to the table that need to be confronted any support for the bill as drafted from this point onwards would be irresponsible on our part. Reluctantly although we support the intent of the bill we in the National Party must oppose its second reading. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. Before I praise and commend the mover of this bill in terms of the issues he has raised with this Parliament I will take brief issue with Judy Turner who implied that insufficient consideration had been given to it. As the former chair of the Law and Order Committee I reiterate that this bill was referred to the committee on 29 March 2006. We received and considered 66 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard 35 submissions which included holding hearings in Auckland. We also conducted a site visit to the Child Youth and Family facility in Rolleston Christchurch. We also received advice from the Ministry of Social Development the New Zealand Police the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health also contributed to advice provided to the committee. I also want to ensure that Judy Turner has read the 15-page concise summary of the bill—so that there is no misapprehension I certainly urge people to read it. 
Although we are not able to support the continuation of this bill I strongly and warmly praise Ron Mark for introducing this bill. I acknowledge that even though we will not progress with this particular bill tonight the issue of youth crime and youth offending will absolutely remain with us tomorrow morning. 
We have heard tonight about some very serious examples of youth offending. We have all had the experience where we have spoken as members of Parliament as friends as neighbours and as relatives to victims of crime and victims of youth crime. Indeed when one sees the hard-working shop owner who is literally ageing before one’s eyes because he has been constantly hit by taggers and by the broken windows then of course it is natural that one wants to see an effective system to protect him as a victim so that he can get on with his life but most important in order to stop the offending. 
I also acknowledge the anti-graffiti bill that was debated in this House yesterday. That bill was also before the Law and Order Committee. 
The two key concerns raised in the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill are the accountability of child offenders and the need for longer youth court orders to address serious and persistent youth offending. I note that these concerns are being addressed in the context of the update of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 and I notice that the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) is before the Social Services Committee at the moment. 
As our report acknowledged we hope members of the Social Services Committee have already read our report very closely. We hope they have availed themselves of the very comprehensive range of submissions and the issues that were raised in terms of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill. I note also that the lowering of the age of prosecution was considered in the consultation phase of the update of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. The majority of submitters who commented on this issue in that particular consultation process opposed lowering the age of prosecution. I notice also that the Government is addressing concerns regarding the response to child offenders and serious and persistent offending by young people aged 14 to 16 through the proposals in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) and indeed for longer Youth Court orders. 
That particular bill which is before the Social Services Committee strengthens the approach taken to young offenders but does not cause them to be treated as adults unless necessary. Comprehensive research asserts that children and young people who are dealt with on an adult basis are more likely to reoffend especially those who are subject to imprisonment. 
There is debate around lowering the age of criminal responsibility and criminal prosecution and we have heard evidence that that is inconsistent with research on the cognitive capacity and the intellectual and emotional capacity of children and young persons. To state the obvious I say that adolescents have incomplete brain development and insufficient life experience to enable them to foresee the absolute consequences of their actions or to enable consistent and sound decision-making especially at times of high emotional arousal. However those facts should not let a young person off the hook at all. Let me stress that it is a matter of having the outcome the consequence and the punishment appropriate to the age and appropriate to the crime. 
As I have said before I acknowledge the significant contribution of Mr Ron Mark and I know he will respectfully disagree with the majority view of the Law and Order Committee in terms of our report back to Parliament. I acknowledge his significant input and contribution to the bill that is now before the Social Services Committee. 
In the context of the bill tonight we need to note that the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) strengthens the responses to children aged 10 to 13 who offend by proposing to enable the Family Court to make orders against adults who profit from or are involved in child offending thereby preventing them from contacting child offenders. The bill also applies youth justice principles to child offending and gives the Family Court greater powers to limit where a child offender can reside. The bill gives the Family Court the power to make bail-like conditions for children who are alleged to have offended and gives police greater powers to enforce such conditions. The bill requires the court to review the status of many child offenders who come before it every 6 months until it is satisfied that the child’s offending behaviour has ceased. The bill clarifies and simplifies the child offending provisions. 
