Volume 702 Week 5 - Tuesday 2 December 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 702 Week 5 - Tuesday 2 December 2014[Sitting date: 02 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:975. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 2 December 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersEconomy—Household Savings and Debt Wage Growth and Cost of Living1.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei)to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing New Zealand households are using rising incomes to save more and pay down debt faster?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The household economic survey for the year ended June 2014 shows that New Zealand households are paying down mortgages faster with a 14.8 percent increase in mortgage principal repayments in the 2 years to June. These faster principal repayments explain most of the increase in weekly mortgage costs. New Zealand households have been paying down debt since early 2009 and debt servicing costs as a share of household income are now 38 percent below the peak in September 2008 reflecting a sharp fall in interest rates. As I said last week national accounts data shows that New Zealand household savings rates have now been positive for 5 consecutive years. This is the first time this has happened since 1994.Ian McKelvie: How much have average incomes and wages increased for New Zealand households over the past 2 years and what is driving this?Hon BILL ENGLISH: According to the survey in the last 2 years to June 2014 there was an average overall increase of 9.1 percent in average incomes and wages for households. This is driven by a combination of more people in the labour force more hours worked and wage increases. Wages and salaries were 7 percent higher over those 2 years driven in part by a higher minimum wage and increases in New Zealand superannuation. This compares with inflation of 2.3 percent in the 2 years to June—that is wages and salaries are 7 percent higher and inflation is 2.3 percent in the 2 years to June.Grant Robertson: Given the Minister’s detailed knowledge of the survey can he say whether it shows that housing costs are rising faster than incomes?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it does show that which is why the Government is taking an assertive approach to ensuring more land supply in our metropolitan markets and is also reforming our State housing sector to provide more social and affordable housing. Housing costs have been rising faster than income for about 20 years. This has been one of the principal drivers of inequality in New Zealand and this Government is setting out to change that.Ian McKelvie: How do increases in incomes and wages for New Zealand families and households compare with the cost of housing?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Statistics New Zealand reports that total housing costs increased from $256 per week to $284 per week in the 2 years to June or 11 percent. By comparison average annual household incomes increased by $141 per week before tax. Higher household costs were driven in part by higher council rates interest rates rising off 50-year lows and higher average weekly rental payments which were up $17 to $290 per week. The report notes that more than one in three households that rent spends over 30 percent of its income on housing costs. This is part of a long-run trend in which people on lower incomes are seeing housing costs consume an increasing proportion of their incomes. That is why starting 3 years ago the Government set about to change our planning system our housing supply the regulation of our housing markets and State housing—because we must turn around this 30-year trend.Ian McKelvie: What steps is the Government taking to support further income and wage growth and limit increases in the cost of living?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is following the example of New Zealand households by committing to responsible management of its expenditure maintaining a path to surplus and paying down debt. This helps to keep interest rates lower for longer to take pressure off the exchange rate and to support business investment and job growth. Our goal is to maintain moderate growth through this economic cycle and we are on track to achieve this with projected economic growth of 2 to 3 percent over the next 4 years. In the last year there were 72000 more jobs and an average wage growth of 2.3 percent which was ahead of inflation at 1 percent.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the household economic survey shows that the average household incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 2.9 percent in the past year and that that of the top 20 percent grew by 14.7 percent in the past year and does this not demonstrate that inequality is widening in New Zealand under his watch?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No it does not.Hon Phil Goff: No? Yeah right!Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I invite the member to look at the Child Poverty Monitor that was published yesterday or today which shows a number of measures of income distribution all of which have slightly improved in the last couple of years. It is simply not correct to say that income inequality is getting worse; in fact it is getting mildly better.Prime Minister—Communications with Blogger and Press Gallery2.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: How many of the 46 journalists currently holding full Press Gallery accreditation had he advised of his new cellphone number by the end of October after his number was changed following the Whaledump document release?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):I sent my new phone number to the media numbers that were programmed into my phone that typically contact me by text. That group includes many press gallery contacts as well as media contacts outside the gallery and I am unable to tell the member exactly how many were notified by the end of October.Dr Russel Norman: Is the reason he said that he had given the number to “every member of the media” because he was trying to justify the fact that he had given it to Cameron Slater?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Mr SPEAKER: Sorry even I did not catch that.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Dr Russel Norman: Did he text Cameron Slater his new cellphone number or did he advise him of it in some other way?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did the same thing with Mr Slater as I did with every other person. I sent them a text.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Prime Minister saying—just to be clear—that the way Mr Slater got the Prime Minister’s new cellphone number was that the Prime Minister off his own bat texted Mr Slater his new cellphone number?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I sent a text message to all of the people. As I have said I updated people and the reason I did that of course was that I had to change my phone number because an illegal hacker had decided to put my phone number on the internet. That is the illegal hacker that the member seems to support.Dr Russel Norman: Why did he ensure that Cameron Slater had his phone number but did not give it to senior political reporters such as the political editor at Radio Live?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I gave it to the people whom I have had text conversations with in the past from the gallery. That is not all of the gallery but it is a fair number. I gave it to other people who are in the social media. I can say I did not give it to Kim Dotcom as I am sure that member probably has Mr Dotcom in his mobile phone from the time he went up there for lunch. That was the time when his high horse he parked up there got Ebola.Dr Russel Norman: Is the reason he responded to texts from Cameron Slater over the last few months but did not respond to texts from press gallery journalists that Cameron Slater is a friend or because he fears Cameron Slater?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question I for the most part actually do answer the text messages I get from press gallery journalists. Sometimes they are reporting about what a muppet that member makes of himself when he asks me questions.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it now acceptable for members to use names of other members in the way that was just done in that answer? That exact word has been ruled out of order by Speakers in the past.Mr SPEAKER: I am not ruling the word out of order; I am certainly saying that it is not helpful to the order of the House for the answer to be toned in that way by the Prime Minister. But I took particular note of the question which suggested that he may have been acting in fear and that determined my judgment as to whether the answer was giving some political payback to the way the question was asked in the first place.Dr Russel Norman: Considering that Mr Slater has verbally abused two dead boys and accused the victim of an alleged sexual attack of making it up how disgusting would Cameron Slater have to be before the Prime Minister severed all contact with him?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have made it quite clear in the past that I do not condone all of the statements blogs or actions taken by Mr Slater. But if the member wants to believe that the people who make outlandish or aggressive statements are limited to the right then maybe he might want to check out “Bomber” Bradbury’s comments made on the left.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need some assistance from—[Interruption] Order! I need some assistance from members to my left. This is a point of order.Dr Russel Norman: The question was: will the Prime Minister sever all contact with Cameron Slater? I would like an answer to that question.Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to go back carefully and look at the Hansard when it is printed. That was not the question that the member asked.Prime Minister—Communications with Blogger3.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by any of his statements last week about the Gwyn report and about his relationship with Cameron Slater?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement that he “did not mislead people” when he said that Cameron Slater “ … sent me a text one time and I can’t remember when it was” given they had exchanged texts the evening before?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Andrew Little: Why has he maintained a political relationship with Cameron Slater since the release of Dirty Politics?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For the most part I think I have made the point that I have not. I have not had a proactive relationship with him. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a further supplementary question.Andrew Little: In light of Bill English’s statement that Dirty Politics “isn’t the style of politics I participate in” why does he think Mr English is distancing himself from the Prime Minister’s style of politics?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think Mr English is quite correct. We do not undertake that on this side of the House but if I could just take a moment to catalogue the long list from the left. Shall we start with the H-Fee or shall we go to some of the other actions that we have seen like Phil Goff leaking reports to try to get a better spin. Or should we go through to the person from the Labour Party—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think that answer is actually going to help the order of the House.Andrew Little: Why does he delete records of his text conversations with Cameron Slater? Is it standard practice to delete records of his smear machine as revealed in both the Gwyn and Chisholm reports?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do on an ongoing basis delete all of my text messages. I do that for a very good reason because amongst everything else they would clog up my phone but for security reasons it is in case I lost my phone.Andrew Little: In light of his statements this morning that he has nothing to fear from Cameron Slater releasing their communications will he now request that Mr Slater release those records?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Now I have got trouble with noise from my right-hand side as Mr Little attempts to ask his supplementary question.Andrew Little: Why a week on from the inspector-general’s report has it taken this long for the Prime Minister to admit his true political relationship with Cameron Slater; and why will he not just front up and tell New Zealanders straight what he has been up to in his office?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have been clear. As I said last week it is not a proactive relationship. The member obviously has real issues with it so here is a little question for him: has he made it quite clear to some members of his caucus? Has he made it quite clear to his acting chief of staff? Has he made it quite clear to all members of the Labour Party that they should have no contact with Mr Slater? And can he answer this question: when was the last time that they did? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Only if I call the honourable member to do so.Prime Minister—Report on Release of SIS Information4.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it his position that Mr Goff should not have as the Prime Minister has stated leaked the Gwyn report? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could we ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters to repeat the question?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it his position that Mr Goff should not have as the Prime Minister has stated leaked the Gwyn report?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes that would be my view because that was the confidentiality agreement that surrounded it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it his position that this alleged leak is a matter for police investigation; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No it is a matter for the inspector-general.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case why then was he prepared as Prime Minister to again take on a Minister who had been stood down namely Peter Dunne who leaked four times from the Intelligence and Security Committee?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not proven. The member is making it up as he often does. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are breaking for Christmas next week not this week.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is a fact then is it not also true that he has one set of standards for him and his colleagues and an entirely different and higher one for everybody else?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I have the same set of standards. What is quite clear is that Mr Goff leaked the report. In fact he did not own up to that on day one. He forgot that but he eventually remembered it a day later. He did that as the inspector-general herself has said because he wanted to get a favourable spin or coverage—those were the words. Unfair coverage was put on this side of the House. See it is an interesting scenario is it not? It is an interesting scenario when you go out and leak a report before it is due out to try to get favourable coverage because you know it will not stack up. Unfortunately it backfired.Job Creation and Unemployment—Reports5.MELISSA LEE (National)to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What reports has he received on the importance of skilled workers in ensuring the New Zealand economy continues to grow?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):I have received a number of reports. New Zealand’s unemployment rate is steadily declining and is now the lowest it has been since before the global financial crisis—in fact the South Island unemployment rate is now just 3.4 percent. Although this is positive news for the New Zealand economy it is starting to lead to emerging skills gaps. To help fill these gaps we are training more people and recently we have held our first two job fairs in Australia to attract expat Kiwis and skilled Aussies to New Zealand. Around 3000 people have attended those. I have also seen international travel and migration statistics for October which show positive net arrivals from Australia for the first time since December 1993. What is clear is that more people are voting with their feet and returning home to work in a growing economy.Melissa Lee: What is the Government doing to encourage new job creation and how does that contrast with other proposals he has seen advocated?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is a Government that is very focused on creating and growing more jobs and more work for New Zealanders and 159000 new jobs have been created since Budget 2011 through a comprehensive package that includes 90-day trials the starting out wage investment in key infrastructure projects and making sensible changes to the Resource Management Act to speed up consenting. That contrasts with other proposals I have seen that would destroy jobs: abolishing 90-day trials and the starting out wage big increases to compulsory KiwiSaver rates five new taxes and an expensive emissions trading scheme. Not surprisingly those positions were all advocated by the Opposition parties.Melissa Lee: What other recommendations has he received on how to create jobs?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The most recent suggestion I have seen is for the establishment of a discussion group of politicians to investigate important and pressing issues such as: “What is work? Who does work? How is work changing? What will work be?”. These are undoubtedly important academic questions! Of course in the meantime businesses and employees are getting on and adapting to a changing and growing economy. Nevertheless I understand that the discussion group has been successful. It is creating a job for one person or at least something to keep him busy. This person of course is lifetime politician student politician student noted workaholic and leadership aspirant Grant Robertson.State Housing—Suitability of Housing Stock6.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū)to the Minister responsible for HNZC: Does he agree with his statement on state houses: “one-third of these houses are in the wrong place or are the wrong size”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister responsible for HNZC):Yes. As recently as just last month Housing New Zealand issued a press release that said: “around one third of our housing stock is in the wrong place wrong configuration or is mismatched with future demand.”Phil Twyford: Did he sign off the Housing New Zealand annual report 2014 that says that 96 percent of State houses are in the right places to meet demand and 89 percent have the right number of bedrooms; if not why is he deliberately trying to mislead the public when he knows the real figures do not support his State house sell-off?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In response to the member raising that point I went to find out exactly what was involved. It turned out that Housing New Zealand counted those people who had asked for transfers and subtracted them from 100 percent. So 96 percent of Housing New Zealand clients did not ask for a transfer and it was from that that Housing New Zealand derived the statement that everything about its 65000 houses is right. Housing New Zealand has since retracted that statement because it was wrong.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he signed off the Housing New Zealand—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member asked more than one question in his question. If he wants to make progress he might have another opportunity with a supplementary question.Jami-Lee Ross: What steps is Housing New Zealand taking to reduce the mismatch of housing stock so that the needs of more vulnerable people and families can be met?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Housing New Zealand has quite a major task because the houses it owns are misaligned with demand. For instance the fastest-growing demand is for one and two-bedroom houses. To meet the demand about 25 percent of Housing New Zealand’s stock should be one and two bedrooms; actually only 9 percent are one and two bedrooms. However it has twice as many three-bedroom houses as it needs. So we have people who live on their own currently in three-bedroom houses sometimes on quite large sections and it is not appropriate. Housing New Zealand has an ongoing programme of sales reinvestment and redevelopment. In the 5 years to 2013-14 it spent around $1 billion on maintenance purchased or built 1780 properties and disposed of 3179 properties including some affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. I expect that this programme of sales reinvestment and redevelopment will need to accelerate because with our $18 billion worth of houses we still cannot meet very serious housing need today that should be able to be accommodated. So we are working with the Minister for Social Housing and with Housing New Zealand to speed up the rate of change.Phil Twyford: Can he explain to the public how selling off one-third of State houses to community housing providers will somehow magically ensure that they come in the right place and of the right size?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course that is not the policy. The policy involves changes that have been through Parliament to set up the Ministry of Social Development as the purchaser of social housing which ultimately for instance will enable providers and tenants to choose the appropriate house for their characteristics in a much more refined way than happens at the moment. The fact is that Housing New Zealand has a lot of houses that are currently unsuitable to meet demand and it will sell some and will redevelop others such as the development on the North Shore where it is converting 11 current State houses into 70 new units. That is all being done by a developer. The Government will keep 20 of those as social houses and the rest will be sold to the market.Phil Twyford: Is the fact that as Housing New Zealand says 96 percent of State houses are in the right places to meet demand and 89 percent have the right number of bedrooms the real reason that the Government has scaled back and now shut down its much much-hyped Right Size project which promised to build thousands of new modular bedrooms and larger houses for State house tenants?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member’s assertions are wrong because 96 percent of Housing New Zealand houses are not in the right place and of the right size; in fact a third of them are the wrong size in the wrong place and in poor condition. Secondly with the Right Size project my understanding is that it is partially completed but due to a combination of costs and planning requirements it is finding that the original scope of the project may not be able to be executed and it is being revised.Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table a written parliamentary question that is not yet public which explains how the Government has cut back and shut down the Right Size project.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The matter has been described. On the basis that it has not been published I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this answer to a written parliamentary question. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is. It will not be tabled.Housing—Supply7.ALFRED NGARO (National)to the Minister for Building and Housing: What does the latest building consents data and National Construction Pipeline report show about the increased level of residential activity over the past year particularly in Auckland and Christchurch?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):Residential building is booming with over 24000 consents issued in the last year growth in Auckland of 31 percent and in Christchurch of 89 percent. We have exceeded the Auckland Housing Accord target of 9000 homes with over 11000 and the number of apartments built in the last year in Auckland is 1974 a 150 percent growth over the previous year. In Christchurch we are now building houses at the rate of over 4000 houses per year which is more than three times the historic average. The National Construction Pipeline report is projecting $50 billion of residential housing over the next 3 years which is the largest investment in housing in New Zealand’s history.Alfred Ngaro: What progress has the Government made in Christchurch in addressing the major building consenting problems that led to the city council losing its accreditation?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government’s intervention in Christchurch building consenting has been successful with changes in leadership recruitment of new building consenting staff and investment in new information systems. The latest report I have received from my ministry is that re-accreditation of Christchurch City Council is only weeks away. I am encouraged that over 4000 building consents have been successfully issued in the last year which is more than three times the historic rate. This is a huge boost for Christchurch’s housing recovery.Alfred Ngaro: How are the Government’s housing reforms helping achieve an increase in supply and what further steps is the Government planning?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The process of converting land to housing takes six steps. The first is getting the land rezoned. The special housing areas policy has enabled us to do 80 of those covering an area of over 4000 hectares. The next step is the resource consents for subdivision; 41 of those have been approved for 477 new homes in those special housing areas and there are 63 further applications in process for another 3600. Of course that special housing legislation expires in 2016 and that is why the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms will be a crucial part. Of course the Government is also introducing the KiwiSaver HomeStart loans scheme. That will enable tens of thousands of New Zealanders to get a greater amount of support from the Government for putting together a deposit for a home and of course we are doubling those grants for new homes.Phil Twyford: Will he finally accept that even after he has gazetted 80 special housing areas and thousands of new sections and subdivisions only five houses have been built in 12 months; that Auckland land bankers are not intimidated by all his press statements and photo ops and prefer to sit and watch their land values go through the roof; and is he ready to accept now that the only option left is to adopt Labour’s KiwiBuild policy and actually build affordable houses for people to live in?Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Nick Smith—any of those three supplementary questions.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am delighted the member has asked me about Labour’s KiwiBuild’s policy. That was resoundingly rejected by the voters of New Zealand at the election and I am not surprised why because while Labour had promised all the way through for 3 years that it was going to build 10000 houses per year he actually admitted in the last week that it would do just 600 in the first year. I also note that since Labour announced the KiwiBuild policy the reforms that this Government has announced have enabled us to grow from 12000 houses being built per year to 24000 houses being built by the private sector. I think we would all agree that is a much better policy.Farming—OVERSEER Nutrient Management Tool8.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to the Nutrient Management Tool OVERSEER?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Yes.Richard Prosser: Since the Minister stated last week that the OVERSEER experience of New Zealand’s largest fertiliser cooperative Ravensdown is anecdotal is that also how he would describe the concerns of hundreds of dryland farmers in the Hurunui-Waiau zone committee who met in September regarding stringent nutrient management limits that have been determined using OVERSEER?Hon NATHAN GUY: No what I will say is that the member needs to be aware of the chief scientific officer Ants Roberts who works at Ravensdown when he said that some compromises and assumptions are needed to be made in running any model like OVERSEER on complex farm systems.Richard Prosser: Even accepting a recent apology does the Minister condone Environment Canterbury commissioner David Bedford for using expletives towards farmers after they questioned nutrient limits based on OVERSEER or are reports of such abuse also anecdotal?Hon NATHAN GUY: Well I do not have any ministerial responsibility for those comments. What I will say is that OVERSEER has been around for 20 years. It is evolving. It is improving all the time. It is an important nutrient management tool and we have got regional councils involved in working with the Ministry for Primary Industries to ensure that we are focused on the national guidelines and how OVERSEER is managing nutrients going forward.Richard Prosser: Given that respected soil scientist Dr Doug Edmeades has summarised that type A errors in OVERSEER could be in the range of minus 40 percent to plus 60 percent and that type B errors could be in the plus or minus 30 percent range will the Minister assure farmers that he will ensure Budget funding to fully and properly calibrate OVERSEER?Hon NATHAN GUY: There is about $1.6 million invested in OVERSEER at the moment. The three owners are involved—that is the Fertiliser Association of New Zealand the Ministry for Primary Industries and AgResearch—in making contributions in kind. They are currently looking at the funding model going forward and there are a variety of funding options available as demand picks up.Richard Prosser: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the 2013 evidence of Dr Doug Edmeades at the hearing of submissions on the proposed Canterbury land and water regional forum.Mr SPEAKER: And the second document?Richard Prosser: The other is the 2013 Foundation for Arable Research report entitled A peer review of OVERSEER in relation to modelling nutrient flows and arable crops. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is for the House to decide. On the basis they are not easy for members to obtain I will put the leave and members can decide. Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Corrections Department—Management of Phillip John Smith Case9.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau)to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his statements from Question Time on Wednesday 26 November?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections):Yes.Kelvin Davis: Does he stand by his statement that Phillip Smith’s obtaining of a passport was legitimate?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Yes. My understanding of the Passports Act is that prisoners do not automatically lose the right to be issued with a passport. As I have already said in this House that decision is a matter for the Minister of Internal Affairs.Kelvin Davis: Why then does he believe the passport was issued legitimately when Minister Dunne has said it would not have been approved and section 4 of the Passports Act provides that passports should not be issued to people under a sentence that requires them to remain in New Zealand?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: With respect to the first part of that question you will have to ask Peter Dunne that.Kelvin Davis: When the police said that Mr Smith had help in obtaining his passport was the help they were referring to from the Department of Corrections in that it apparently legitimately helped him obtain a passport?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I do not agree with what the member has just said in terms of what the police have said. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to repeat the question.Kelvin Davis: When the police said Smith had help in obtaining his passport was the help they were referring to from the Department of Corrections in that he could apparently legitimately obtain a passport?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No. The Department of Corrections did not help him obtain a passport.Kelvin Davis: Will his utter confusion about the legitimacy of Smith’s passport be one of matters looked into in the review of the failures of interdepartmental communication?Mr SPEAKER: Very marginal but I will allow the Minister to answer.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have said in this House already the Government inquiry will deal with matters between agencies.Inequality Economic and Social—Income Gap and Child Poverty10.JAN LOGIE (Green)to the Minister for Social Development: Does she agree with paediatrician Professor Innes Asher who is calling on the Government to “lift incomes for those in paid work and those supported by the income support benefits”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):Yes and although the number of children living in hardship has dropped this Government is very focused on lifting the incomes of all New Zealanders. That is why our priorities are on growing the economy and getting people off welfare. According to the Statistics New Zealand household economic survey household incomes have risen 9 percent and we also have 1600 people going off welfare and into work every week. For low-income families we are spending for example $2.5 billion a year on Working for Families $4.4 billion on benefits and $1.9 billion a year on housing assistance. We have maintained that support throughout the recession and the Canterbury earthquakes when finances were extremely tight and other countries were introducing austerity measures. Plus we are funding programmes like breakfasts in all schools that want it social workers in all low-decile schools and extra support for budgeting services. Yes there are New Zealanders doing it tough and the Government continues by making sure that the billions we already spend each year on supporting families are being spent in the most effective way.Jan Logie: Is the Minister concerned that even with all of that beneficence these children are still living in poverty because the basic benefit levels are set too low?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not think there is a member in this House who is not concerned and who does not want to see every New Zealand child live a full and successful life. But the premise that that member puts into her question is incorrect.Jan Logie: Does she accept it is not possible or even appropriate for all parents to be in paid work—for example parents going through chemotherapy parents caring for severely disabled children or parents traumatised by violent relationships?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes that is correct and our benefit system supports exactly those people throughout those troubles.Jan Logie: Why will she not set aside ideology and lift the incomes of the parents who cannot work so that no New Zealand child has to live in poverty which is what her current policy settings are subjecting them to?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I wish it was that easy actually. The issues around poverty are complex and numerous and take a great deal of effort over a long period of time. And in the very best of times under the previous Labour Government those children living in poverty hardly moved at all. So to expect us after recovering from an economic recession to work miracles in a short period of time—this Government is determined to work to ensure that all New Zealand children can enjoy a full life.Carmel Sepuloni: Will she consider lifting the abatement rate from $100 to $150 as a way in which to lift incomes for those who are in paid work and supported by income support benefits; if not why not?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government is looking at a range of measures to address some of the issues that have been raised in the Child Poverty Monitor released today and in the work that this Government has been doing. But you also have to be careful that you maintain the advantage for people who are working and that is why this Government is focused so much on getting people back into work—1600 people a week leaving the benefit to get back into work has to be better for their families in the long term.Lending Practices—Responsible Lending Code11.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National)to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding responsible lending?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs):Recently I released a draft of the Responsible Lending Code for consultation. The code will give lenders guidance on how to implement the new responsible lending obligations set out in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Act. It will promote the best practices that lenders should follow in order to comply with the binding lender responsibility principles.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How will the Responsible Lending Code help consumers when borrowing money?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The code seeks to provide consumers with better access to information and better protection from the predatory practices of loan sharks and unscrupulous pay-day lenders. At the same time we are conscious of the need to provide sufficient flexibility to avoid imposing unnecessary compliance costs on those lenders who already have good responsible systems in place. We will be listening carefully to feedback from all interested groups before issuing a final version of the Responsible Lending Code in March 2015.Child Poverty—Measurement12.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)to the Minister for Social Development: By what percentage have child poverty levels changed since the Government took office based on the constant value below 60 percent of median incomes and after housing cost measures included in the Ministry of Social Development’s report on household incomes?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):The rate on that one measure specified went from 22 percent in the 2008-09 survey to 24 percent in the 2010-11 survey and back to 22 percent in the 2012-13 survey which shows that we are recovering from the recession. There is a range of measures in the Child Poverty Monitor released today and the Ministry of Social Development regularly looks at a range of measures but the issues around poverty are complex and research shows that a number of measures need to be used. This Government is focused on practical help rather than arguing over individual measurement. Things are improving but there is still a long way to go and as I say the issues can be complex and often intergenerational.Jacinda Ardern: Based on her interview with Radio New Zealand this morning where she stated: “What you describe as poverty is not what I might describe as poverty.” how does she describe poverty and how many children are living in it?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well that is absolutely correct. Poverty is a scale and it is very important and the research shows that it is very important to understand what aspect of poverty you are talking about. So what that member might describe as poverty may be quite different from what another measure is describing as poverty. That is exactly what the research shows.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member really only reiterated my question. My question was: how would the Minister describe poverty therefore and how many children are living in it? She can choose to answer one or the other but one would be nice.Mr SPEAKER: She certainly answered one. The question was not as the member has just said it was; it was a lot more full than that. It asked how the Minister would describe poverty and the Minister went on to describe it as a scale and that there were various aspects for measuring it. [Interruption] Order! If the member wants to question whether the answer is adequate she should show the manners to listen to my justifying that the Minister has addressed the question. If she wants to make further progress she should make it by using concise supplementary questions.Jacinda Ardern: What target will she set to reduce child poverty?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government has already set results targets and reports regularly on progress. We are finding that that clarity and accountability are well received and are what matter to New Zealanders. I remind the member that the Salvation Army said in 2008: “Our measures of progress at this time next year should not just be those of how much our economy has grown … more relevant measures could be those of how few people are locked up in prison how few violent crimes have been committed and how much better children in poorer schools are achieving.” Those are the sorts of targets this Government has set and is reporting on regularly.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very straightforward and explicit. It was: what target will she set to reduce child poverty?Mr SPEAKER: And again I accept that the member may have had difficulty listening to the answer because I did as well—there was a lot of noise coming from members around her—but there was discussion in the answer about targets and measures. One of them that I did pick up on was the measurement of incarceration rates. That is the Minister’s answer. [Interruption] Order! If the member is going to continue to raise a point of order every time she considers an answer to be an unsatisfactory addressing of the question I will attempt to explain to the member why I think it is satisfactory. But we will make no progress at all if the member is going to continue to yell at me when I am standing on my feet. Does the member have a further supplementary question?Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister explain how targets to reduce incarceration rates have anything to do with improving the well-being of a child living in poverty?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I would love to. There are about 23000 children at any one time living in New Zealand who have a parent in prison. If the member does not think that that affects long term the economic social and emotional well-being of children then that member has a very different concept of poverty from mine.Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment BillIn CommitteeTIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National):I seek leave for debate on the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill to be taken as one question with separate questions to be put on each clause at the end of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave for that purpose has been sought. Is there objection? There is objection.Clause 1 TitleHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):Because this bill spent very little time being considered at the Law and Order Committee the Labour Opposition wants to look at it carefully and to ask a series of questions.The first question I would like to ask is whether Nathan Guy the Minister who is currently in the chair has been briefed on the legislation to the point where he understands it and can answer questions. If the Minister could shake his head or nod his head to indicate whether he has been briefed and can answer questions—no he has not. Well I just want to make it clear to the Committee that the Labour Party was prepared to flick this bill through with no consideration at the Committee stage if in fact there had been a proper process of a couple of hours at a select committee where the questions from the Labour Party could have been answered. But notwithstanding an undertaking from Mike Sabin the committee chair that that would take place that did not occur and therefore what the Labour Party will do today and if necessary tomorrow as part of the Committee process—which is four debates on this bill—is ask the questions until we get satisfactory answers. I regret that that has to be the case especially with legislation that we generally support—especially with legislation that we generally support.I would like to start off with the title and whether it is in fact the appropriate title—in particular the 2014 date that is involved with it. As to that the first question I would like to ask is in regard to New Zealand’s share of the arrangements for the Cricket World Cup next year. When was it made clear that New Zealand would be involved in that? I have got a vague memory that it might have been in 2006 and I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Nick Smith to confirm that it was in 2006 that we got to the point of knowing that this would be happening in February of 2015. I might be wrong but I am pretty certain it was somewhere around that time. So the question that flows from that is: why have we taken so long to get legislation to come in?I was a Minister of sport until a date in 2007 when I was involved in the sporting activity of boxing with one of my colleagues who I understand is currently before the courts. I am not sure whether we are allowed to refer to his case; I know we are not allowed to refer to the details of it. But I am pretty sure New Zealand’s involvement in the Cricket World Cup was known before that time and we knew then that we would need legislation on match fixing. I had discussions in I think June 2012—maybe in 2011 but in 2012 certainly—in 2013 and four or five times earlier this year with Ministers opposite to indicate that the Labour Party was supportive of whatever reasonable legislative change was necessary in order to get this legislation through in a way that helped our international reputation and was fair to the players involved.There were a lot of discussions and even at the point that the legislation was sitting on the Table—and it sat on the Table for a reasonable period of time before it was sent off to the Law and Order Committee—I indicated to Ministers opposite that we did not want to be caught in exactly this situation after the election in the period heading up to Christmas taking up valuable parliamentary time on legislation around which there was a degree of unanimity within Parliament. So I indicated to Ministers opposite that if they wanted to they could send the committee off with a truncated first reading as long as we had a day at the committee to question the officials from Sport New Zealand the Ministry of Justice and the various sporting organisations. It would probably have taken a couple of hours to work through the questions with the people who had the answers to those questions.I do not know what happened to the organisation of the House but that did not occur. We had the first reading. The bill was sent off and—as I have indicated to the House previously and it is not worth going over it too much more—I indicated to the chair of the Law and Order Committee that if we could work through the issues with Sport New Zealand with the Rugby Union with the Rugby League Association and with New Zealand Cricket as a minimum group and as part of a group with the TAB which of course has quite a lot of expertise in that area then the Labour Party would facilitate the further passage of the bill. I again indicated to Ministers opposite that this stage of the bill would probably not be necessary if we could get unanimity but as has been indicated the undertaking to get the sporting organisations in was not met apparently because officials told the chair of the select committee that it was not necessary. Officials told the chair of the select committee that it was not necessary. It is an unusual approach for members of a select committee who are looking to foreshorten parliamentary time and debate to get things through not to work in a cooperative way.I do want to say that it is not my intention that the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill be the Act of 2015. You know it is our intention—just to stay strictly on the letter of it—to get it through in 2014 rather than leave it to the couple of days that would be available when Parliament gets back in the new year. It might interrupt the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement if we have to pressure it in that way to get it through before the Cricket World Cup.With regard to some of the detailed questions I think it is probably worth giving a bit of a signal as to the areas that we do want to ask questions about. I want to ask questions when we get on to later clauses of the bill around the International Rugby Board rules and how they relate to this—whether they are consistent with this area or not. I want to ask about the FIFA rules and the decisions as to where to hold matches that are currently the subject of corruption allegations as far as the FIFA organisation is concerned. I want to ask whether the location of matches and the betting on where matches are located are caught by this bill or whether or not it is concerned with only match-fixing within a particular match or not. So what I am trying to find out here is the scope of the legislation.I want to ask the Minister in the chair—and I do not mind whether he replies later when he is properly briefed—which countries are covered. Is it a betting outcome in New Zealand and therefore a bet within New Zealand? Is a bet with Centrebet covered and if it is a New Zealander who makes the bet and if the bet with Centrebet is covered what if the activity is offshore? Are offshore activities covered or are they only covered in New Zealand? So is a New Zealander betting with Centrebet on something in New Zealand covered or not? Is someone betting with a local bookie covered? Are we covering only legal bets or are we covering illegal bets? There are a lot of questions in that area.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First):I appreciate the time given. I would like to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of this amendment bill albeit it is only a very short piece of amendment that is taking place but I think a very very important one. I spoke on this amendment last week for some time although I struggled to fill up 10 whole minutes because of course it is in fact only one line of difference but a very important line none the less.I do support some of what Mr Mallard is talking about with regard to what it is going to be covered as far as betting goes whether it is illegal betting or otherwise. In actual fact I think this piece of legislation does make sense. I can understand the reference to the speed with which it is coming forward because of course we have this very auspicious occasion starting up on Valentine’s Day next year which of course is the start of the Cricket World Cup. All lovers of cricket will be making love to the game and getting out there in plentiful supply and watching this great game. All nations of the world will obviously have their eyes fixated on New Zealand. I think that is great and it is very very important for us to be able to push this piece of legislation forward in a manner so as to actually say that this sort of behaviour—this match fixing this illegal activity—is not going to take hold in this country.It was mentioned by a member in the last sitting that this is something that has only just started to creep in in recent times. In fact I do not believe that is the case at all. I think match fixing has been around for a long time. I think it is the ugly side to sports and recreation. Of course now that we have got so much sport betting going on around the world I think we need to be seen to be doing a lot more with regard to that sort of illegal activity. There was a reference to the cost in 2010—that internationally illegal betting and match fixing cost the world about $140 billion which is a huge figure when you think about what goes on behind the scenes to organise this sort of activity. We can all remember in very recent times of course the gamekeeper and poacher Lou Vincent coming clean with what has been going on within our own cricket. That was a great eye-opener for all who thought that we were somehow disenfranchised from the rest of the world when it comes to game fixing. Of course we have seen it with the boxing in Don King’s era and many other sports and of course Lance Armstrong with his Tour de France. It was a big shock to New Zealand and New Zealanders when we saw our very own hero sportspeople being enthralled by that sort of illegal activity.We remember the Rugby World Cup final in 1995 which of course you could say was match fixing by illegal activity in South Africa where we had the World Cup final. Our All Blacks were poisoned in the final and therefore lost by a slim margin. That to me is a huge indictment on that particular sporting event and a sporting occasion that the world holds in such high esteem let alone New Zealanders who hold rugby and netball at the heart of their souls. In 1981 we witnessed the underarm bowling by Trevor Chappell. On the last ball we had to get a six to make it even for the Benson and Hedges World Series Cup final and of course he did a dirty underarm bowl and we will never forget that moment either.These are the sorts of things that I think should be encapsulated in this bill because they are the sorts of illegal activities that change the outcome of bets. People do like to put money on but that can of course be manipulated by one person within a team of many. It may or may not be themselves gaining some remunerative interests and some gains. We need to make sure that that behaviour does not happen because of course it has been going on for such a long time. With the World Cup coming we have got the world’s eyes looking upon New Zealand—with the Cricket World Cup in particular. I think this piece of legislation needs to be put through as quickly as possible with as little objection as possible and New Zealand First will commend the bill. Thank you very much.