Also I notice that the bill before the Social Services Committee strengthens the responses to young offenders aged 14 to 16 who offend by creating two new Youth Court orders for serious offenders: extended supervision with residence and extended supervision with activity. Extended supervision with residence proposes that a young person be in a secure residence for up to 6 months followed by up to 12 months’ supervision. Extended supervision with activity proposes that a young person be subject to activity for up to 6 months followed by supervision for a further period of 6 months and requires the system—and this is very critical—to be more responsive to the needs of victims removing a young person’s right to refuse receiving a community work order or supervision with that activity order. In my view those were very constructive proposals put before the select committee and we certainly look forward to the committee’s report back. 
The report of the Law and Order Committee looked at some real issues. The issues on page 9 which have regard to youth mental health and addiction facilities are important. I acknowledge that significant progress has been made under this Government but certainly there is ongoing concern about access to mental health services for young offenders and speaking for parents and families there is the ongoing issue of adequate access to addiction services to help young people. 
I was talking to a colleague at Christchurch airport the other night. He told me about his experience of attending a family group conference. He made some very valid points to me. Yes there is evidence of family group conferences that have not worked well and that has to be an area of renewed focus. After talking to constituents and my colleague the other night I think there has to be a real focus on the victim and on ensuring that victims know their rights and have had explained to them the exact processes. We need to make sure that the venue for and environment of family group conferences centre around what is convenient for the victim and we need to spell out the options very clearly. 
I acknowledge that there has been evidence historically of some bad practice in terms of family group conferences. I think the majority have been quite good but we certainly need to learn from bad practice the ambience in which the victim has somehow felt outnumbered and in the minority. It seems to me that family group conferences should be just as much about how we can ensure restitution adequate compensation and respect for the victim as about trying to get a young person’s life on track. 
By the way if a young person appears at a family group conference for the 10th time it may be a message that that particular approach is not working adequately. The competence and effectiveness with which those family group conferences are undertaken should be focused upon. 
It is also timely to acknowledge the contributions of Principal Youth Court Judge Becroft and many others. As chair of the Law and Order Committee I acknowledge the excellent contribution made by the mover of this bill Ron Mark and I thank the many people who have made a very valuable contribution through their submissions on the bill. Hopefully the Social Services Committee will also avail itself of those comprehensive submissions in considering the legislation currently before it. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I begin by acknowledging the proposer of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill Ron Mark. Despite the fact that Labour is opposing the bill and despite what I believe was a misrepresentation of the facts by Judy Turner—it was not deliberate but I certainly do not share her perception—in bringing this bill to the House Ron Mark has not only shown his personal concern for the increase in high-end offenders amongst young people but also raised a very useful debate. I do not agree with what Ron Mark has proposed as a solution; I think it would work in the opposite way. But I have no doubt at all about his personal intention in bringing this bill to the House to make victims feel as though their role in youth justice issues and crime is of primary concern to the House and to make Parliament’s key consideration that of making young people more accountable for their offending earlier on in the piece so reducing the likelihood of offending again. 
I say to Ron Mark that I do not share Judy Turner’s view about the way his bill was treated; it was treated in no other way than seriously and with what I consider was very rigorous consideration. When I read the report of the Law and Order Committee I was very impressed. To be frank given the huge opposition to the bill it would have been quite easy for the committee to be dismissive of it but it was not. The committee said that the bill had been put forward with good intent; it had been put forward because we needed to look at youth justice issues in our community and develop robust policies. The bill was progressed through the select committee under the fantastic leadership of Martin Gallagher at the beginning and under somebody else more recently after Martin was promoted. Who is the current chair of the Law and Order Committee? 
Martin Gallagher 
: Ron Mark. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Ron Mark the proposer of the bill himself. We could not get much better chairing. 
I want to make another point in relation to the specific issue of lowering the age of criminal responsibility. I consider that that action has been internationally disregarded as being the best response to youth crime. It has been overwhelmingly opposed by youth justice practitioners in New Zealand and is clearly not the way to get the best outcomes. But that does not mean we should not have the debate. That does not mean we should back away from something that in the view of some has already been refuted. To go even further than that I say that we certainly should not back away from something controversial. Parliament should be the place for controversial debates. 
I took what was quite an unusual step and included Ron Mark’s proposal in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6) discussion document knowing that I did not agree with the proposal. Knowing that Ron Mark had a bill before the Law and Order Committee that was not supported I still said that the issue was live amongst some people in our community and that Parliament should consider it. I have put it on the record that the proposal should be part of the formal consideration of the amendment to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act that is now before the Social Services Committee. I have a paper trail showing that I have taken this issue seriously. 
I regret the timing of our two bills the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill and Ron Mark’s bill. If I were him I would be a bit grumpy—I seem to recall that he was actually. I seem to recall a momentary inclination towards grumpiness but I am glad that it passed because the timing was not deliberate. If the member thinks I am able to control the proceedings of the House to such a fine degree then he is mistaken. The timing was neither deliberate nor intended to cause any offence. I deliberately put his proposal in the discussion document about the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill so that it could have another round of discussion—but in a broader context. It is the broad context we need to focus on. 
I also agree with Kate Wilkinson—there is a first for everything—who said tonight that had we taken up the points Judy Turner mentioned and tried to rework the bill into something acceptable the title would have been the only part remaining. That is clearly not a runner. 
I conclude by looking at what the committee said in the conclusion of its report. The committee after its consideration of submissions and other deliberations concluded: “While the majority of us did not believe that the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill was an effective tool to make such changes”—and those changes need to be done to improve our youth justice system—“we think our consideration has been very useful in highlighting many important concerns. We are sure that the submissions and advice received in consideration for this bill will prove to be a valuable resource for future legislative proposals.” 
As I have mentioned a bill in my name is before the Social Services Committee at the moment. It aims to strengthen the responses of our youth justice system to 10 to 13-year-olds and 14 to 16-year-olds. The submissions made with that goal in mind during consideration of Ron Mark’s bill will be part of the consideration of the amendment in my name at the Social Services Committee. I hope that the members of the Law and Order Committee who went through that submission process will now move on with more advanced thinking in the light of hearing from so many people that bluntly lowering the age was not the answer. We still all agree that the question needs a response. I hope that the Law and Order Committee having considered Ron Mark’s bill will put its advanced knowledge to good effect. I give my commitment to working with the Social Services Committee on the progress of the amendment currently before it. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill in the name of the member Ron Mark. Like other members in the House I too acknowledge the years of work that have gone into this bill and his commitment to it. ACT will be supporting this second reading. I think it is a shame that the Law and Order Committee was unable to recommend that the bill progress further especially noting Mr Mark’s willingness to be very flexible about the outcome. He was very much of the mind I think that anything moving towards an improvement in the youth justice system was a positive move and therefore he was quite prepared to listen to the opinions of people from other parties around the table to take those into account and to work hard to see whether something could positively be brought back to the second reading and Committee stage in this Parliament. I understand that Mr Mark has signalled his willingness if the bill were to make it through to the Committee stage to consider further changes too. I think he should be congratulated on that. 
I like the previous speaker was also going to read from the conclusion of the select committee report. I do not think I heard Ruth Dyson read out the first sentence of the committee’s conclusion which I think is very pertinent. She started on the second sentence and I would like to bring to the attention— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I referred back to the first sentence. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Oh the member went back—OK. Well I will start with the first sentence because I think that it is the crux of the matter and it is very telling on where the select committee got to. It states: “We believe much work still needs to be done to improve the youth justice system.” I think that few in this House would disagree with that statement. In light of that I think it is a great shame that we do not have before us today a bill that a majority of members in this House feel they could support. I think that Mr Mark has done great work and that he has moved the debate forward—as many members have suggested—but we want more than debate. We actually want some action in terms of youth justice because violent criminal activity occurs amongst far too many of our young people. It is impacting on our communities and our society and it means that New Zealand is not heading down the direction that many of us would like to see it go in. 