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to give a contribution in the Committee stage of this bill. Although I was a member of the Law and Order Committee that heard this bill unfortunately I was not present for much of either the submissions or debate but I have read over the recommendations made by the select committee which as it will be obvious to the Committee were brief. It is a very brief but important bill and important on two grounds. First there is obviously the timeliness of this bill and perhaps why it has been kept so succinct in the parts that we are debating is that it is important that we make sure these protections are in place in time for some of the important fixtures that we will see in New Zealand. Based on 2008-09 figures we know that sporting fixtures and the like are a $5 billion revenue contribution to our economy so it is important that we make sure that we have these protections in place maintain our reputation and maintain our reputation as being one of the least corrupt nations in the world as well.In the part that we are debating today though I think it is important to point out that what this bill does is insert in the Crimes Act the fact that there will be able to be a crime of deception under that Act specifically obviously setting out—well even less specifically than before—that that includes “any act or omission that is done or omitted with intent to influence a betting outcome of an activity of a kind to which subsection (2) applies … ” and then it makes reference to manipulating the overall result or activity or any event within the activity. Obviously the select committee wanted to make sure there were not unreasonable defences included in that clause and I think it is right that the decision was made to allow that definition to be broadened out by removing what could be interpreted as a defence there keeping out that wriggle room.But I want to reflect though on a couple of questions that are still left open as a result of the bill that we are debating here today—things that were not included and perhaps could have been within the part that we are debating. Mr Mallard referred to the fact that there were not many submissions from sporting organisations and that individual codes were not asked to submit I understand and that raises for me the question as to whether or not those individual codes have plans on enforcement around the new protections that will be contained within the Crimes Act. How do we for instance oblige enforcement? How do we oblige monitoring? There is reference to codes of conduct. Do we know that every major code has these codes of conduct? These are questions that you are really able to intimately understand only if they are individually submitting on the bill so it is difficult to know whether or not this part that we are debating could or should have gone further in terms of obliging codes to ensure that this new offence within the Crimes Act is not being committed because you know what you know and sometimes you only know when you go looking.We have been told of course that the Department of Internal Affairs Sport New Zealand the New Zealand Racing Board the Ministry of Justice the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand and the Serious Fraud Office have agreed to collaborate to try to address match fixing. Again collaboration is one thing; being well resourced to undertake that work is another. We already know for instance that the Serious Fraud Office is a seriously under-resourced organisation. The office has even made budget bids to this Government to allow it to do preventative work around potential corruption and financial crime off the back of the massive rebuild following the earthquakes in Christchurch. We know that the Serious Fraud Office was denied this additional support. We know that it is prosecuting fewer cases and that the threshold for prosecution has really been raised in practice. So yes great collaboration between those organisations is necessary but it is hard to know how much proactive enforcement will be undertaken so I question whether or not we are actually missing some of what should have been included around this part.Also I have heard some discussion over the fact that individual codes have rules that allow for instance the New Zealand Racing Board to cancel Sportsbet if it considers that there may be a risk of corrupt betting. Those kinds of provisions may have been necessary in other codes. A racing board obviously has a number of reasons it would want to make sure that its sport is squeaky clean and that it is not falling foul of any best practice but do we know for sure that other codes have similar rules in place—specifically around the way that their betting is conducted and applied?Creating the offence that we are debating here is one thing but as we all know as parliamentarians simply setting a new set of rules and guidelines is actually only the first step. Enforcement and monitoring is just as important as having the redress in legislation when things do go wrong. We can see the damage that is done if you allow a sporting code to get to a point where it is having to use the strength of the law in order to uphold standards and therefore we know how damaging that can be to that code.So those are two of the major points that I wish to raise for this part of the debate. Are we missing a step when it comes to ensuring decent enforcement? I encourage the Minister if I have missed that and there is some other work that has gone on behind the scenes—additional codes of conduct that have been established—then I would be interested to hear about that. As Mr Mallard pointed out I think we missed an opportunity by the fact that some of those codes were not asked to submit and therefore did not submit at the select committee so we know only what we know in that regard. The second point is whether or not the coverage therefore is going to meet Parliament’s expectation.So those would be the issues that I would not mind the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith perhaps addressing. If he could also speak to the nature of the collaboration that is apparently going to happen between the Department of Internal Affairs Sport New Zealand the New Zealand Racing Board the Ministry of Justice the Organised and Financial Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office—is there any particular one of those agencies that is the lead agency that will take the key responsible role? In taking that role has it had additional support in terms of resourcing to make sure that it takes preventative action around match fixing? Has the Serious Fraud Office for instance raised any concerns about its ability to be involved at the degree to which the Government may expect it to be given we have seen a considerable change in its resourcing in recent times?Those are all of the things that I would not mind hearing about from the Minister in the chair and that I would be interested in responding to in another part of the debate depending on how adequate the answers to those questions may be.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):As a brand-spanking-new member of the Law and Order Committee I have not been privy to the passage of this bill through the House up until this stage but as a self-confessed couch potato sports-mad—Jacinda Ardern: Well qualified.KELVIN DAVIS: Yes well I do consider myself well qualified—in fact I know I am the unluckiest guy never to be considered to be an All Black but despite that—Mike Sabin: There’s a queue of us.KELVIN DAVIS: There is a queue of us. There are a number of us who have just felt that if only the breaks had gone our way we would all be there along with Richie and Dan and the rest of them.I have to say that it brought back terrible memories too when the member from New Zealand First Clayton Mitchell started raising those historical issues such as the 1995 World Cup and that deceit—Suzie the tea lady how dare she bring down the hopes of a nation? Not to mention the referee in 1905 who denied Bob Deans that try—it was the saddest day of my life I have to say.The member the Hon Trevor Mallard raised a number of points though about the passage of this bill through the whole parliamentary process. I had to ask him what the issues actually were and he was saying that the select committee did not ask the sporting bodies to come in and explain their side of the story as this went through. I do take his point that it would have been really good to hear from Sport New Zealand to understand its thinking and from the New Zealand Rugby Union New Zealand Rugby League and New Zealand Cricket. It would be good to actually hear what best practice is in terms of preventing match fixing. Look I am not sure what best practice is. That is why it would be good for these organisations to tell us what it is they are actually doing already to prevent match fixing from going on.As we have heard—again from the New Zealand First member—who would have thought that Lance Armstrong would get away with what he did for so many years? We all just thought he was an awesome athlete and a machine on the cycle but we did not realise that in reality he was taking banned substances to improve his performance.I would really like to know some statistical information around where match fixing normally occurs. Which countries? Which sports? Are sportsmen more prone to match fixing when they are overseas or is it back here in New Zealand? Which nations and which sports are most prone to match fixing?Again someone else raised a point about Lou Vincent. We thought New Zealand cricket was squeaky clean and there was no way any member of the Black Caps or any other New Zealand national teams would even consider match fixing. Of course we have sadly been proved wrong—that in fact our New Zealand athletes can be as guilty as anyone else.It also raised the tragic circumstances around Hansie Cronje the South African cricket captain. He was a national icon and a national hero. Nobody ever thought that he would be involved in match fixing. I am actually told that his tragic death a few years later in a plane crash was not actually so much an accident; that was actually part of the cartels and syndicates actually getting their own back on him for fessing up to match fixing and implicating a whole lot of other people.Coming down to the title again the Hon Trevor Mallard has said that in 2006 the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill was first mooted. It could have been implemented in any year—2007 2008 right through until 2014 which is the date that is in the title at this stage. As he says we are not interested in making sure this is the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Act of 2015. We are happy for it to be 2014 but we are not happy that the process of this bill was truncated through the Law and Order Committee and that we did not have those sporting bodies that I have spoken about Sport New Zealand and the Rugby Union come in to talk.Of course the TAB is an organisation that we should not forget in our deliberations. I have to admit I have got a little TAB account. I put $50 in it some time back. I must admit I have not become a millionaire because of it. In fact it has been sitting in abeyance for the last 6 months or so because of a few bad bets. I have to say that the Thames Valley versus Buller rugby matches take on a whole new significance when you put 5 bucks on which way that game is going to go. Otherwise I would not necessarily watch it. The TAB would be an organisation that would be really good to hear from in terms of the way it monitors bets and whether or not it sees trends what sorts of things spark its interest if it sees massive amounts of money going on to real underdogs or anything like that. Again I am speculating but it would be good to know just what it does as the TAB to make sure that match fixing or bad bets do not get laid.With that I would just like to reiterate that it is unfortunate that those organisations did not get to come in and speak to the select committee. I am interested to listen to further argument and debate on this issue. Kia ora.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):This is a pretty short bill actually. It is only one page. It is about match fixing; that is what the title is. It is the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. We have known for a very long time that match fixing is a potential problem. We have also known for a very long time that early next year New Zealand will be hosting the international Cricket World Cup matches—half of them in New Zealand and half of them in Australia. We have known that we have the FIFA U-20 World Cup towards the middle of the year. These are important events.I have got to admit that I was very surprised when Trevor Mallard in his comments on this bill said that actually we have known for 9 years that we are getting these fixtures in New Zealand. If we have known for 9 years that we are getting these fixtures in New Zealand my question to the Minister in the chair Nick Smith is: why are we a week before we rise for Christmas and under some degree of pressure only now bringing this bill before the Committee for its Committee stage?I worry about that because first of all the title is about match fixing. Match fixing we know from all of the information that the Law and Order Committee received and the House has been given including in this departmental disclosure statement that there is a high risk of match fixing. It may be surprising to some New Zealanders but there is big money involved in it. For example the departmental disclosure statement says that international threat assessments warn of the increasing risk of crime syndicates and individuals targeting Australasia for sports match-fixing.Do we need a bill with this title? Yes of course we do. It is important. The disclosure statement also mentions as you will know Mr Chair that there have already been cases of match fixing in Australia and we know in relation to cricket with the Lou Vincent affair and the questions surrounding Chris Cairns that this has also been a problem affecting New Zealanders.This is not something that is without cost to New Zealand economically. Match fixing is bad in its own right because it is the exact opposite of what sport should be about. Sport is meant to be fair. You are meant as a spectator to be able to rely on the outcome of the match reflecting the respective strengths of the contesting teams.But this disclosure statement also points out that “Match-fixing would significantly damage the integrity value and growth of New Zealand sport which contributed $5 billion to our economy”. That is annually and their figures are based upon a number of years ago. So we do need a bill that makes a crime of match fixing.But then I was reading the regulatory impact statement and this really worries me. It says that the objective of having this in place in time for the world cup in February “imposes constraints on the range of legislative options that can be considered.” If we have known about this Minister for 9 years why are we dealing with it in a way that imposes constraints on getting the best bill possible before the House? Nine years. You can imagine back in 2006-07 the Minister was just getting some preliminary information about it. But this thing is getting really close. This could have been done a year ago. It could have been done 2 years ago or 3 years ago. I would not have expected the Government to have done it in 2009 but it should have done it over the last 3 years. This is what else the regulatory impact statement warns the House: “Requiring a Bill to be passed by the end of 2014 means creating comprehensive stand-alone and potentially complex match-fixing legislation is impractical.”Because this Government has been so tardy we have ruled out getting a comprehensive solution to this problem. On the one hand in the departmental disclosure structure they say this is an important problem. This is so important in fact that I think it costs the world $140 billion a year. That is the cost of match fixing.We know we have got important sporting events and the Government does what? It sits on its tail does nothing and rules out some of the important options that should have been considered. I hope Minister you are getting an answer to this question because it is a straightforward valid question going to the heart of whether this is the right piece of legislation to have before the House. I would have thought that—Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):I am very happy to answer the questions of the Opposition. Firstly who is the enforcement agency for this bill? That is absolutely common sense: it is the New Zealand Police. The second question: what happens when there is a mix of international sporting ventures where some of the offending may occur overseas and some may occur in New Zealand? Where any part of the offending occurs in New Zealand an offence is committed under this legislation. In respect of the questions about sporting codes there is non-criminal activity that may be unfair and is inappropriate and that is perfectly proper for each of the sporting codes to deal with.But in terms of the question asked by Mr Goff it is somewhat ironic. The Labour Party has just launched a workforce productivity question. Well I will talk about this workforce—Hon Phil Goff: I hope this is within the scope of the bill.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We are dealing with a one-clause bill Mr Goff. This is a one-clause bill. Should this Parliament be able to progress a one-clause bill in 6 months? Well I say the productivity of this Parliament needs to be questioned if we cannot progress a very simple bill that makes a simple change to the Crimes Act by making it plain that deception under the Crimes Act includes anybody who attempts to manipulate the betting process. That is why I say this Parliament should simply get on and pass this bill so we can ensure that events like the international Cricket World Cup are conducted in New Zealand with integrity.The last challenge I make to members opposite is that if they really had serious concerns about this bill why did they not do their job and do it with a minority report? They did not because they know this bill is well drafted and it is the right answer. They should stop filibustering improve the productivity of this Parliament and pass this bill.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):The Hon Nick Smith got to his feet I thought to answer my question. I thought: “That’s good. The Minister is on the ball. He’s well informed. He knows what the answer to the question is.” Did you hear Mr Chairman what the answer to the question was when we knew for 9 years that this was going to happen—why the regulatory impact statement says that options have been ruled out because the legislation has come so late to the House? We have not been obstructing this bill. Ask the chairman of the Law and Order Committee. We have been very cooperative in trying to pass it.I have got to say that this is a pretty shoddy job. The Minister says that the bill is well drafted. For heaven’s sake! This is a four-clause bill. One of the clauses they got wrong and it took the Legislation Advisory Committee in its submission to the House to bring it back to say: “Hey if you put this clause in you create a defence so that nothing could be match fixing for the purposes of making money.” The bill was not well drafted unfortunately. It had an out. It said that it does not apply to match fixing when match fixing is “for tactical or strategic sporting reasons”. Why Minister did you put that into the bill? The Legislation Advisory Committee said that that creates a loophole you could drive a railway train through—drive a railway train through.First of all this bill is late to the House—so late that the Government itself confesses we could not have a comprehensive piece of legislation to do the job. Secondly when the Government brings the bill to the House it has got only about 50 lines and three of them would have defeated the other 47. I do not call that effective. I do not call that good law-drafting. I do not call that a good job by the Minister.I want to come back to another point which was raised by Mr Mallard and that is that this bill by itself is of course just not going to do the job we want it to do. That is if this bill is to work you need a coordinated strategy. You need legislation. You need sporting codes in each of the major sporting organisations. They need to be mutually consistent and they need to be consistent with this bill. Sadly we did not have any of the sporting organisations before the committee to talk to the committee about that.Hon Trevor Mallard: Despite the undertaking from Mr Sabin.Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes. This is what I picked up. This is a note I took in the select committee. It was from the advice we got that the lifetime ban by a sporting body may be more effective in disincentivising match fixing than the penalties that are set out here under the match-fixing legislation which amends the Crimes Act. Obviously what we were told is that things other than this legislation would be absolutely vital. But I want to hear from the Minister not the sort of politicised response he gave before which said absolutely nothing; I want from the Minister some outline of what work has been done with those sporting organisations to find out whether the things that are really necessary to prevent match fixing have been done have been coordinated by the Government or Sport New Zealand and will be effective in stopping the scourge of match fixing and the money that can be made out of that.We were told of course that if things went wrong in this Cricket World Cup it would be badly damaging to the reputation of New Zealand. I accept that so what I wanted was comprehensive legislation yet the Government has said we do not have time to do it. Nine years is not long enough. Secondly I want to know that the other pieces of the jigsaw are there and do come together and we can go forward next year into an international Cricket World Cup knowing that all of the rules are in place because Sport New Zealand and the Minister for Sport and Recreation have done their job and can assure us that that is the case.I want a proper answer Minister. I do not want any political flimflam. I do not want an attack on this party or that party. I simply want to know whether you or the Minister whom you are representing have done their job. I have not heard that in your explanation to be fair. I have not heard it and I have not heard yet why you have taken so long. While you are thinking about those questions the regulatory impact statement says that this approach—because it is not the comprehensive approach—will only “substantially reduce the risk”. There is still risk there because it is not a comprehensive approach. I want to know how big that risk is. The regulatory impact statement says: “our preferred approach is proportionate to the level of risk.” What is the level of the risk? You know what the cost of match fixing was in 2010? It was $140 billion. That is a lot of money—$140 billion. Is this answer this rushed little piece of legislation proportionate?LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Kia ora Mr Chair. Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill as Labour’s associate sport spokesperson. It is interesting given we are 54 days away from the beginning of the Cricket World Cup. In fact the reality of this piece of legislation is that on 1 March 2011 New Zealand knew that it would be co-hosting the Cricket World Cup because New Zealand and Australia made the only bid to the ICC the International Cricket Council so we knew concretely that we would be hosting this event at this time. So I think our questions about why it has taken this Government so long to implement a piece of legislation that globally represents a $440 billion industry are serious. There have been articles written since 2010 about match fixing as a serious threat to sport so this issue is something that the Minister for Sport and Recreation certainly should have had a grasp of and that this Government has known has been on our agendas both sporting and political for over 3 years now.For the relevance of this piece of legislation in terms of betting specifically on the Cricket World Cup we have to look at the 2011 Cricket World Cup. There was over £1 billion worth—that is $NZ2.2 billion worth—of betting on the 2011 Cricket World Cup. So this is an incredibly significant piece of legislation.Obviously that is the economic argument about why this piece of legislation is incredibly relevant but having attended the National Māori Sports Awards on Saturday night I note that there are also social and other benefits to sport and unless we actually get legislation like this right it undermines the integrity of something that is dear to all New Zealanders’ hearts. As an international sportsperson having played both netball and rugby for New Zealand I understand how important sport is. It provides aspirations for young people to want to represent their country and through that obviously comes a sense of recognition of hard work being part of a team and being successful. So from my perspective it is all those things that matter to me when I look at sport and the context of sport in New Zealand.It has a $5 billion value here at home but the bigger value is actually about children being able to play sport being fit being healthy being part of teams competing building character and a whole lot of other things. Having attended the FNDC Far North Sports Awards a few weeks ago I know that the dream that young people have to represent their country and the community solidarity around ensuring that those young people have an opportunity to fulfil their potential really for me are the most important aspects of this piece of legislation and the relevance to us here in Aotearoa New Zealand.We have 49 matches that will be played. Australia will host 26 games in 14 venues. New Zealand will host 23 games across 7 venues. So this is an incredibly important piece of legislation and it seems ridiculous to me that the sporting codes in New Zealand have not had an opportunity to have much input into a comprehensive piece of legislation. This is a piecemeal approach and this really does reflect badly I believe not only on the Minister of Sport and Recreation but on the Government’s lack of prioritisation of the importance of sport in New Zealand.I think there are some serious questions to be answered by the Minister given that we have known since 1 March 2011 that we would be co-hosting the Cricket World Cup. I have chosen to focus on cricket because it is one of the four leading codes here in New Zealand along with rugby league and netball. I was not a member of the Law and Order Committee but I know how passionate my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard particularly is about sport and from our perspective not having the sporting codes involved to the degree we would have liked them to be is not about filibustering; actually this is serious business. We would have hoped that we would ensure that the specific voices—ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua):I move That the question be now put.