I will refer to a couple of other comments in the select committee’s report and I will touch on just a couple of areas. The first one is under the heading of “Youth Offending Strategy” and I will make a brief comment about the youth justice dataset. The report states: “While examining this bill we found it difficult to get statistical information that tracked youth offenders into the adult system. We were concerned that after 18 years of the CYPF Act there has been limited study of subsequent appearances in the adult jurisdiction of those who first appeared in the Youth Court or were dealt with by the Police Youth Diversion scheme.” There are a couple of other comments too but I think that comment itself is very telling. 
If we have very little idea of what happens to youth offenders as they wind their way firstly through the youth justice system and then for some of them through the District Court and further courts for serious offending then I think it is very difficult to make proper decisions about how we should deal with youth offending. If we have no idea how these criminals progress through the system and if we have no idea how they enter and leave it then how can we make proper decisions? This is a criticism I have not just of the justice system but also of many other systems too particularly the health system where a lack of data is a huge problem when it comes to making proper decisions. That needs to be dealt with. I think it should be dealt with immediately whether or not this bill proceeds and I would like to see some action from the Government in this regard. 
I will also make just a few comments about family group conferences. ACT has been pretty vocal about this. Family group conferences have been shown to be pretty effective for some first-time offenders and I think that those who then do not re-present gain something from the family group conference process. But far too many do not—particularly youth offenders. I have been along to a family group conference when I was a victim. Our ACT bus was stolen after the last election by a young woman—a 13-year-old—who decided to take it for a joyride and crashed it through a brick fence. I went along to a family group conference as a victim because I was curious as to how the process worked. I had heard a lot of criticism about the process. 
Pita Paraone 
: Representing the bus? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Representing the bus; we were the owners. I went along to see how that process would work. Two young women stole that bus. One did not get as far as the family group conference process because she established a contract with the police. She went off and—to the best of my knowledge—she has not reoffended. But the young woman whose conference I went to was a repeat offender. She was offending not just a second time or a third time but was actually well down the track. At the age of 13 she was well under way. A thousand dollars’ worth of damage had been done to our bus and I thought the family clearly would not be able to pay for this. I was right; they had no money. So I thought that the way to deal with it was to get the young woman to do something positive to perhaps realise the error of her ways. ACT was about to deliver some crime pamphlets so I said to the family group conference that I would be prepared to forgo the $1000 worth of damage to the bus if the young lady would come and do 80 hours’ worth of pamphlet delivery. The family group conference felt that that was a bit tough so we compromised on 40 hours of effectively community service. 
The family thought that was a great idea. They felt that that community service was well worth undertaking and that it might teach their young woman a lesson. So she came along with the social worker—[ 
Interruption 
] This is a true story. The people on the other side of the House do not believe me but this is a true story— 
Hon Members 
: No we believe you. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I was not referring to New Zealand First members. On the first day she came along with the social worker and helped stuff some of the pamphlets. After that she was left to her own devices. She was supposed to come into our office and I was to take her out delivering pamphlets the next day. Well guess what? 
Pita Paraone 
: She never fronted. 
HEATHER ROY 
: She never showed up sadly. I had great hopes for her. She seemed like quite a nice girl but no sadly she did not turn up. I rang the social worker after a couple of weeks and said I was very disappointed because I thought that we had a reasonable deal and that this young woman could have got something out of the process. The social worker was very disappointed too. But the family group conference process has absolutely no teeth; there was no come-back. There we were—we were victims who were $1000 down and with not one pamphlet delivered. I rest my case. Where family group conferences are shown not to work in the case of repeat—recidivist—offenders we have to admit that they are a failure and that greater measures need to be taken into account. I felt that Mr Mark’s bill provided the ability to do that so I am very sorry that we will not see this bill progressing any further. I think that it had some good initiatives. 
The previous speaker the Hon Ruth Dyson mentioned the bill in her name that is currently before the Social Services Committee. Some provisions in it do overlap slightly with the provisions in this bill but many of the provisions within this bill cover much wider areas with much greater serious offending in mind. I think that for that reason it is a great shame that the members of the Law and Order Committee could not have come together more and provided something more positive as an outcome and I know that Mr Mark feels very strongly about this. I also acknowledge the comments made by Judy Turner because I agree with her in part. I think that great effort has been made particularly by the Labour Government with regard to other bills that have come before this House when perhaps it did not agree with many of the provisions but it bent over backwards and those bills looked set to progress even further. That willingness did not seem to be here on this occasion. 
ACT New Zealand will be supporting this bill. We believe that serious youth offending is a very very serious problem in this country; it is one that is escalating. The incentives in our current laws do not prevent many offences or much recidivist offending. We think that it is time for action not for just more talk. I would hope in the future that legislation with some of the provisions that this bill has in it will be considered more seriously and put into practice. Thank you. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 My dad taught me and he used to say to me—because believe it or not I used to be a bit fussy about a few things in my early farming days—that sometimes but not always the seeking of perfection can be an excuse for avoiding action. While sitting here listening to these speeches I think sometimes this is what is happening here. Obviously I am speaking in favour of this bill and in favour of my friend and colleague Ron Mark as it happens. One would never believe it from listening to the speeches but Ron Mark’s sole purpose for putting forward this bill is to keep people out of prison. 
We do not want to see young people in prison and we do not want to see recidivist offenders amongst our society. We want these people to have a short sharp hurry-up if you like so that they do not pursue a life of crime. It is not a matter of saying whether we are to have the intervention—that is a good word that is used these days—at 25 18 or 17. The intervention must be at the age when those people commit the crime. Sadly I do not think Ron Mark decided that that should be at 10 or 13 but that is the age at which crimes are being committed and that is when the action must be taken to stop that person from going on to a life of crime. 
It saddens me a little but I can absolutely believe that all members of this House are concerned about this issue. In fact in many ways I can understand why Labour may not be as enthusiastic as we are about doing something about this issue. But I tell members that I cannot understand why National is not supporting this bill. The National Party that I used to belong to all those years ago would have been into this like a fox into a plate of mince. That party wanted to deal to crime back in those days but now I have to say in sadness that it has become an election slogan for the National Party. I think that is tragic. It has been brought out tonight in the debate on this bill and I could not believe it. 
Ron Mark had to ring me in my room where I was diligently attending to the affairs of State to say “Doug you have to get down here and see what is happening.” I said “Mate you will have no problem. You have the National Party you have ACT you have New Zealand First and there are a few others that we hope would come up on the day.” But he said “No. It is not true.” I said “Ron you are having me on.” He said “It is not true.” I asked “Who haven’t you got?”. He said “We haven’t got the National Party.” I said “Get out of here!”. 
I came down to the Chamber because I did not believe him. It is not because he is not an honourable member but because I was a disbelieving little soul. I used to know the National Party. I said “They would support this every day of the week including Saturday and Sunday—especially after what John Key has been saying.” But no; Ronnie was right. The National Party is not supporting this bill. 
Hon Member 
: Except for Brian Connell. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Is Brian Connell supporting it? I did not know that anybody crossed the floor nowadays. Good on him! 
Hon Member 
: And Taito Phillip Field. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: And Taito Phillip Field? Good on him! But he is not here for me to speak to at the moment is he? 
This bill is about keeping people out of prison. I have heard people quoting Judge Becroft. I have heard people saying that criminal offending in this age group is reducing but they do not say what is happening to the 17-year-olds or the 18-year-olds. Those people have been through the system and they are being jailed in increasing numbers. They have been through the system they have been through family group conferences and they have failed. Now those people are going on to more and more crime and to more and more serious crime at that. 