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I want to reiterate to the Committee that it was my hope that this Committee stage would not be necessary. There was a series of questions that Labour Opposition members wanted to ask at the Law and Order Committee and we were denied that opportunity by Mike Sabin breaking his undertaking. I will give some of the questions on the list in the hope that the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith can now answer them. They are really practical questions like: who did Sport New Zealand consult? I ask him to list the organisations. Did it issue a consultation document? If so can that document be tabled? What were the responses from the sporting organisations? The Minister in the chair smiles but actually he is asking us to pass legislation and to pass it quickly. These are simple practical factual questions that should have been answered in the select committee but we were denied the opportunity to do so because of the approach of the chairman.What is the view of Drug Free Sport New Zealand? Does New Zealand suffer from match fixing as a result of cocaine debts as has occurred in Australia? Is that a practice that has occurred in New Zealand? Has it been picked up? Does Sport New Zealand know about it and if so within what sports? There is the question of steroid users and blackmail with them. Again there has been international evidence of blackmailers from sportspeople who have been involved in steroid use. Is that an issue in New Zealand? Has it been picked up and if so at what level? I think that all of us who have been around sports for a few years know that as dope testing has improved—for one thing at the time it came in the weight of the All Black front row dropped substantially—steroid drug use has gone away we think at the very top level. But what is happening further down and are people who are involved in steroid use subject to extra pressures that lead to blackmail and that lead to match-fixing?A number of colleagues have asked about the consistency of the rules. I want to reiterate to the Committee that it is my understanding that if I go to the local kōhanga reo and sit down with the boss there because she is the mother of a contracted rugby player albeit playing in London at the moment I am not allowed to have a bet on a rugby match at the New Zealand TAB or send a bet or whatever. Friends and family are caught out by the International Rugby Board’s rules. The question I have got is around what role Sport New Zealand has taken in trying to get consistency between the various rules and the law so that everyone can know we have a consistent package to work with.I want to ask when the Minister for Sport and Recreation last received a briefing on the Cairns case. We know that because of the importance of the issue to New Zealand’s reputation and the fact that there will be massive subcontinent betting on the cricket that is happening here in February and March the Minister will be receiving regular reports. I do not want the details of those reports but I do want to know that the Minister whether it is part of the weekly or fortnightly briefings or in some separate way is being properly kept up to date with the behind-the-scenes details. We know that we have some very good contacts in the International Cricket Council at the moment but the details are needed so that the Minister is kept up to date. I heard the Minister—I was out of the Chamber temporarily—indicate that the activities were to be activities that occur in New Zealand—SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 CommencementHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I want to reiterate to the Government whip in particular that if we get these questions answered then the debate is finished. If the questions the Opposition is asking are properly answered by Minister Smith—not in the way that I heard the Minister answer before but straight answers to straight questions—then as far as the Labour Opposition is concerned this debate will be completed. I cannot though speak for the other parties.There has been a series of questions asked. They are serious questions. They concern the commencement date when it starts. You know we are under a lot of pressure to get this through. The legislation comes into effect it says on 15 December. It could probably come into effect earlier than that if the Government wanted it to and gave straight answers. I want the Minister to give the straight answers. I am not the slightest bit interested in Mr Sabin after his reprehensible behaviour when he was giving answers to the questions that have been asked.I do want to ask the activity question. I am asking whether it will capture individuals who are involved in match fixing if they are currently offshore and if the activity is in New Zealand. What is the territorial basis for this—for the activity for the procurement and for the betting? Does a Centrebet bet count if it is made from New Zealand? Does a bet in the local pub count if it is made from New Zealand? If it is an activity in New Zealand and it is procured from Australia and the bet is in India is it captured? Who is captured? Is it only the people in New Zealand or is it the people who are involved offshore? Are they captured as well?I also want to ask a question about the International Cricket Council. Was it consulted and what was its response? One of the advantages of being a former Minister is that you do get a little bit of feedback from organisations and I know that New Zealand Cricket was certainly consulted. But was the International Cricket Council consulted and is it satisfied that this legislation does enough? Even more important is do the people who are really pulling the strings in international cricket care? Do the people from the subcontinent involved in this area—obviously not the New Zealanders involved—actually care or are there so many people on the take in this particular area that they actually encourage some of this approach?What consultation has there been with the sports broadcasting organisations including the international broadcasters especially around the timing issues? I think all of us know that on occasions the way that modern television occurs there is sometimes a slight delay and it is to fit in advertisements at the end of an over or during the ends of overs but it means that the timing is not exactly right. The question then is have there been consultations in that area and if so what are the results of those consultations? Of course a very slight delay gives a massive opportunity for spot fixing. It can be just 30 seconds and millions of rupees can be won or lost as a result of a spot-fixing approach where the result is certain to everyone—well not everyone; everyone other than the people who are taking the bets. They do not know about the exact result in this area.I go back to the Minister and I go back to the Government whips and ask whether they are prepared to answer the questions—or would the members opposite like to continue this debate at a clause an hour when in fact we would be prepared to wrap it up in 2 minutes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):It is hardly good faith for the member to demand that his questions be answered. For instance he has asked me how this works in respect of international jurisdictions when part of the offence is committed in New Zealand and part overseas. He then leaves the Chamber while I answer the questions and then on the next clause—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I left the Chamber before the Minister got to his feet. He is not allowed to draw attention to the absence of any member and I just want to assure the Chamber that I was listening to the political diatribe from the Minister in the chair.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I answered that specific question. I am more than happy to answer any legitimate questions on the clause and the clause that we are debating is clause 2 which states: “The Act comes into force on 15 December 2014.” That is the best practical date for this law to take effect.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The point was made about references in respect of members not being in the Chamber and the Minister know the rules around that. Is someone else seeking the call?Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Clause 4 New section 240A inserted (Application of section 240 to match-fixing)Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):A very quick question to the Minister: is he prepared to answer the straight questions that were asked on previous clauses now?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment):I did give the Committee very plain answers to each of the questions in respect of who leads the enforcement which was the question that was raised by Jacinda Ardern. I said that it would be the police that would lead the enforcement. I was asked the question as to who would be responsible where a corrupt offence occurred and some of it occurred in Australia and some of the betting or some part of the offence was committed in New Zealand. My answer was that if any part of the deception occurred in New Zealand that would enable a charge to be laid under the Crimes Act in New Zealand. I was asked the question about the sporting codes and I again restate the answer and that is in May the Minister for Sport and Recreation released a policy around ensuring integrity in our sports. That developed into each of the sporting codes developing its code of ethics because this is about the highest offences. A person who commits a crime against the Crimes Act and against this betting offence is subject to up to 8 years’ imprisonment but it is perfectly proper that each sporting code also in parallel develops its sporting code.I reiterate that reasonable questions will be answered but I stress again that this bill has been before the House for 6 months. This bill has been to a select committee. No amendments have been put forward by any member. This is a very straightforward amendment that Parliament needs to get on and pass so that New Zealand can successfully host the Cricket World Cup with integrity and I think that is what all members of the Committee would like us to do.Clause 4 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) BillIn CommitteeTIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National):I seek leave for the debate on the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill to be taken as one question with separate questions to be put on each part at the end of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! Members will not debate across the Chamber in that way. We will move on. We turn now to the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Part 1 JurisdictionJACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to take a call on what is quite a substantive bill and which to date we have been debating alongside the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. I thought it would be useful when debating Part 1 which sets out substantively how the public protection orders will work to put just a little bit of context around the fact that we are debating an order that will—as the regulatory impact statement states—apply to a very small number of offenders.As set out in Part 1 the definition of the individuals to whom this bill will apply probably amounts to what has been estimated—I imagine by the Ministry of Justice—to be roughly five to 12 individuals in a 10-year period. That is set out in some of the clauses at the beginning of the bill that talk about serious sexual or violent offence—meaning “an act committed before on or after the commencement of this section”. This type of sexual crime punishable by 7 or more years’ imprisonment and a range of other offences are set out in Part 7 of the Crimes Act 1961. Obviously applying what is essentially a civil order to sentences that may reach a threshold of only 7 years’ imprisonment may seem like a low bar to be setting but I think the Justice and Electoral Committee was right in allowing flexibility at the end of an offender’s sentence to establish a range of other threshold tests which are quite high.So although the initial sentencing bar may be considered to be low in that regard there are a number of tests set out by this bill that are quite robust and require a number of significant assessments that will be tailored to the time and place at which the civil order may be applied and will assess whether or not any rehabilitation for instance has been successful or progressed with that particular offender. I will come to that in a little bit more detail in time. But the Ministry of Justice on that basis has established that the bill will affect roughly five to 12 offenders in a 10-year period—so not a large number despite the criteria being a bit broader. So that really I think points to the fact that the additional threshold test is quite high.I do think though that given that we are debating a civil regime being added—and that is a significant departure from what we have currently—and given that the Government has not been interested in introducing a sentencing council to assess whether or not we are sentencing appropriately and consistently in New Zealand it would be useful to perhaps assess maybe via a select committee regime or maybe the Auditor-General could do this those offenders who are subjected to both extended supervision orders and public safety orders. The reason I think that could be a useful exercise is that of course we have the option of preventive detention in New Zealand. You could almost say that that is the front-end version of a public safety order. It would be useful to assess whether or not there are common or consistent themes among offenders to which these backstop measures are applied that perhaps were not utilised at the point of sentencing. A preventive detention sentence is a much easier way to deal with these offenders than having to wait until they come to within 6 months of release with the trauma obviously that a victim goes through at the point of an offender’s sentencing having a sentence that is coming to an end and then 6 months before the end going through the process of a decision being made that they are not safe for release and that this additional order needs to be applied.So it would be good if we had some kind of regime to look at and assess the kinds of offenders who are having these orders applied to them and whether or not there are actually things that we are missing at the point of sentencing that our judiciary could learn from. I would be interested in the Minister’s view on that on whether or not we could build a process around that. Again because it is a significant departure from our existing justice system I think those kinds of checks and balances would be useful.I think the other important context to apply to our debate around Part 1 is the fact that we know and our statistics tell us that actually only 8 or 9 percent of sexual assaults even get to the point where they are considered for these kinds of measures. That speaks volumes about this area of our justice system more broadly. The fact that our Crown prosecutors and our police even second-guess whether they would advise a friend or family member to go through our justice system says that yes although these backstop measures are important we need to spend time on and the Government needs to focus a lot more of its energy around the process that a victim goes through to even bring an offender to this point in our justice system.Speaking specifically to Part 1 though which does set out the assessment that is applied for a public protection order—basically the way that the orders function generally—I think it would be a useful exercise in that context to look at the regulatory impact statement that was carried out which talks about some of the alternative regimes that were considered before we got to the regime contained within Part 1.As I understand it there were five options that could have been considered. The first was a strengthened version of the existing extended supervision orders—which I understand the Committee will be debating shortly—under which offenders would continue to be closely managed in the community. So really we have actually got that already. The extended supervision orders legislation covers sexual offenders and violent offenders who are currently not covered. So the Government has essentially done both. That one has been dealt with.The second option was the expansion of the scope of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act to enable offenders who are borderline intellectually disabled to be managed in a secure health facility until their risk is reduced. The obvious issue with this is that not every offender who will be considered an ongoing risk to the community would have an intellectual disability. In fact the bill in clause 12 of Part 1 actually contains some specific provisions that treat those offenders differently from offenders who are regarded not to have an intellectual disability. That clause sets out that where a court is satisfied that it could make a public protection order against a respondent and that that respondent may be mentally disordered or intellectually disabled it is instead obliged—instead of making a public protection order—to direct the chief executive to consider the appropriateness of an application in respect of the respondent under section 45 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act.I would be interested to hear from the Minister though whether the Ministry of Justice has done any assessment of how many individuals may be captured by this; or of the five to 12 whom we are talking about as maybe being covered has the ministry excluded those who may fall within this reassessment regime and may be covered by the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act? If so does that not point to an issue with perhaps initial sentencing in that they would be considered to have either an intellectual disability or mental incapacity that deems them fit to be dealt with under this alternative Act rather than a public protection order? Does that mean that perhaps the assessment regime and the initial sentencing would have been inadequate if that was not identified at that point? So that is just an interesting question there. I would not mind hearing from the Minister in the chair. So that obviously rules out that option. It would not cover every target offender and cover all risk.The third option was a new civil detention order under which people including offenders would be detained in a secure facility in the community. Interestingly there was a view that although that might I believe cover the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it was potentially too costly. Obviously it means establishing new facilities outside. It is interesting that the Ministry of Justice within its regulatory impact statement chucked that out as perhaps the reason why it would not do it in that way.Fourth is a continuing detention order under which offenders would be detained in prison. There is a considerable New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue there because of course we must be clear that this is not an extension of punishment; rather it is a civil regime that is focused on public safety which is why I think we have arrived at the new form of civil detention using public protection orders but within prison grounds. Obviously that was seen as a neat way of covering off all of those issues. I think that contextually it was important to look at Part 1 within the other options that were considered but I would be interested in the Minister’s reflection on my questions.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):I would like to speak to clause 4 in Part 1 of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. Clause 4 talks about the objective of the Act: “The objective of this Act is to protect members of the public from the almost certain harm that would be inflicted by the commission of serious sexual or violent offences.” by people who are currently coming to the end of their term.I am just going to the definition of “serious sexual or violent offending” which means: “the commission of 1 or more serious sexual or violent offences.” We are talking about a small subsection of people who are currently in prison who within 6 months upon their release are expected—despite their punishment in prison despite their attempts at rehabilitation—to more than likely be recidivists and cause harm to members of the public.I think that any New Zealander would say yes we need to have something that is going to protect New Zealanders from the threat of harm from these people. But as Jacinda Ardern has just said the public protection orders are not to be considered an extended form of punishment. We cannot punish people twice for the same crime—that is called double jeopardy—but I have to say that there are concerns around the New Zealand Bill of Rights as Jacinda has touched on.The Attorney-General expressed the opinion that this bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Attorney-General stated that “The critical issue is whether the provision for detention and other measures under the Bill in substance amounts to further punishment of sentenced offenders contrary to the longstanding rights against arbitrary detention and double jeopardy affirmed in ss 22 and 26 of the Bill of Rights Act or to civil committal as provided for in other New Zealand legislation and widely held to be compatible with these rights. The risk of breach of ss 22 and 26 was raised at the time that the Bill was proposed.”The Attorney-General concluded that “ … unless the Bill incorporated the key safeguards necessary for a civil committal regime it would not be Bill of Rights compliant. The Bill as introduced includes such safeguards at each of the stages of the making administration and review or cancellation of orders. The Bill also contains broad interpretative principles to ensure its operation as a committal and not punitive regime.” In other words there are safeguards there apparently so that people are not going to come under that double jeopardy case. Also in clause 4(2): “It is not an objective of this Act to punish persons against whom orders are made under this Act.”. Even if they are subject to a public protection order they will still be kept in prison but not in the secure wing.In fact if we go to the “Principles” clause in clause 5(d) it says: “persons who are detained in a residence under a public protection order should have as much autonomy and quality of life as possible while ensuring the orderly functioning and safety within the residence.” So they have to be kept within a residence within prison confines and they are to be given as much autonomy as possible to go about their lives but without being out there imposing a threat of serious sexual or violent offending against New Zealanders.Other principles in the bill include clause 5(a) which says: “orders under this Act are not imposed to punish persons and the previous commission of an offence is only 1 of several factors that are relevant to assessing whether there is a very high risk of imminent serious sexual or violent offending by a person:”. In clause 5(b) it says: “a public protection order should only be imposed if the magnitude of the risk posed by the respondent justifies the imposition of the order:”. So there has to be some consideration of the magnitude of the risk that the offender may pose to the community.One of the principles is also that “a public protection order should not be imposed on a person who is eligible to be detained under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act …”. In other words if they have a mental disability they will not be subject to a public protection order. As I have said clause 5(d) is about giving these people as much autonomy as possible even though they will still be restricted within prison confines.There are thresholds for imposition of these public protection orders. The person must be aged 18 years or older. So obviously anybody who is under 18 years of age would not have a public protection order put upon them. Also the person must be detained and imprisoned under a determinate sentence for a serious sexual or violent offence. So for the benefit of people listening a determinate sentence basically means that they are in there for a set length of time.Another threshold is that the person must be released from detention not later than 6 months after the date on which the chief executive applies for a public protection order against the person. Clause 3 says: “chief executive means the chief executive of the department that is with the authority of the Prime Minister for the time being responsible for the administration of this Act” and that is generally the head of the Department of Corrections. We look forward to debating this bill thoroughly and going through each of the parts. Kia ora.DAVID CLENDON (Green):I am pleased to take a call to speak to some of the detail of this bill and to highlight the reasons the Greens are not supporting this legislation through the House. It goes right back to the regulatory impact statement. We are basing this legislation on very little evidence and that point was made in the regulatory impact statement by the officials who note that it is not possible to accurately report recidivism data for such a small unique subset of offenders. There is not a lot of evidence surrounding this legislation to support what is quite a Draconian measure—and it has to be described in those terms. It is quite a Draconian measure to go to this extent. The lack of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and indeed international conventions and standards has been noted.It is interesting again to note the earlier evidence we had from officials. We heard from officials that three pieces of legislation similar to this in four Australian states—legislation that enables the ongoing detention of inmates after the expiry of their sentences—have been found by the United Nations Human Rights Council to breach the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Given the similarity of that legislation to what is being proposed here it is most likely that New Zealand will find itself on the wrong side of the United Nations Human Rights Council and I think that is very regrettable—not least of all given that this afternoon in fact we are progressing legislation that the Greens do support and believe will achieve much of what is intended to be achieved with this legislation.Much has been made of the principles of this bill and we constantly hear this reference to the fact that it is not punitive. Clause 5 “Principles” states: (a) “orders under this Act are not imposed to punish persons”. I defy anyone to suggest that this is not a form of punishment. Semantically yes you can dance around that to some extent. But looking at the conditions that can be imposed on people subject to these orders essentially it is detention perhaps with one or two more creature comforts and with a modicum more of “the autonomy and quality of life” that this legislation talks about but it is an inherently punitive regime.People are prohibited from possessing quite a long list of items without specific permission from a residence manager acting on behalf of the chief executive—basic things like tobacco and alcohol. Yes of course nobody supports the use of tobacco—I certainly do not—but they are free people and adults are entitled to make their own decisions. In prisons of course alcohol and tobacco are banned and they would also be banned in the so-called residences. Electronic communication devices are not allowed—people cannot own phones in other words. There are very significant restrictions on access to mail. They may watch television and receive newspapers but any incoming or outgoing mail will be censored by the manager of the residence. These are punitive conditions. These do reflect quality of life or autonomy. People may not keep live animals for example. People are denied pets which are a commonplace sort of a thing that people have in their real lives.A decision for a public protection order to be imposed on a person rests heavily on this issue around health assessment so that a person coming up to the end of their determinate sentence will be assessed. Essentially there must be at least one registered psychologist and one other person who must be at least a psychiatrist registered to practise in New Zealand. That is all well and good. The court will be presented with two reports then the court itself or the person to whom this assessment applies can also choose to have health assessments done by other assessors—other psychiatrists or psychologists.There is no guidance in this legislation as to what the courts should do when as will inevitably happen there is conflicting advice or evidence. These are very subjective issues. Psychiatry—and I feel I can say this with no reflection on the profession—is an inexact science. There is a level of subjectivity. There are clinical tests surely but equally there is a high level of subjectivity. What is a judge or the courts to do in the situation where there are two for and two against for example? I think that that is quite unsatisfactory given the consequences of the assessments that can be made and the fact that this could effectively see people kept in detention basically for ever.The point has been made that there is quite a high bar required in order for these public protection orders to be triggered. To an extent yes and equally there are the health assessments—the psychological assessments and so on—but the decision is made by the court on the balance of probabilities which is a bar that is set for civil proceedings. A balance of probabilities is not sufficient for a criminal investigation for a ruling in a criminal court and yet effectively as I have said people who have these orders made against them will be kept in conditions not dissimilar to prison. It is very similar in fact to the situation that a person might be in if they were close to release for example—the self-care unit type of thing—although arguably a person in a residence would actually have fewer rights and more restrictions than somebody still completing a sentence in a self-care unit in one of our prisons. I hasten to say that I support the notion of units like that within prisons as self care is a step is towards release and reintegration further down.We note that people subject to these orders will be allowed to work if they can generate an income for themselves within their residence or by some means acceptable to the residence manager. That is allowed; they can earn money and have it managed on their behalf by the residence manager. I think the kicker there is though that when a person begins to earn money they can also have the ticket clipped despite the fact that they are in detention and they have completed the sentence to which they were subject for whatever crime they have committed. Nevertheless if they start earning money then a certain amount of that can be taken off them—to meet the cost of their board and lodgings presumably—which seems a pretty unhelpful thing.There is some peculiar language in terms of rehabilitation. We are told in clause 33 that residents are “entitled to receive rehabilitative treatment if the treatment has a reasonable prospect of reducing the risk to public safety posed by the resident.” This is not an expectation or something we would seek to insist upon; it is an entitlement something they may do. The question of whether or not a person subject to an order actually is able to get rehabilitation or some sort of programme is actually down to the assessment made by the residence manager.These must be quite extraordinary people these residence managers. When a person moves into a so-called residence the residence manager is responsible for a needs assessment to identify special medical requirements the cultural or religious needs of the individual any skills or capacities of the individual and any educational needs and finally they can assess any steps to be taken to facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration. That is an extraordinary load to put on one individual I would argue. We do not know what sort of level of requirement what expectations there will be or what qualifications people might require for these jobs. We do know that while they are acting as a residence manager they may not perform any function under the Corrections Act which would exclude a number of people. But it does seem that we are putting a great deal of reliance in a sense on these residence managers who may conceivably be managing a residence of as few as one or certainly only a handful of people.The practical application of this legislation leaves open many more questions than it answers regarding the ongoing conditions that these people will be subject to. Any time they leave and enter the residence they can be strip-searched and it can be an obligation. They can be forcibly strip-searched. They can be put in “seclusion” which is rather gentle language. Essentially they can be put in solitary confinement and kept there until the residence manager deems it appropriate that they should be released. They can be restrained physically—forcibly restrained. All of these are conditions that inmates in prisons are subject to. I see very little to differentiate between a person allegedly under a civil order—a non-punitive order—in a residence and the conditions that apply in a prison. For these and other reasons we will be opposing this legislation.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):I want to take a short call on this bill at this stage to make some comments about what the Greens have said in relation to this bill because New Zealand First does have a different approach from theirs although I do respect the fact that the Greens are very much of a mind to preserve and improve human rights. Indeed New Zealand First—and particularly me—is interested in doing so as well. However it has to be admitted that as in this case there are often tensions between personal rights and the public interest. The plain truth is that there are some people who are imprisoned and who are then eligible for release but who remain a danger to the community. We have actually seen in recent years some fairly spectacular examples of that therefore this is not an issue that can be ignored. Consequently New Zealand First embraces this bill and welcomes the initiative taken to deal with that situation however uncomfortable it may be.The real crux of the bill is simply this: is an order really necessary? If it is then it is not a question of punishment; it is a question of protecting the public interest. So I am glad to see that the court must not find that it should issue an order unless it finds that there is a very high risk of further offending. The presumption is that there will not be grounds for an order. These grounds have to be proved so the court must be satisfied that the respondent exhibits a severe disturbance in behavioural functioning established by evidence of specified characteristics to a high level. That is a high bar and so it should be.It is true that there are people who fall into that category and who are not necessarily mentally disordered. If they were then we have a regime for the committal of those people to mental facilities. However there is a gap between that and those who are entitled to freedom and that gap is where there is a person who is not mentally disordered and would ordinarily be entitled to their freedom but who is considered to be so dangerous that they cannot be allowed to go free. It is a very very small number of people but history has demonstrated that they do exist and this legislation is necessary to deal with them in the view of New Zealand First.I note concerning the review provisions that the Justice and Electoral Committee has added clause 17(2) and (2A) to require a court reviewing a public protection order to consider whether the subject still poses a very high risk of imminent serious sexual or violent offending taking into account the reports provided to the court. There will be plenty of evidence for them because the reports of two psychologists or psychiatrists are needed and the person themselves can obtain a similar report. So the matter will be properly investigated and I feel sure that we will not see New Zealand courts with the benefit of that sort of information lightly making an order for the detaining of these people.So I cannot agree with the approach taken by the Greens which I feel is too extreme. It goes to the point of saying: “Maybe there is a problem but human rights are so important that we just have to ignore this problem.” Well New Zealand First does not feel like that. We acknowledge that there is a problem. We acknowledge that there are people in this category while at the same time acknowledging the importance of human rights. We say that this bill is sufficiently well drafted to protect people from arbitrary imprisonment even those who have been in prison for serious sexual or violent offences and who therefore should be subject to one of these orders. We feel that the tension between personal rights and the need for public protection is still adequately covered with this legislation.We do not feel that the way that this legislation is drafted would result in people losing their freedom without that high bar of evidence having been achieved and I would expect that only a handful—literally a handful—of people would ever be subject to those orders. But of course we are going to have reports to Parliament and there is going to be good supervision so if we find that there are a lot more people who are detained in this way then Parliament will know and will have an opportunity to review the legislation.So I think that the situation is so serious that this bill is warranted and that it is well drafted and it is well balanced. The protection of the individual is still maintained but this very serious problem is dealt with. The public has a right to expect that Parliament will act in this way to protect them because there have been problems—serious problems—in the recent past and we simply cannot afford to not do anything about them. So I am afraid that I think that the Greens have gone too far in terms of the protection of human rights without taking into account extreme circumstances and these would be extraordinary and extreme circumstances where a person would be subject to this sort of order. So New Zealand First will continue to support the bill for those reasons.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):This part Part 1 of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill deals with—and in fact it is entitled—“Detention and supervision of persons posing very high risk of imminent serious sexual or violent offending”. Each of the words in that title is really important to the issue that we have under discussion. It is about people at very high risk it is about people who if released will imminently undertake an offence and it is about people who already have a track record of serious sexual or violent offending.I want to refer to the definition of the word “imminent” because I think it is particularly important to what some people see as the rather extreme nature of the power that is being exercised here. “ ‘Imminent’ in relation to the commission of serious sexual or violent offences by a person means that the person is expected to commit such an offence as soon as he or she has a suitable opportunity to do so”—that is what the word “imminent” means. As Minister of Justice I dealt with cases like this. I had reports from psychologists and I had reports from people who worked within the system that if person A was to be released on the way out of the prison if an opportunity arose that person was so driven that they would commit an offence so we are not talking about the use of extreme powers in the cases of people where there might be a whole lot of alternatives in terms of how to deal with them.It is about human rights and I respect the viewpoint stated by the Greens about the right of a person who is given a determinate sentence and who is normally to be released at the conclusion of that sentence. That is the norm—that is what we would expect. But if a person is regarded as being of imminent risk of seriously offending against another innocent individual then surely in this House we have to consider the human rights of those who are almost certainly going to be the victims of the individual released. We are not talking about using this powerful legislation against scores or hundreds of people. What the Justice and Electoral Committee was advised was that over a 10-year period maybe there would be five people—five to 12 people—who would be encompassed by it. That is maybe one a year or maybe one every 2 years. We are talking about extreme cases where the balance moves from the right of the person who has already committed a serious violent or sexual offence to be released at the end of their sentence. If they are certain to offend again and that is the clinical judgment and the independent judicial judgment made about that individual then in my mind the balance switches to protecting the likely victim of that individual. Freedom is a really important right but it is not an absolute right. It is not an absolute right as we know because if you commit a serious criminal offence you are jailed.For some people who meet the criteria set out in this bill it would have been better that they were sentenced to preventive detention. Preventive detention is an indeterminate sentence that says: “You will be locked up and kept locked up for as long as the safety of the community justifies that.” Maybe it would be better if the judge had had the foresight—and the judge cannot always have the foresight—to see that this person is of imminent risk of offending. Sometimes after a person has been in prison for a long period of time they have changed. They are suitable to be rehabilitated and to be released. But sometimes at the end of the sentence the psychologists say that this person has not changed at all and is going to do exactly what they were imprisoned for doing in the first place as soon as they get the opportunity to do so.I said before that freedom is not an absolute right. We detain people under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act. If people do not have the intellectual capacity to be responsible for their actions and they are likely to harm themselves or others we detain them. Nobody screams about human rights as long as the law operates under close supervision and tight constraints. We detain people under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. Nobody says that it is an appalling breach of human rights that a mentally disordered person is detained under that Act. They are detained for their safety and for the safety of others. The argument that I would make in relation to my colleagues from the Green Party is that these cases are not actually in essence very much different from what I have just talked about. We dealt with the problem of people who had personality disorders. They are not under the definition of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act but they are that category of people whom Jenny Shipley’s legislation released in the 1990s and psychiatric nurse Neil Pugmire said that that would be a disaster for New Zealand. He was hounded out of his job but he was absolutely right because these were people who suffered both compulsive behaviour inability to identify with their victims and who would go out and offend again.That is exactly the case that Neil Pugmire warned about. The offender will be dealt with under the companion piece of legislation here the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill but he could be dealt with under this legislation. So I say that although this legislation goes an incredible distance in saying that when a person has finished their sentence they can still be detained in a secure facility there is good reason for that as long as the law is clearly defining the persons concerned a judge is making an independent and informed judgment about it and the judge is relying on the professional advice of people who have had years and years to consider the nature of the individuals concerned.The four principles set out in the bill are I think incredibly important. The public protection order is not imposed as a punishment. If this was designed to be a punishment we would be in breach of international human rights. This by the way did not according to the Attorney-General’s office breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it is a civil regime. It says that a public protection order should be imposed only if the magnitude of the risk justifies it. I have outlined some of the circumstances as to how you might define that. It says that it should not be imposed if the offender is eligible to be held under mental health or intellectual disability legislation—I have equally covered that—and it says that people thus detained should have as much autonomy as possible.The interesting thing is that under Part 1 of this bill there is a whole section that sets out the rights of these individuals. They are allowed to do things that people imprisoned would not normally be able to do in equivalent circumstances. They can earn money from their work they have got the right to vote they have got the right to recreational and cultural activities the right to receive and send written communications access to the media and so on. I think what those rights demonstrate is that this regime is not a regime designed to punish. This is not a regime that is unfair; this is a regime that is premised on the need to protect the rest of society and its most vulnerable members from the activities of these individuals if released. So I find that I cannot agree with my Green colleagues’ minority view that this is disproportionate and excessive in relation to the level of threat to public safety that actually exists. I have been in the situation as a Minister in dealing with these cases and I regret to say that there is a real risk of safety. I have seen the consequences of what people have done because they cannot in any way have empathy with their victims. They do not understand the quality of their actions. A public protection order is a form of detention but it is not an imprisonment designed as a punishment.The interesting thing about this bill—and maybe I will make this my last point—is that despite the fact that it keeps people in secure detention it is not in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The next bill that we will examine as a Committee—the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill—actually allows people to be out in the community and monitored but is in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. You know I think there is a discrepancy there. The form of detention that is less dramatic is in breach and the one that is more dramatic is not in breach but Labour supports this bill and this part.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country):I move That the question be now put.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):Thank you for allowing me to take a call on the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. A little later on I hope to also speak on the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill which is a bit of a compendium I guess of pieces of legislation designed to cover off various aspects of looking at our most serious offenders.The main purpose of the bill that has been introduced is to empower the High Court to issue public protection orders that allow for the detention in a secure facility of people who have been through the prison system and who have come to the point where they are being released into the general public. However due to non-compliance perhaps with their rehabilitation and through stringent assessments they still pose a risk of serious harm to the public. That is where I believe that in this bill—and my colleagues have already spoken about it—there is a very delicate balancing act between what we would consider to be issues under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the paramountcy of keeping the general public safe.We are talking about a very limited number of people who would be a party to these public protection orders and quite stringent measures to ensure that we have got it absolutely right in terms of those people who will be detained under these orders. We are talking about violent offenders and some very serious sexual offenders. These are the people for whom our prison system has not had the desired effect of rehabilitation or perhaps those who have refused to take responsibility for their offending and who do in that regard pose a threat to the public.I know that the Green Party members raised the issue of human rights and whether this legislation does actually breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and whether it is appropriate to continue to in their words detain a person for longer than the sentence prescribed by a court of law. I suppose that the basic principle of a decent and fair society is that we determine what is right and what is wrong and we set the punishment accordingly. We have an expectation that those punishments are completed by offenders.But what is very significant about this particular bill is that we are intending to protect the public from some very serious offending so it is a balancing act. The bill is very prescribed in how a court will deal with a public protection order and in the criteria that we need to use to actually approve those public protection orders. The assessment needs to be done by at least two health professionals and it is weighted on the balance of probabilities that the offender poses a very high risk of serious sexual assault or serious reoffending.That is a much different level of evidence required than if we were looking at a criminal court and looking at a different level of evidence which is currently that under the Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines. So we are moving the jurisdiction from the criminal jurisdiction into the civil jurisdiction through the High Court and using the weight of evidence that we have through professional assessment to determine whether this individual will be at risk of reoffending.I do have some questions though for the Minister around the process of rehabilitation for our serious offenders and what is being done to rehabilitate them particularly our serious sexual offenders. I also have a question for the Minister about whether the New Zealand public can have confidence that other offenders going through the prison system are actually rehabilitated to the point where they no longer pose a risk to the public. There are some issues that concern me about our process for supporting offenders through our prison system so that we can be assured that when they are released—JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I want to come back to some of the review processes that are being established around the public protection orders particularly under clause 14 of Part 1. I do think the review process is important given that as has already been stipulated this is a civil regime which is a departure from the well-established principles within our justice system. Those were the points that were raised by the Greens.Although I agree with the principle of what is being done here with some significant caveats I would be interested in whether the Minister Hekia Parata wanted to explore the difference between the use of preventive detention versus the orders that we are looking at today. Preventive detention is used internationally for an offender who has a potential risk at the time of sentencing of repeating their offence if they are not given an indeterminate sentence. So a judgment is made at the time by the judge that the seriousness of the offending and the nature of the offender are such that an indeterminate sentence needs to be used. But the threshold for that in New Zealand as I understand it is an offence punishable by no less than 5 years’ imprisonment. The standard in these sets of orders is 7 years so that is a higher threshold test. So actually those who might be up for consideration for preventive detention could end up as the exact same offenders who end up being detained under public protection orders.But the punishment is somewhat less for the public protection order given the additional freedoms that are granted and given that it is a civil regime. Yet there are I understand currently as of 30 June 2010 719 prisoners serving indeterminate sentences. Compare that with some states in Australia: Victoria has 54 prisoners Queensland has 350. Comparatively we use preventive detention at what would seem like a relatively high rate. I would be interested if there were any other international comparisons. There are 719 uses of preventive detention which has a slightly lower threshold probably targeting the same group.Preventive detention probably has a lower set of tests as well because we are requiring a range of tests by psychologists health assessments and an ongoing monitoring regime by the courts on a yearly basis to ensure that that public protection order should still apply. Under preventive detention a parole board can say it does not want to see you for 5 years which is quite different from this regime.It is interesting that we draw the line here to say that a public protection order would be a breach of human rights but a preventive detention order which is granted at a time when there has not been say a sentencing period to assess whether or not a prisoner is indeed an ongoing risk is somehow a greater breach. I am sure that there are all sorts of reasons around our justice system that would determine why that is at the point of sentencing and so on but when you actually just break it down it is an interesting question to ask which one you could consider to be a greater breach of someone’s human rights: the decision at the beginning for a sentence that would usually attract perhaps only 5 years that says actually we are not going to tell you whether or not you are ever going to be released because we consider you that much of a risk versus an individual who after serving 7 years is determined under a very high threshold to still be a risk and we determine that we will do a yearly ongoing monitoring at a lesser enforcement level—so not within the prison system but within a civil regime. I understand why they are obviously two different bars but if you break it down like that one might consider the issue somewhat differently.Going back to the review process which is set out in clause 14 it is an annual review. My question is whether at that annual review—and the Minister might like to clarify this; my apologies if it is contained in the bill—a full assessment will happen each and every time within that review process which is set out in clause 14 because it did not seem quite clear to me whether it would. The initial assessment as to whether or not someone should have a public protection order apply to them is that they will have a report by a health assessor—at least two separately prepared—JONO NAYLOR (National):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes96New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes25Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to Part 1 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Amendment agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Part 1 as amended agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 96 Noes 25.Part 2 Procedural administrative and miscellaneous mattersThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We now move to Part 2 which is debate on clauses 90A to 125 on the schedule and on the Minister’s typescript amendment to the schedule.