I think that even at this late stage we will forgive National members for making speeches against this bill. We plead with the National Party even at this late stage to help us—help New Zealand—to stop crime. We ask those members to help us to do something for those people who are being attacked in their homes and to do something about the inexplicable crimes that none of us can understand that are being committed. Those members should help us not because Ronnie Mark said they should but because those crimes are being committed by younger and younger members of our society. We believe that those young people deserve a chance. We believe that those young people should be hauled up at a very young age and made to see the error of their ways. 
I cannot contemplate this bill without thinking of my grandson who is coming up to 10 years of age—actually he might even be 10; I forget how many candles he had on his cake last time. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: That’s bad. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I know it is bad. I cannot look at this bill without thinking of him. I will tell members what we have done to make sure that he does not end up amongst these statistics. Firstly his parents secondly his grandparents and thirdly all the rest of the whanau have given him love. We have given him love we have given him support and I daresay in support of section 59 of the Crimes Act I have to admit that we have given him the odd clip under the ear as well. He may well do something bad in the future; I am not ruling that out. But he surely is not doing anything too bad now. If he was he would have his father his mother his sisters his brothers his uncles and his aunts there to make sure it did not happen again. Sadly some people in our society do not have that support and they have to look to the support of the State to bring up their children in the way they should be brought up. 
I want to tell the House a little story. In doing so I just say that we do not want a vigilante-type society to come about just because people are rejecting this bill. I will tell the story quickly. 
Two houses away from a friend of mine there is a group of youths and some of them are very very young. They could possibly come under this bill. They create havoc. They hold parties to all hours of the night. They are two doors away from my friend and a new tenant moved in next door in between the two houses. The guy was big—bigger than Ronnie bigger than me but not quite as big as you Mr Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless he was a big guy. He saw the young guy next door come and take the gas bottle off his porch. He sat there and watched him through the window. Then he went and knocked on the door and said: “Son you have got my gas bottle.” “No I haven’t.” Bang! He smacked him in the nose and dropped him in the dust. Within the week a similar thing happened with another chattel from around the house being taken. The same thing happened. The big guy went over opened the door bopped the young guy on the nose and dropped him on the ground. The problem has been solved. 
That person sadly did not go to the police because he knew that the police could not solve that problem. He knew that these people were too young to come under the purview of the police so he dealt with the situation himself. I would not do that because I am only a little guy. It might have been me getting dropped— 
Hon Member 
: And you are law-abiding. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: And I am law-abiding. It might have been me getting dropped in the dust. But that is the sort of action that people will take if society through the justice system and our excellent police force do not do it for them. We do not want that sort of society. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 14 
New Zealand National 1 (Connell); New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47(Ardern Auchinvole Bennett D Bennett P Blue Blumsky Borrows Brownlee Carter D Carter J Clarkson Coleman Collins Dean English Finlayson Foss Goodhew Goudie Groser Guy Hayes Heatley Henare Hutchison Key King C Mapp McCully Peachey Power Rich Roy E Ryall Shanks Simich Smith L Smith N te Heuheu Tisch Tolley Tremain Wagner Wilkinson Williamson Wong Worth); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I move  
That the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. Tena koe. This bill comes back to this House after having been considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee which unfortunately has recommended that the bill not be passed. It is a bill that I personally sponsored and I am not ashamed to have done so. This bill formalised what New Zealand First indicated it would do prior to the last election. How this bill could be credited to a bigot a redneck a racist or just a plain idiot beggars belief. This bill is not about doing away with references to the Treaty of Waitangi from legislation. It is not about the watering down of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation. It is not about personalities. In particular it is not about the incumbent as has been suggested by some commentators and it is not about preventing Maori from sitting on land cases—yes indeed; to the member who proffered this preposterous thought I say ae marika. 
This bill is about removing the ability of serving judges of the High Court or Maori Land Court to also sit on the Waitangi Tribunal. The amending legislation enacted in 1998 allows serving and retired judges of the High Court to act as members and as chairpersons of the tribunal. Since the tribunal’s establishment there has been provision for the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court to act as its chairperson and because of that provision that has been the situation to date. Of course that begs the question as to why the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court was appointed and not a retired judge as is allowed by the 1998 legislation. And I should say that during the select committee process although that question was asked by the membership of the committee we did not actually get an answer. As I said during the first reading of this bill it would seem highly dubious to us in New Zealand First that serving judges of either the High Court or the Maori Land Court are allowed to preside over matters in the tribunal when they may have presided over those matters in the High Court or indeed in the Maori Land Court. 