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I just really want to pose a couple of questions along the lines of Part 2 which is substantively a procedural administrative and miscellaneous section to the bill. It does go into some detail in Part 2 under clause 97 around the reports that are to be provided to the review panel for the purposes of reviewing a public protection order. This is I think an important clause given that we have only just recently debated as a select committee at the Justice and Electoral Committee the information that is provided to parole boards as a matter of course when considering a parole. It is a useful comparison to make I think because although this schedule sets out information that should be provided to a review panel it states under clause 97(f) in Part 2 that this includes “any further or supplementary reports requested by the review panel to be provided by any person including the chief executive the manager of the prison or the residence in which the person is detained and any health assessor”.The issue that we have discovered when it comes to reports provided to the Parole Board and would likewise be an issue with the review panel is that you know what you know. You can request information that you know might be available but for instance we have seen with the Parole Board that orders that are made in a civil regime were not routinely being provided to the Parole Board. A privacy agreement under the Judicature Act I believe it is is going to allow an agreement between the Ministry of Justice and the Parole Board to ensure that actually rather than having to request information it is provided as a matter of course. This may not be an issue when it comes to the review panel. I have not spent enough time looking at it but it is just something I would flag with the Minister of Justice. When we do have a case of requiring a review panel to ask for information we actually need to put the responsibility on those who hold the information to provide what they consider to be important because it is very difficult to make a direct request for information you do not know exists.I also want to just briefly ask a couple of questions on some other functional parts of the bill such as how the residences will be established and who will be employed to run them. Is it anticipated by the Government given that we are likely to have only five to 12 offenders held under this legislation that there will be the establishment of simply one residence on prison grounds; if so has consideration been given to which prison grounds that would be and what effect that would have on the footprint of the prison ground? Obviously some of our more modern prison facilities have been constructed in such a way that there are work programmes on site and various other rehabilitation programmes. To what degree would that be interrupted by having to partition off a piece of land in order to allow one of these residences to be established? Could the Minister perhaps share whether or not there has been any specific thought given to one site or multiple sites?Also for instance if there is one site that obviously would save a significant amount of money. Cost based on the regulatory impact statement was a consideration for the Government. I want to know whether or not having one site would breach any of the policies that are held by corrections around allowing offenders to try to be as close as possible to family. If for instance they have served their sentence in an Auckland prison but actually the one site in which these residences are constructed is in Christchurch I want to know whether or not we are going to have any ongoing issues with that given that this is a civil regime rather than part of a punishment as it were.Equally obviously there are some issues in clause 100. It talks about establishing residence managers. I am wondering whether or not these will be Department of Corrections staff because it states that a person must not perform any functions under the Corrections Act while that person is a residence manager. So obviously it is stipulated here that they will not have powers as given by the Corrections Act but is it anticipated that they will have the same degree of training that a corrections officer or staffer would or would they be for instance more in line with a social work qualification? What threshold test would we like them to meet because obviously a corrections officer or staff member has a particular set of thresholds that they must meet?I also wonder given that this is not strictly going to be considered in the same way that a regular corrections facility is whether or not the same powers of inspection that are held by a member of Parliament for instance will apply. That is the ability under the Corrections Act for us at any time to visit a corrections facility. Will that power under the Corrections Act apply to the residences for us to at any point visit in order to inspect and ensure conditions are appropriate and that the legislation is being met? Will that apply to these residences in the same way? I think that is an important point. We provide an inspectorate function particularly given that this regime is not intended to be the same as a prison. Making sure those checks and balances are in place is important. That may have already been considered and my apologies if that has been stipulated because I see that during the debate on Part 1 actually there was some discussion around Parliament being provided with reports on those who are covered by these public orders. So I am equally interested as to whether or not we have that ongoing role of inspection.I also would like to know whether or not the residence would be covered by our public corrections management. Will these residence managers be contracted out? Would we see the likes of Serco operating these residences or will they be held within the public regime? That is an important question for us on this side of the Chamber because we have very strong views about any form of our justice system even this element that falls within the civil regime being contracted out. We see it as a money-gathering exercise by third parties. We do not think it necessarily leads to any better outcomes. In the end we think the taxpayer ends up footing the bill.We have seen numerous examples where Serco has inappropriately managed the facilities that it has been running offshore. We have seen some debacles around the way facilities have been managed. Even in New Zealand we have our own examples where we have higher numbers of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults within our private prisons where they are not subjected to the same information-sharing regime so it is not as transparent. We would be interested to know whether or not it is the intention of the Government to contract out the management of these facilities in the same way it has some of our previously public prisons or even the prisons it is building such as Wiri. It would not surprise me if for instance the Government has already decided that the site where the residence will be is in one of these new facilities given that they are currently under construction and it would provide an ability to do that. That is a piece of information that I would like the Minister to clarify. I think it is incredibly important to the way these residences will operate in the future.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Thank you very much Mr Chair for a chance to speak on Part 2 of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. I just wanted to hone in on clause 112 which pertains to inspectors. Within the clause it says that the chief executive may designate one or more lawyers to act as independent inspectors. I think the point that my colleague Jacinda Ardern made just before she finished her contribution to this debate around the role of inspectors in this specific case where we are dealing with a very small number of people is a very pointed one. We do want to make sure that this small group of offenders—people who pose an extreme risk to the public—are managed and managed properly. Because it is such a small and sensitive group of offenders and potential offenders we want to make sure that it is the duty of the State to manage them.The appointment of inspectors in these residences that are being proposed under this legislation is a very important one. The people who will come under these types of public protection orders will still continue to have the rights of prisoners and inmates as they probably would have had under the sentence that they previously were on. I do note that in Part 1 they will still have the ability to make phone calls but those phone calls will still be able to be monitored. I think that is one of the things that an inspector will monitor closely—whether or not that has been done properly.I guess in the context of recent events around Phillip Smith and his management before his escape from prison or detention you would hope that the inspector in cases where we are dealing with public protection orders is given the right tools and the right resources to make sure that any arrangements that are made—or any details that are within this bill—to allow the monitoring of phone calls or any other communications are done properly so they can do their job. We have seen in the last month what can happen when things are not monitored properly. Someone who was in prison for a very serious crime was able to go on unmonitored leave was able to organise a trip to South America was able to obtain $10000 for that trip and I understand during his time in prison he was also able to use some student loan money to fund some of his operation.We hope that the inspectors described in clause 112 will be given the freedom and the ability to do their job properly because at the moment we question the confidence that the public would have in their ability to monitor things like this if we have serious cases like this. We are very happy that Phillip Smith is back in New Zealand. He should never have been out in the first place. But if the job of the corrections service was done properly and if it was run properly by this Government the likes of Phillip Smith would not have had the ability to be able to leave detention to be able to board a plane to South America to be able to get a passport. It is one thing for us to put in this legislation the ability to monitor or the ability to inspect but that actually has to be done at the front line. We question whether or not this Government has the ability to do that although we may commend the fact that this piece of legislation does build those things in.These are very serious offenders. We do realise that we are taking away a degree of their freedom but there is the ability to review that in here. But as it pertains to clause 112 in Part 2 we do ask and will continue to ask questions of the Government while it is building these safety systems into the legislation about whether or not it is actually able to carry them out and able to monitor some of the behaviour of some of our serious criminals who are in prison here in New Zealand. It is a sad state of affairs. We have got a recent example of someone who was not monitored properly and who was able to gain a passport and to board a flight to South America and make a laughing stock of the Department of Corrections. That simply is not good enough. We recognise that in this legislation there is a degree of safeguard in there with inspectors and with the ability to monitor phone calls. We would ask whether this Government if it is willing to put these kinds of safeguards into this legislation as it does with other areas of corrections is able to staff and resource that properly.I do notice that there can be the appointment of one or more lawyers. My understanding is that there is going to be a very small number of inmates who may come under the close inspection of this piece of legislation. But we would hope that that inspectorate role is taken seriously because we do not want to get ourselves into another Phillip Smith situation. If this Government is going to stick true to its word and true to its word to members of the public that it is going to keep them safe—that is the purpose of this bill because these are serious offenders who we think would have a high degree of probability of offending as soon as they are released. This inspectorate role should be taken seriously if there is the ability for corrections—and I hope it is that department that will be monitoring these inmates—to be monitoring mail monitoring phone calls and any other communication that inmates may have so that they would not be able to go and book a flight to Chile they would not be able to go and renew their passport under their first name and they would not be able to go and get their hands on $10000 so they could sustain themselves if they were to escape from prison.If the Government could answer any questions around the resourcing of the inspectorate role we would welcome that because as of recently we have seen an example that does not fill the public with much confidence.A party votewas called for on the questionThat Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Part 2 agreed to.ScheduleThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to the schedule be agreed to:in the item relating to section 47(1) of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 replace “penal institution” with “prison”.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the schedule as amended be agreed to.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Schedule as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I want to make a very very brief call on this part as it was something that obviously was debated by the Justice and Electoral Committee and there were some changes made. The select committee recommended amending clause 2 of the bill so that provisions would come into force on a date separate to that which was originally drafted. The original drafting suggested that the Act would come into force on the day that is 1 year after the date on which the Act received the Royal assent but the select committee instead wanted to allow provisions to come into force on a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council so that multiple Orders in Council could be made bringing different provisions into force on different dates.It seems that the select committee wanted to make allowances for consent processes and I guess the different dates that may sit around those provisions that were set out in Part 2 but still allow that any provision not brought into force earlier would come into force 1 year after the bill receives the Royal assent. That then speaks to the question I asked in Part 2. Obviously that implies that we may have multiple residences multiple consenting processes. The bill actually does also say that it allows for contracts to be made between the Department of Corrections and private providers. The fact that the select committee made this adjustment suggests to me that there may already be consenting processes in train; we do not know. But I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether indeed this is the case.That is not to say it is not a sensible provision. We always try to make sure that commencement clauses are tailored to the specific needs contained within a bill which may not be uniform but if there is extra information it would be useful if the Minister perhaps shared it with the Committee at this point.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 20 in the name of the Hon Amy Adams to clause 2 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Amendment agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes107New Zealand National 60; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes14Green Party 14.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment BillIn CommitteeJOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National):I seek leave for the debate on the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill to be taken as one question with separate questions to be put on each part at the end of the debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):This bill is what is described as a cognate bill with the bill that we have just discussed the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill. They have a lot in common in the sense that both are designed to provide for extraordinary detention or supervision of people who have completed their finite term in prison but are deemed to be at very high risk of reoffending if they are returned to the community. The difference with the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill is this: it does not actually detain people in prison conditions; it allows people to live out in the community but under close supervision. And for the first year of the extended supervision order they may be under very very close supervision.This is a bill that in fact had its origins back in 2004—that is when it went through—when I was Minister of Justice. I introduced the bill and I introduced the bill because a group of offenders had been released from care in the community under the old legislation dealing with mentally ill patients. They were found not to be mentally ill; they were found to be personality disordered and because being personality disordered did not meet the requirements for detention under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act they were released. This came to my attention through a psychiatric nurse called Neil Pugmire who worked up in the Manawatū at Lake Alice Hospital. He said: “I’ve drawn this to the attention of the Minister. I’ve drawn this to the attention of everybody I possibly can. I have worked with these people. I know these people. They are not capable of controlling or exercising control over their own actions and they will almost certainly reoffend if not returned to custody.”He was actually sacked from his job for doing that which I thought was grossly unjust. He was issuing a public warning designed to enhance the safety of the community. The thing was that Neil Pugmire was absolutely right. These offenders went on to reoffend and to reoffend seriously. The offender who came to my attention was an offender who had a very low IQ—it was about 90. He was actually imprisoned again because he raped a child under the age of 2 which nearly resulted in the death of that child. I say that not for the value of shocking the Committee but to say this was the consequence in the case of a person like Lloyd McIntosh who was totally incapable of controlling his urges who had no empathy or understanding of the impact of his actions on his victims and whose mother warned us would keep on reoffending if he was not under some form of supervision—and indeed so did he. He was one of the group of people under extended supervision orders who said that they welcomed the supervision because it kept them and others safe from the actions that they would otherwise take.I am not pretending that everybody welcomes the fact that they are subject to supervision but I am saying there is this category of people just as there was for the public protection orders where the balance changes from the right of a person having completed their sentence to be released into the community to the right of vulnerable people in the community such as children to be protected from people who will almost certainly reoffend as soon as the opportunity arises. Every time I come down on the side of the rights of the vulnerable particularly children—and there are 335 people who have been restrained under extended supervision orders because they have offended sexually against children.What does this bill do and why is it necessary? Well the 10-year period under which a person can be confined under an extended supervision order comes to an end early next year and the first of those prisoners Lloyd McIntosh will be released at that stage and I know that the Minister of Corrections and the Minister of Justice will have the same nightmares about that as I had at the time when he was previously due for release. What this bill does is allow the indefinite extension of an extended supervision order beyond the 10 years. I understand that about a third—about 70—of the 225 individuals currently under extended supervision orders will probably have their extended supervision extended beyond a 10-year period.Extended supervision orders are different from public protection orders because people are not detained in prison-like facilities; they are in the community but under intensive supervision. But ironically public protection orders are deemed to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because those are civil orders whereas what we are doing here is deemed by the Attorney-General to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it is under a criminal regime. So they have far more rights but this bill is seen as breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I have never breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or supported the breaching of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act lightly. I take the rights set out in that Act incredibly seriously.But as I said before in the instance of these individuals I believe that you have to consider the rights of those whom they will almost certainly offend against to be protected from them. This bill not only extends the period beyond 10 years but it is also extended to cover some sex offenders against adults and some very serious violent offenders. The numbers are much smaller but they are equally categorised as being highly likely to reoffend.My wish is actually that the judge in the first instance had simply sentenced them to preventive detention. That would have been a solution totally within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They could have been kept in prison indefinitely and when released they could have been re-imprisoned at any time they breached the conditions of their release. But a judge at the time of sentencing does not have perfect information and after a person has been in prison for a long period of time those who have worked every day with that person often as health professionals and psychologists have a better understanding of the risks posed. These extended supervision orders will not be imposed on people other than those whom health professionals believe it is vital to have this form of supervision over to prevent them from offending again.I do need to read to the Committee what the Attorney-General has said. He said in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet: “I conclude it appears to be inconsistent with the rights against … retroactive penalties and double jeopardy which are affirmed by [sections 26 and 22] of that Act.” He acknowledged that the extended supervision order will be imposed only on offenders who have committed serious sexual offences and where the court that sentenced that offender is satisfied they pose a high risk of committing further such offences. He acknowledged also that there are two new safeguards against the extended supervision orders being imposed unnecessarily in two ways: extending the matters that must be addressed by the health assessor’s report and the fact that the court has to be satisfied that there is a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending before making an order. Any risk of sexual reoffending must be high. The risk of violent reoffending must be very high and these orders are reviewed by the Parole Board every 2 years.At the Law and Order Committee I explored with officials whether it was possible to make this a civil rather than a criminal regime which would not in any material sense affect the way in which the offenders were being treated but would bring us technically within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think in large part because it would have created a lot of work and there was a limited period of time before these orders had to be in place the officials said no it is not really worth the candle. I would have liked a longer period of time so that we could have explored that more thoroughly. If we could have avoided breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that would have been the better alternative by far. But in the end I was persuaded that even if we had been able to get this new civil regime as we have with public protection orders actually it would not have affected in any material way the way in which people convicted of very serious offences would be treated and it would not have in practice affected the rights they exercise. Although I express reluctance about the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act I nevertheless support this bill.