I appreciate that the Hon Peter Salmon QC was asked by the Solicitor-General to undertake an independent review into the appropriateness of the chairperson of the tribunal also holding an appointment to the Maori Land Court. Can I say that the honourable judge the Hon Peter Salmon QC found that there was no inherent conflict. He also pointed out quite correctly that all submitters on the bill opposed it. Now many of the submitters indicated that they could see no reason why there should be a separation of the two appointments. I ought to say that in 2001 the Solicitor-General was asked to provide a similar opinion as to the relevance or irrelevance of the position of chairperson of the tribunal being held by the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. I quote him: “In the context of the tribunal of course there is a history of conjoint holding of offices and a very good practical reason for this—namely the relative scarcity of prospective members with the necessary expertise.” 
So the suggestion is that Maori Land Court judges are sitting on the tribunal because of the expertise they bring to the position. I would ask then why laypersons of Maori descent who have a knowledge of things Maori are appointed to the same tribunal. I would have thought that it would be the responsibility of those laypersons to bring that knowledge to the tribunal. However people obviously believe that only a judge of the Maori Land Court can do that. Secondly I want to say that although it is recognised that the present judges of the Maori Land Court bring expertise skill and experience to the tribunal in terms of Maori and Maori culture it was not very long ago that the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and indeed other judges of the Maori Land Court were not even Maori. So we have to ask ourselves why it is then that all of a sudden people who become Maori Land Court judges and who are required to sit on the tribunal need to be Maori and need to have expertise in and knowledge of Maori culture. 
New Zealand First has always been of the view that although we recognise that the learned judges who sit on both the Maori Land Court and the tribunal will know the difference between a situation that presents a conflict of interest and one that does not the fact is that there is still the opportunity for a conflict of interest to arise. I do not in any way doubt the integrity of those persons who have been appointed to those positions. 
I also want to make a comment with regard to the alleged personality issue of both the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and the chairman of the tribunal being one and the same person. I want to make it quite clear that it was never the intention of New Zealand First to question the present incumbent. We have the highest respect for the knowledge and integrity that he brings to the position. However that does not divert the view of New Zealand First in terms of there being an inherent conflict of interest. 
I do not need to go on too much about this bill. Suffice it to say that while New Zealand First is a party in this House this issue will need to be discussed—not necessarily agreed on but certainly considered—by any party that sees itself as forming the next Government of this country. In conclusion I reiterate the support of New Zealand First for this bill. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Conflict of interest is a very serious matter for any professional and certainly for any judge. In the legal profession for example it can arise in a number of ways: lawyers acting against former clients lawyers acting on both sides of a transaction or indeed lawyers who become involved in the commercial dealings of their clients. It is certainly not something that one regards lightly. So the issue raised by the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill required very careful consideration by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I can tell the House that having closely studied the issue having listened to the submissions and having had the benefit of the views of retired High Court Judge Peter Salmon the select committee was satisfied there was no real issue that needed to be considered by the bill. 
The House referred this bill to the select committee on or about 27 June last year and we are dealing with it only now. Regrettably the bill took somewhat longer than usual to deal with at the select committee as we could not get on to it because of the need for the committee to deal with the odious Electoral Finance Bill. As we all know that legislation was aimed at the National Party although as today’s judgment of Justice MacKenzie on the application of the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union shows it was really a cunning plan by Lynne Pillay to aim it at the foot of the Labour Party. Indeed that is what happened in the High Court today to her very own union which appeared before the select committee and argued strenuously for the new regime but which is the first victim of it. But I digress and it is important that at this late hour we come back to the bill. 
Lynne Pillay 
: It’s not about being the victim it’s about justice. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: What does the Labour Party know about justice? 
I come back to the structure of the Waitangi Tribunal. We looked at the structure of the Waitangi Tribunal and of the Maori Land Court and I was very interested in the New Zealand First minority comment which correctly described the tribunal as a commission of inquiry but questioned why it was necessary to have a judge as head of the tribunal. The New Zealand First member failed to understand that although the tribunal is a commission of inquiry it fulfils many of the functions of a court. It gathers facts; it applies the law to the facts. Those are obviously tasks that belong to a judge and New Zealand First never really came out and said what sort of person it would prefer to head the tribunal. Should it be an accountant or a teacher? Everyone knows that lawyers do those sorts of things better than anyone else. 
Then we got on to the important question of conflict of interest. Although the New Zealand First members were yelling and screaming from the pulpit at the first reading alleging an inherent conflict of interest it seems to be the case that New Zealand First does not understand the distinction to be made between an inherent conflict of interest and a potential conflict of interest or a conflict of interest that arises on the particular facts. It was the issue of an inherent conflict of interest that concerned me which is why I was pleased that the bill went to a select committee and I paid very careful attention to it in the select committee deliberations. 
But the fact of the matter is there is no inherent conflict of interest. It is not unusual for judges in New Zealand to sit on a number of different courts. From time to time a judge of the High Court will sit on the civil appeal division of the Court of Appeal or on the criminal appeal division of the Court of Appeal. But it would be unheard-of for a High Court judge to sit as an appellate court judge on his or her appeals because on the facts there would be a conflict of interest. There is no inherent conflict of interest here. The New Zealand First comment in the select committee report almost concedes that because it states that judges can have potential conflicts of interest. Well we acknowledge that but one is never going to be able to do away with potential conflicts of interest. They will arise on the particular facts. What we are satisfied with is that there is no inherent conflict of interest such as would prevent judges of the Maori Land Court from also sitting on the tribunal. 
The third issue that was looked at was knowledge of the issues. The majority of the select committee agreed with Mr Salmon’s conclusion that the best qualified people should be appointed to sit on the tribunal and that such people should have a good understanding of tribal structures Maori land history and Maori customs and tradition. Those competencies are very important in the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal just as they are in the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. Given the relatively small size of the New Zealand jurisdiction sometimes there could be practical difficulties in finding the right people to sit on the tribunal and sometimes there will necessarily have to be an overlap. I do not really think that the New Zealand First minority report addressed that issue at all. There seemed to be quite a lot of waffle about judges in the tribunal having to deal with highly charged atmospheres because of some of the issues that arise but the minority report did not really address the issue of knowledge of the issues at all. 
So all in all it was a very interesting exercise. I satisfied myself that there is no inherent conflict of interest and that the tribunal is particularly well served by the judges of the Maori Land Court who also preside on the tribunal. I might say that New Zealand is extremely lucky to have as Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and chairperson of the tribunal a man of the stature of Judge Joe Williams. He is a great New Zealander. He is an inspirational New Zealander who has achieved a great deal for his country in a very short period of time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This man should have been a QC. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well put and that man should have been Attorney-General! At least I can say that if they came from many lawyers these words would appear to be weasel words laying the foundation for appointment as a silk. But of course I am never going to be one so I can make these comments from the heart and say that Judge Joe Williams is a very fine fellow. 
This bill well intentioned though it may have been was fundamentally misconceived and I come back and remind the New Zealand First members that they were the ones who made the allegations about an inherent conflict of interest. There is no inherent conflict of interest. Admittedly from time to time there can be a potential conflict of interest arising on the facts and then any judges worth their salt will recuse themselves from sitting on the particular cases as one would expect. 
Dail Jones 
: But do they? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: That happens all the time I say to the New Zealand First member who questions me. It is right that judges do that. It happens not only in the tribunal but in the High Court the District Court and other courts as well. We are satisfied that the issue though interesting and very important has been satisfactorily resolved; and that is why National will not be supporting the second reading of this bill. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.