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections):It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill in the Committee stage. As the member who has just resumed his seat Phil Goff has explained it is a bill that is worthy of our attention. It is certainly worthy of support across this Committee and I am pleased to hear that many of the parties here are supporting it.Of course extended supervision orders are used to manage high-risk child sex offenders in the community and that is for a period of up to 10 years as the architect of the bill has just stated. Offenders on what they call ESOs or extended supervision orders are subject to standard conditions that are set out in the current legislation. They include of course reporting to probation officers special conditions that may be imposed by the Parole Board and residential restrictions as well as electronic monitoring. This will ensure that the public are protected from these offenders who finish their terms.The current legislation has a 10-year maximum time limit and the amendments enhance it in two different ways. First the amendments enable extended supervision orders to be renewed as long as they are needed and that is the important part—as long as they are needed. This is not ad infinitum; this is only where a serious risk is in force. Secondly the scope of extended supervision orders which are currently for child sex offenders only is expanded to include adult sex offenders and very high-risk violent offenders and it is important that we increase the scope to take that into account.I want to thank the Law and Order Committee members who received four submissions and turned round this bill in pretty speedy time in order for it to come into force for some dangerous members of our country before the current legislation expires. It is supported widely in the community. Some submitters commented on the implications around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I just want to say that the select committee did take those into account and they included what I would call appropriate safeguards in that orders would be subject to mandatory reviews by the courts which I think is an appropriate measure. Secondly the Parole Board would be required to review those stringent conditions every 2 years. So those safeguards are in place.I have to say to those who do argue for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and for human rights that I do not take lightly the fact that we do sometimes trample on human rights. But on balance I think that the protection and the security of New Zealanders is paramount and that is why we are progressing this bill.I have also put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that deals with three issues that I want to touch on. Firstly it is about making consistent decisions about what is the most appropriate order for high-risk offenders when applications are made to the court. That really deals with obviously the bill we debated before this one. Secondly it deals with interim extended supervision orders and where they can be granted when special circumstances delay a full extended supervision order application and I will talk about that soon. Thirdly it deals with contact between offenders on extended supervision orders and children and where that should be more strictly controlled which I will also touch on.In terms of the interim extended supervision orders we know that public safety may be jeopardised when there is a gap in the options available to manage some of these high-risk offenders. While they are being considered—and that includes when an extended supervision order has expired and a court process is delayed beyond the expiry of that order—we may need to impose an interim extended supervision order. Also it might be where an overseas offender for example is subject to a similar extended supervision order in a foreign jurisdiction and that person is released and may return to New Zealand and there are no measures to protect the public from such an offender.These provisions in terms of the interim extended supervision orders would mirror those provisions in the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill which was talked about prior to this bill and they provide for the court to make these interim measures where an application has been made for a public protection order and the individual is not otherwise subject to appropriate management. I think that is important. I think it minimises the risk around some of these offenders and I am sure it will gather support around this Chamber.Also giving the court power to make an interim order with appropriate conditions until the court makes a final order would best in my view protect the public from harm and having the court impose an interim extended supervision order would reduce the impact on the civil rights of offenders and it would actually be less disruptive to them.I just want to touch on the third part of Supplementary Order Paper 30 which I touched on. Section 107JA of the Parole Act lists standard conditions of extended supervision orders. Subsection (1)(i) refers to the fact that “the offender must not associate with or contact a person under the age of 16 years except in the presence and under the supervision of an adult who—(i) has been informed about the relevant offending: [or] (ii) has been approved in writing by a probation officer as suitable to undertake that role of supervision:”.This clearly is inadequate because the standard condition allows only a probation officer to assure the quality of that person for supervision of contact. It does not provide the Department of Corrections the ability to prevent contact or limit the number of times there is contact or the circumstances of contact between that high-risk offender on an extended supervision order and that child under 16. So the current standard condition leaves open the possibility of some of the most high-risk child sex offenders on the most intensive form of management on an extended supervision order to seek regular contact with young children.The amendment will require that contact between that offender and the child must be approved in writing by a probation officer. In my view that will limit the ability of such offenders to access children. Where it is appropriate that an offender with an extended supervision order has contact with a child or if an offender does not pose any risk to the child such contact could then be approved by the department.I think the measures in the Supplementary Order Paper are appropriate. They are about limiting the access of offenders to children as well providing for interim extended supervision orders to prevail where there are no other tools available to the Department of Corrections. This bill is widely supported across this House. I also want to thank not just the select committee but also the previous Ministers who are currently in the Chamber for their contribution to bringing this bill to the House. I look forward to it being passed in due course.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):Thank you to the Minister of Corrections the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga and his predecessor who did consult with us as an Opposition party on this bill. I think particularly given that there was some urgency around it it was very useful to be brought into the loop early on. It is a shame that that was not applied with the bill that we just debated the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill but we did appreciate that early engagement on this particular bill.It has been useful I think to have the contributions made by Phil Goff who as the Minister of Justice introduced the original extended supervision order regime. Although it is very easy for us as members of the House to debate these bills with some distance and to discuss the raw number of individuals who might be covered by them I think it is a very different thing when as the Minister of Justice you are presented with a specific case of a specific offender who is going to be released back into the community and whom the Parole Board has specifically determined to be unfit to be returned into the community. To be faced with that in the knowledge that that person who poses an imminent risk will reoffend unless something is done and that you have been briefed on it then where does your responsibility in that lie? That is a very difficult position to be put in as an individual and yet that is what any Minister of Justice faces. It was what Phil Goff I recall faced at the time when he introduced extended supervision orders and it is likely that we may very well have a Minister in the chair who will face that again.So although this bill removes the expiry essentially that existed when extended supervision orders were first put in place it does fundamentally change the regime as well. We are talking now not just about child sex offenders which is what the legislation was originally designed for but about all those who are deemed to be violent offenders or violent sexual offenders as well. But there is an additional clause that I want to come to—new section 107C which is being inserted into the Parole Act by clause 7 in Part 1. It sets out under subsection (1)(b) that an “ ‘eligible offender’ is [also] a person who—(i) has arrived in New Zealand within 6 months of ceasing to be subject to any sentence supervision conditions or order imposed on the person for”—and it specifies—“a relevant offence by an overseas court;”—so it does not specify in the schedule what that offence may be because of course you have to make an assessment of a relevant offence in an overseas jurisdiction—“and (ii) has since that arrival been in New Zealand for less than 6 months; and (iii) resides or intends to reside in New Zealand.”A couple of questions—“has since that arrival been in New Zealand for less than 6 months;”. What if an individual was not brought to the notice of the Department of Corrections has a relevant offence and may actually be covered by and be a contender for an extended supervision order but has come to New Zealand and managed to fly under the radar for 7 months before they have come to the attention of the Department of Corrections? Obviously based on that section my assumption is that they would no longer be eligible for an extended supervision order. Also it stipulates that they reside or intend to reside in New Zealand. If an individual flags that they intend to reside in Australia but actually for all intents and purposes winds up being in New Zealand would they too manage to skirt around the provisions in the bill? I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.Functionally also I am interested in how this section will be enacted. Again unfortunately I was not on the Law and Order Committee although usually I am a member but I was not on the select committee for the consideration of this bill. Do we require reciprocal arrangements with every overseas jurisdiction for a returning individual to be flagged or brought to the attention of the Department of Corrections for this process to be triggered? Or is there some other mechanism that will be applied to make sure that we are considering anyone who should be eligible for this regime in order for that to happen? I think we have seen in recent times that sometimes the information sharing even domestically is not what we would want it to be so obviously if we are extending a regime across every international jurisdiction then what mechanisms are in place to ensure that this process is triggered?I do not disagree. I think it is the right thing to do—to allow ourselves the ability to apply this legislation to someone who has served a sentence overseas—and we have seen cases of those who have been the subject of child sex offences where it would be appropriate. But I would be interested to see how that will apply functionally.I then want to just come to the amendments to section 107F in clause 9 which talk about the process that the chief executive must go through in order to apply for an extended supervision order. I think the select committee did some good work here in making sure that the criteria were not quite as prescriptive as what would apply for a public protection order. The threshold test again is different. We are talking about a lower threshold. These are individuals who will be released into the community. What essentially we are doing is really extending the ability for us to supervise rather than to detain. But I wondered—because I could not find any specific provision and I may have overlooked it—what process there was in place for the notification of victims when an extended supervision order is being applied for.I imagine we would have a similar regime to what would apply for parole with a public protection order which is very explicit. Reference is made to the Victims’ Rights Act. I am imagining we have got a similar regime for notification for victims but that is something that I wanted to be specific and I would ask the Minister how victims are brought into the regime when an offender is considered for an extended supervision order. I think it would be of great relief to a victim to know that an offender would have that continuation of supervision upon release.I look forward to hearing from the Minister on those points.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau):Again as a brand-spanking-new member on the Law and Order Committee I was not aware of the genesis of extended supervision orders so it has been very valuable for me to sit here and listen to the Hon Phil Goff talking about his concerns in 2004 around the imminent release of offenders whom he believed would probably go on and reoffend sexually against children and young people. It has been really interesting to hear also his angst about that situation and to hear that that is why the extended supervision orders were put in place in 2004 and were to last for 10 years. That 10 years now is about to expire.It is interesting to know that even after 10 years of extended supervision we have come to the realisation that there are people who just will not get over their urge to reoffend and therefore there is a need for the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill so that in effect extended supervision orders can be extended as often as is needed. I think it is really really important that we recognise that there are just some people who regardless of the amount of help and rehabilitation that they get in their time in prison during their sentence will still come out of prison and reoffend and the Hon Phil Goff gave a sad example of that. The scope has been expanded as others have mentioned to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk violent offenders.It would be remiss of me to stand and talk on a bill that involves sexual abuse and sexual offenders without reiterating to the country and to the Committee just how prevalent sexual abuse and sexual offending are. I raise the example of when I was the principal of a school up north. In the space of 15 school days—in the space of 3 weeks—13 instances of sexual abuse were brought to my attention. They were not all immediate; some of them were historical but I was having to deal with them as a principal. So it would be remiss of me to not bring up the fact that sexual abuse is rampant and that members of this House must do everything in our power to stop it and to prevent people’s recidivism. The Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill is one of those instances where we are doing something proactive to protect boys girls men and women from sexual abuse.I also just want to raise another instance of a letter. A number of us may have received a letter from this man who is in Christchurch Prison at the moment. He wrote a letter to me and said: “Kelvin I’m in prison because I did some bad stuff but the bad stuff the genesis was in the sexual abuse that I suffered as a boy when I was raped every night by my father.” We have got to acknowledge the impact that sexual offending has on the lives of New Zealanders.This bill does conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I would like to read some parts of the commentary from the bill. “Extended supervision orders are designed to protect the community from high-risk offenders not to punish for past offences. However the Parole Act 2002 treats extended supervision orders as a criminal justice process; therefore an extended supervision order could be interpreted as a form of penalty and thus in breach of the protection against double jeopardy.” We spoke about this in the previous bill the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill—that we do not want people to be punished for the same offence and that there is tension between the rights of people and public protection. For me knowing now what I know about sexual abuse and violent offending I err on the side of protecting the rights of the public even if that does upset other people.I want to draw attention to new section 107(2) in clause 7. It says: “To avoid doubt and to confirm the retrospective application of this provision despite any enactment or rule of law an offender may be an eligible offender even if he or she committed a relevant offence was most recently convicted or became subject to release conditions or an extended supervision order before this Part and any amendments to it came into force.” So this is looking at not just those people who have offended after the commencement of this bill but those who are already in prison now making sure that as they start being released in the next few months—the first people who came under the extended supervision orders—they are included under this bill.I also want to raise a local situation from up north. We are talking about people whom we do not think will ever be rehabilitated. We think that there is an imminent risk of them reoffending. Up north we have the instance of James Parker the deputy principal of a school up there. In my opinion although he got preventive detention—and I am grateful for that—he could well have been given a finite sentence and at some stage in the future be released. This is a guy who is symptomatic and an example of the sort of people whom I just do not think will be rehabilitated. This guy was cunning and manipulative. He took advantage of people. He really worked the system and played with people’s minds so that he was able to offend at will. In fact so bad was his state of mind in my belief that when an accusation was made against him and the charges were dropped his offending actually increased and got more intensive and more bizarre. I believe that this is the perfect case of somebody—and again I reiterate that he did get preventive detention—who if he was not on preventive detention must come under these extended supervision orders for the rest of his life because any young person any young boy such as boys of the same age who were in his charge would for ever be in jeopardy if they were around James Parker were he ever to be released into the public.I support this bill. I have seen the effect the damage that sexual abuse and violent offending do. I have got no doubt that Mike Sabin across the way there also from up north as a former police officer would have seen the effects of them in even more graphic detail than what I saw. I just saw as a principal the effects on the kids in the school and the difficulties that a lot of children had in learning.A final point is that one thing we have got to realise is that offenders are not necessarily the strange or weird-looking guy walking down the street. Too many young people too many people tonight will be abused by somebody they know they love and whom they should be able to trust—in other words members of their families. I do not think that we identify and out these people enough. I believe that by the nature of their offending—and it is often fathers who offend against daughters granddaughters and nieces—these are people too who will be constantly recidivistic. It is almost like they feel that it is their right to actually behave like this. Again I would be remiss if I did not raise these sorts of issues with the Committee. Kia ora.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I am pleased to make a contribution at the Committee stage on this bill. I have been listening very closely to the contributions on both bills. Although I am not a member of the Law and Order Committee and I have not really had firsthand experience with this bill or indeed with the aspects of the criminal justice system that this bill regulates I do hark back to my criminal justice system course days back at Victoria University. Warren Young was his name. The fundamental rules around the sentencing were that the aims of sentencing were to punish and deter the offender general deterrence rehabilitation reformation reparation and protection. All of those different considerations come into play when a sentencing decision is made. But in this case we are dealing with a very very small group of very very bad people. There is the saying that the punishment should fit the crime. Well here we are imposing restrictions on the offenders when no crime has actually been committed but the risk that these individuals pose and the impact and the harm that they can cause from their offending is so great that there needs to be some extended supervision imposed on these individuals.I support the intent of this legislation because as my colleague Mr Davis has mentioned sexual and violent offences are prevalent in our society. It is very regrettable and it is something that we as a Parliament and as a nation need to stamp out. Taking measures such as this legislation is very important. We are dealing with only a very small percentage of extreme offenders. I liken them to the most grotesque movie character you can think of and there are probably numerous movies that we have sat through and you know shivered over while watching them. These people are out there. Unfortunately they have committed crimes they have served their time but rehabilitation has obviously not worked for them. They are troubled individuals they are sick people and therefore they have to come under more stringent supervision when they do get to the end of their incarceration. So this is a welcome piece of legislation. Although I do note the fact that it is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it is also—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.RINO TIRIKATENE: Just prior to the dinner break I was explaining how the report of the Attorney-General—clearly in the Hon Christopher Finlayson’s opinion this piece of legislation is inconsistent with provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act so that is serious obviously. We do not want to be putting through legislation that contravenes or is at odds with the rights of everyone under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but that has to be balanced I guess against the subject matter and the nature of this legislation. At the start of my speech I was talking about the different aims of sentencing. Clearly this piece of legislation is very much on the side of protection and on the side of public safety. Those considerations are paramount and they do supersede the rights of the individual. But it is not to say that the extended supervision under this legislation is going to be handed out willy-nilly because as we look through the provisions of Part 1 the tests that the court has to apply to determine the high-risk nature and the seriousness I guess of granting these extended supervisions are actually very very hard mandatory tests. There are about four or five mandatory tests that the court has to basically convince itself of before it will grant this extended supervision.What I do want to move on to now is that it is not only the Attorney-General who expressed concerns around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but there was a working group of the United Nations here earlier this year and it had a look through our criminal justice system. The bills that we have been considering today were one area where it did express concerns. So I think it is right that we do take heed of a body of the United Nations that has considerable weight. Ultimately some of the obligations that we enact through legislation derive from international law. Some of them derive from our obligations there. So again I think the work of this working group in a way is consistent because although they did express concerns they said that these provisions are justified if there are compelling reasons and regular periodic reviews. As I have mentioned there are stringent tests that have to be applied to justify the reasons for the granting of the extended supervision and also there are periodic reviews that are built in.Just to conclude my contribution I wanted to touch base on the contributions of a whanaunga of mine. He is very much an outspoken person in the criminal justice area. It is none other than Kim Workman who has been around for many years. His thinktank group Rethinking Crime and Punishment has also expressed concerns around—I guess it is more to do with the application of the operational side of granting the extended supervision. I can actually see his point because in some ways there are a lot of operational decisions that are made but we also want to ensure that with whatever conditions or stringent restraints are imposed upon offenders there is also an element of I guess rehabilitation. That is why the use of voluntary groups that specialise in these areas which he notes through circles of support and accountability—those sorts of programmes are very beneficial. So it is not about just imposing stringent rigid rules on the offender; it is also about ensuring that they do get proper support so that they hopefully do turn the corner and will be able to go back into society fully.Lastly—my very last point—I do want to go back to the working group of the United Nations on this bill because although it might be not directly relevant to this part in the bill I think in the overall context it is very important and that is the overrepresentation of Māori in the criminal justice system. Māori make up more than 50 percent of the total prison population even though we are only 15 percent of the population. In the case of Māori women they account for more than 65 percent of the prison population. So the reality is that offenders who fall within the ambit of this legislation will be Māori. The statistics are there and plain to see as sad as it is. Therefore I think I would encourage the Government to take heed of the working group’s recommendations around looking at the inconsistencies and systemic bias against Māori at all the different levels in the criminal justice system. Although I think this piece of legislation is a necessary piece of legislation that we are enacting we must not forget the overall context where Māori are very overrepresented in our prison population. I think we definitely need to work to make sure that we can reduce those numbers significantly.NUK KORAKO (National):I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to call Jenny Salesa but before I do I just want to give a warning that the last speech was actually quite a long way away from the specific clauses of this bill. We have done the general principle debate at the second reading. We have accepted that. Now we are saying whether these particular clauses give effect to what we have already decided.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East):I stand to take a brief call in support of the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Parole Act 2002 as far as it relates to extended supervision orders. Extended supervision orders are used to manage a small number of child sex offenders who pose a high risk of causing serious harm after being released from prison at the end of their sentences. These orders can last for up to 10 years. Beyond this period the Department of Corrections is not able to manage these offenders even if they continue to pose a high risk of serious harm to the public.This bill enables orders to be renewed as often as they are needed and it expands the scope of orders beyond high-risk child sex offenders to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk violent offenders. Under the current law extended supervision orders last for a period of 10 years and cannot be renewed. We are debating this amendment bill because there is a risk to public safety from offenders who still pose a risk of serious reoffending after the expiration of their extended supervision orders and they can no longer be supervised or managed by the Department of Corrections.Extended supervision orders were established to protect children under 16 from a small group of convicted child sex offenders considered to be at a high risk of serious reoffending after they complete their sentence. The sexual and violent offenders to whom these extended supervision orders would be extended are likely to be people with behavioural and intellectual disabilities who could not remain in the community unsupervised. It is estimated that the number of offenders affected is likely to be small. We are discussing this piece of legislation today because the 10-year period for some of these people who were the earliest recipients of the extended supervision orders will expire soon and at least some of them continue to pose a serious risk to the well-being and safety of our children. This bill will enable extended supervision orders to be renewed. It also expands the scope of orders to include those who are adults.I have to say that the regulatory impact statement states that only around 29 to 41 offenders will be placed on extended supervision orders every year because of this legislation. The vast majority—25 to 30—will be high-risk sexual offenders against children one or two will be high-risk violent offenders and it is estimated that around four to nine will be high-risk offenders against adults. This bill would allow extended supervision orders to be renewed without limit as required. At the moment an order ends after 10 years and cannot be renewed. People on extended supervision orders live in the community under a standard set of conditions as well as under any special conditions the Parole Board puts in place for that individual. It may be that a carefully considered extended supervision order with clear ongoing management of the offender will decrease the risks for the offender in the community and increase the possibility of the reasonable living conditions that support rehabilitation.The Law and Order Committee was presented with an assessment by officials of 10 years of experience of extended supervision orders and it found that extended supervision orders work effectively to achieve the primary objective of protecting our community. I have to note that the proposed changes to the Privacy Act 1993 may be of concern to some. The committee recommended amendments to clause 25 of the bill which would amend the Privacy Act 1993 and expressly authorise the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police to receive information from each other about offenders subject to an extended supervision order. Under the original bill the department could not share information with the police when an offender subject to a protection order restraining order or non-contact order also became the subject of an extended supervision order. Furthermore the police could not receive information from the Department of Corrections about an offender subject to an extended supervision order. This proposed bill will address that.There have been some serious issues of human rights to consider under this bill. In the written advice from the Attorney-General about this amendment bill pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Chris Finlayson stated: “I have considered this Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I conclude it appears to be inconsistent with the rights against the imposition of retroactive penalties and double jeopardy which are affirmed by [sections 26 and 22] of that Act.” So the major issue for the Attorney-General was whether or not this bill breaches section 26 of the Act which offers protection against double jeopardy—effectively punishing someone twice for the same offence. However it does seem that such orders can be seen—and indeed are seen by some offenders—as rehabilitative helping the offender to live in a community.An extended supervision order is also seen by some offenders as offering them an element of protection. The danger however that such offenders can present for the community needs to be carefully and sensitively managed to balance both community safety and the important human rights of an offender. There have been instances when community outrage has occurred and there have been threats of vigilante action—for example in my very own electorate in Ōtara when a child sex offender was placed under parole in a location near a school and a kōhanga reo without any consultation with the local community. It may be that a carefully considered extended supervision order with clear ongoing management of the offender will decrease the risks and that possibly reasonable living conditions will support rehabilitation.I would like to say that I am pleased with the fact that the police in South Auckland have been proactive in this area of protection and prevention. For example there is now a Counties Manukau child exploitation team building a proactive approach to prevent offending against vulnerable children. This team takes a proactive approach to what it calls the traditionally reactive field of child sexual abuse investigation. It works to protect children from becoming victims of child abuse. This team holds child sex offenders to account for the hideous offences that they commit against children. It has tried to put in place more effective monitoring of known child sex offenders and to create offender management plans for high-risk sex offenders. It is not a perfect system but it is a proactive and preventive system that has been put in place.Labour supports the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. Kia ora tātou katoa.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):That was a great speech from Jenny and it outlined a lot of the problems we face in our society at the moment.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!STUART NASH: Oh—Jenny Salesa. What I would like to talk about is new section 107I inserted by clause 11 and new sections 107IAA and 107IAB inserted by clause 12.Basically a lot of what we do in society is assessing risk and the ability to assess risk and make a sound judgment based on that assessment has a very strong determination on where we end up and the actions that are taken. This is in business; this is in life. You know we decide whether we are going to walk home or whether we are going to have a couple of wines and drink etc. What this section talks about is the ability to assess risk and what defines high risk and very high risk.Mrs Salesa talked about the fact that there are only 25 to 30 people under these extended supervision orders. I find it very difficult to believe that there are so few people who have committed these crimes. But what we need to do is have a look at this and what the court must do when it looks to make an extended supervision order following the hearing of an application—I am talking about new section 107I(2) here—is look at a couple of conditions.The first condition is that the court has to be satisfied that “the offender has or has had a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending;”. What we are talking about here is the most insidious people in our society—those who have committed the most heinous crimes. Part of this is that the court has to be satisfied that “there is a high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant sexual offence:” or in fact that there is a very high risk. So the bill makes a distinction between high risk and very high risk. It sets out a series of conditions under which high risk and very high risk are assessed. I find it a little strange to be honest that we are talking about people who have committed the most heinous of crimes and I would have thought that all of these people fall under the category of “very high risk” anyway. But let me just go through the differences if I may and I seek the Committee’s indulgence on that.New section 107IAA “Matters court must be satisfied of when assessing risk” talks about high risk so this is high risk as opposed to very high risk. Subsection (1) states: “A court may determine that there is a high risk that an eligible offender will commit a relevant sexual offence only if it is satisfied that the offender—(a) displays an intense drive desire or urge to commit a relevant sexual offence;”. So again we are talking about someone who may have a physiological disposition for this and whom I assume has quite a low mental capacity to assess their own behaviour let alone what society thinks is right and wrong. In fact they may even have a blurred perception of what is right and wrong anyway. They also have to have: “(b) … a predilection for”—oh they have to be serious sexual offenders. The third one is that they have to have: “(c) … limited self-regulatory capacity;”—i.e. again they do not have the ability to determine the difference between right and wrong—and they have to display: “(d) … either or both of the following: (i) a lack of acceptance of responsibility … for past offending: (ii) an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of [their] sexual offending on actual or potential victims.”That is pretty serious I would argue. But that is only the high risk category. Believe it or not there is another category above high risk—and this goes to subsection (2)—and this is very high risk. So there is a difference believe it or not between high risk and very high risk.The conditions that have to be satisfied for the offender to be very high risk are that the offender “(a) has a severe disturbance in behavioural functioning established by evidence of each of the following characteristics: (i) intense drive desires or urges to commit acts of violence; and (ii) extreme aggressive volatility; and (iii) persistent harbouring of vengeful intentions towards 1 or more other persons; and (b) either—(i) displays behavioural evidence of clear and long-term planning of serious violent offences to meet a premeditated goal; or (ii) has limited self-regulatory capacity; and (c) displays an absence of understanding for or concern about the impact of his or her violence on actual or potential victims.”I would have thought that people who display the sort of behaviour that is listed in the very high risk category would actually be on what is it called—life—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member means preventive detention.STUART NASH: Sorry—preventive detention. That is what I meant sorry—preventive.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just did not want to wait too long.STUART NASH: The sort of behaviour that we are talking about here is the sort of behaviour where the offenders have done their chips. They have committed the most heinous of crimes which our society really does not accept. This is the sort of crime where you do not get out. We are talking about premeditated—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Where the person does not get out I think.STUART NASH: —where the person does not get out—after how many years? After 24 years or is it 28 years—27 years in the House—in the big house; the really big house.Maybe the Minister can help me on this matter. Why are we looking at extended supervision orders for parole for people who have “an absence of understanding or concern about the impact of his or her sexual offending on actual or potential victims. Why are we looking at parole no matter how extended it is for persons with “severe disturbance in behavioural functioning established by evidence of … (i) intense drive desires or urges to commit acts of violence; and (ii) extreme aggressive volatility; and (iii) persistent harbouring of vengeful intentions towards 1 or more persons” and where the person displays such clear evidence of antisocial behaviour that basically they are going to commit a crime? This is what this says.The thing that I am not too sure about I suppose is who assesses this? I am assuming that a trained criminal psychiatrist is the person who comes up with the assessment distinguishing between high and very high risk. I do not know of a court in the land or of a learned member of the judiciary that would have the ability to determine whether someone is a high or a very high risk. The sort of behavioural conditions we are talking about here are those that can be assessed only by a registered and highly trained medical professional.I was looking through this bill and I could not find anywhere in it a description of who actually came up with the determination of whether such a person would be high risk or very high risk. But there must be some sort of criteria. I am assuming that before a person like this goes before a court there is a psychiatrist’s report given and the psychiatrist says: “Your Honour under section 107IAA I deem this person to be of a very high risk.”But the thing I have learnt when debating a law like this is to never make an assumption because you can often be wrong. This is the sort of bill that cuts to the heart of what we judge is a civilised society and what we need to weigh up in terms of human rights versus the expectations of communities that they will be safe. Perhaps the Minister in the chair Nathan Guy could just enlighten me slightly on who will have the ability to assess what constitutes high risk versus very high risk.The other thing also is that I suppose we get to a certain point where this person is on extended parole and they are not living with the person from the Parole Board 24/7. My real concern is that if they are showing such antisocial behaviour—and they are obviously doing this 24/7—and they commit the type of crime that we are talking about here while out on parole there is not only harm to the community but massive political risk and the Minister himself knows this. If someone out on parole who shows this sort of behaviour commits a crime well then we know the sort of stuff that Garth McVicar and his characters will go on about. But if you have got any comments to make Minister I would love to hear them. With that I will sit down. Thank you.SUE MORONEY (Labour):It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill in its Committee stage. I rise to speak because I just want to seek some clarification on some of the clauses in this bill. Because of the nature of what we have heard about the reasons why we are having to put this sort of legislation in place—and I think no one in this Parliament feels happy about having to debate such issues because these are the sorts of things that exist in our society that we would prefer simply not to exist. But they do and so we need to make sure that the legislation that we have got in front of us is fit for purpose and actually does what we think it does.I have been reflecting on what the Justice and Electoral Committee found with this bill because that select committee in fact made a number of amendments to this bill and I am very pleased that it did. In particular and the Minister in the chair Nathan Guy may be able to clarify this for me when the select committee amended clause 30(1) in relation to the words providing that the person placed under a public protection order was going to have access to newspapers—that clause was actually amended at the select committee so that they would have access to news media. The select committee has made the statement that the amendment refers to a resident receiving a news media item and does not include by reference media representatives.I have had a look at that clause and when I initially read it it sounded to me—and this may be a drafting issue—like they are actually going to be given access to news media. That is actually what it says in the clause. It says that a resident must be given access to news media. That sounds to me like they have got access to being interviewed by the news media rather than just to reading information in the news media. I am quite confused because those two things are quite different from each other. Have they actually got the right to have someone come and visit them and interview them maybe one of the TV programmes? Maybe they could become part of a reality TV show—who knows?I am not sure that the drafting of that particular clause 30(1) does do what the select committee in fact asked to happen. The select committee wanted it to be made quite clear that they were going to be in the committee’s words—“For the sake of clarity the amendment refers to a resident receiving a news media item and does not include by reference media representatives.” But what the law actually says in clause 30(1) is: “A resident must be given access to news media (for example newspapers television or radio) and if Internet facilities are available in the residence to Internet sites approved by the manager.” It then goes on in subclause (2) to say that that “… does not entitle a resident to unsupervised access to the Internet or to the use of email.” However it does not seem to me that that actually excludes what the select committee wanted it to exclude. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about how they will ensure that that clause is going to be enacted in the way that the select committee wanted it to be.I also wanted to quickly visit the management plan that is in clause 39.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can the member just confirm that she is speaking to the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill?SUE MORONEY: No I am not.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It took me a while to get that point but I think the member might be speaking to a bill that we have passed through the Committee of the whole House.SUE MORONEY: OK. I hope that these matters were traversed in the previous bill. The Minister obviously cannot answer my questions and I will leave it at that.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.Education Amendment Bill (No 2)In CommitteeDebate resumed from 27 November.Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I am very happy to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) in this Committee stage on Part 1. I want to turn particularly to the submissions on clause 38 of the bill particularly new section 382(1)(i). That particularly relates to the new functions of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (EDUCANZ) in carrying out audits of teacher registrations on an annual basis. It requires the council to audit 10 percent of all of the practising certificates issued in any given year. It is a 3-year cycle so roughly one-third of the teaching profession will renew their practising certificates each year. That means that 10 percent of that third will go through an audit process.We received through the Education and Science Committee quite a range of submissions about this. Overwhelmingly submitters felt that this was overly heavy-handed. First of all I want to acknowledge that I understand what the Government is trying to achieve here. It is basically looking at some comments that have been made particularly by the Education Review Office and others. Judith Aitken for example a former Chief Review Officer of the Education Review Office and a member of the review committee noticed that there is huge national inconsistency and some weaknesses in teacher-appraisal processes. This has come through in a lot of research that has been done around New Zealand and that is very legitimate. So I think what the Government is trying to standardise here is a greater performance appraisal system or feedback and appraisal system for the teaching profession.But the real challenge is to make if you like best practice common practice without making it standard practice. If the Government makes it standard practice then it would actually no longer be best practice because it will turn into a form-filling exercise where teachers basically spend a lot of their time assembling portfolios that are based on compliance rather than on good educational outcomes. So what we want to do is encourage every school in the country to be adopting best-practice systems when it comes to the appraisal of their teaching staff without turning it into a compliance exercise. The real risk of this 10 percent audit function is that it will actually undermine the purpose of the bill which is to raise the status of teaching and raise the quality of teaching in classrooms.I want to point out here too that this is paper-based. So this is a group of people potentially sitting in Wellington looking at the portfolio of paper that has been presented to them. This will not result in one additional person sitting in a teacher’s classroom and saying: “These are the things you’re doing well and these are the things that you could improve on.” It is not actually going to result in a tangible increase in teaching practice and that should be our goal. If the goal is to raise student achievement then tangible increases in teaching practice is what an appraisal system should be all about. A paper-based review in Wellington based on a form-filling exercise which is what this could well become is not going to achieve that.We have had some very compelling submissions from the profession itself and from many others saying that what is intended here is not going to work. We are talking here about potentially auditing 10000 teacher appraisals. How can that be done through a central administration by EDUCANZ in a quality and meaningful way? It would be an enormous administrative exercise and someone is going to have to pay for that. Who is going to pay? Ultimately the teachers themselves will pay because it will be their registration fees that cover that cost.Is that the job of the registration? No it is not. This is actually a function of their employer. The employer making sure that they get quality appraisal should be covering the cost of that not teachers in the form of the cost of their practising certificates. So I think that although I understand the objective behind this particular clause—I understand why the Government is trying to raise the standard of teacher appraisal throughout the country—I think that the mechanism it is using to try to do that is very very flawed.I want to just reflect here on some of the comments from some of the teachers who submitted to the select committee. They were very concerned that the evidence that they would have to produce to renew their practising certificates—in order to justify the renewal of their practising certificates and to meet this 10 percent audit requirement—would actually divert them away from their teaching job which of course is what they are there to do and what they are passionate about. So best-practice teacher appraisal is actually based on in-classroom observation which is best done within the school rather than by—TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chair. Can I just pick up around the problem I had when I last spoke. It is in clause 38 in Part 1 and in the Minister of Education’s Supplementary Order Paper 21 which wants to delete new section 353(2) from Part 1. This is around the removal of natural justice. It is around the removal of natural justice with regard to the registration of teachers. I believe—and the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy might like to confirm this—that the answer the Minister of Education might possibly give me is that this is a duplication of natural justice in other parts of the bill.If I could just speak to that natural justice is mentioned in new section 176D in clause 9 which has to do with the governance of tertiary institutions—so nothing to do with the registration of teachers. It is also mentioned again in new section 398(7) in clause 38 which is around disciplinary functions. However what we are talking about is the removal of new section 353(2) which is directly around teacher registration. It is important that this be repeated in this area around teacher registration because there are two parts particularly that the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand must satisfy itself with regard to the registration of any applicant. These are very subjective. New section 353(1)(a) is that they be of good character and (b) is that they are fit to teach. Those provisions are very subjective. They are not based on qualifications. They are not based on any other measure but a subjective measure. Therefore in our view it is important that natural justice applies and can be seen to apply when those subjective conversations are taking place.We again request the Minister to either outline clearly why she feels the need to remove natural justice from this particular section of the bill or remove it from her Supplementary Order Paper—remove it from her Supplementary Order Paper. In our view it is necessary when it comes to the registration of teachers and the subjective nature of the Teachers Council when it decides whether to allow a person after their training and so on to be registered. So that is the first thing that I hope the Minister will address.I want to address another part of the bill. There are two other things that I need to address while I have the opportunity. The first one is that the Minister has actually spoken in the Chamber before and talked about—well she has never really spoken; she has kind of shouted across the Chamber really. When we the Opposition have raised the difficulty we have with the changes to the education—Paul Foster-Bell: Shouted back.TRACEY MARTIN: Hey we all shout from time to time Mr Foster-Bell—mind you not you not often. When we have raised concerns about the changes to the Teachers Council so that it is down to only nine members from 11 members and the removal of democracy from teachers where they could elect their own members of this council the Minister has shouted across the House like I do now—like I do now. I am not sure whether the Minister actually understands that right now there are 11 people who are elected or appointed to the Teachers Council. One is nominated from each of the following: the New Zealand Educational Institute the Post Primary Teachers Association and the New Zealand School Trustees Association. The Minister appoints four and then registered teachers elect—elect—the other four members. Not only is there now a minimising of the council—there seems to be a thing of shrinkage over on the Government benches; it seems to enjoy shrinkage—and a shrinkage of the number of members here but there is definitely a removal of democracy. It is not as it is now. This is definitely a concern that should be addressed. It is no different than Mr Finlayson deciding that strategic planning is not necessary because that requires some form of democracy etc. when he is talking about the arts and culture portfolio that he used to have.Lastly we come back down to the change of the name for the new professional body. If we go to the revised departmental report the reason that they have given for the change of name is: “The name of the new professional body differentiates it from the current NZTC. It reflects the need for a shared emphasis on teaching and leadership across the entire system from ECE through to secondary-tertiary transition”—Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):I am pleased to take another call on this Education Amendment Bill (No 2). In particular I want to concentrate on the clauses that cover the limited authority to teach so clause 38 inserting new sections 365 366 367 368 369 and 370. These new sections of the bill fundamentally change the very notion of a limited authority to teach as we understand it in New Zealand.At the moment before this bill is passed into law a school that has a particular gap in its workforce can apply for someone who does not have the necessary qualifications to be a teacher to have a limited authority to teach. There are all kinds of rules around what they are allowed to do. This legislation that we are debating tonight utterly expands out this provision. Instead of a school being able to apply because it has a gap that it is not able to fill an individual can apply for a limited authority to teach. Instead of the 1-year authority that is granted to a school an individual will themselves be granted essentially a 3-year ticket to rove around the country teaching at will without the necessary qualifications. We can see how these provisions change this.I want to turn to a number of the submitters who came in and addressed this part of the legislation throughout the select committee process. We had a number of school principals come and address the Education and Science Committee. We made a point of asking each of the principals who came to the committee: “Are you having a problem in terms of fulfilling some of your positions and do you see it necessary for there to be this massive expansion of the limited authority to teach so that you can fill gaps that you are not currently able to and get good teachers in front of your students?”. Almost 100 percent of principals told us that it really was a completely unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem.In fact the number of people teaching under the limited authority to teach has drastically reduced in recent years. Actually around 70 percent of the people who are currently teaching under the limited authority to teach provisions are in fact itinerant music teachers who move around the country supporting music programmes in secondary schools. The way in which this was operating was absolutely adequate as far as the principals were concerned. They came from a mix of urban rural and provincial schools to address the select committee. Nobody saw the need for the change that is being proposed in the legislation that we have been talking about.What we are seeing in these provisions to expand the limited authority to teach to individuals and to expand it to a period of 3 years is mirroring what we have seen in previous legislation in education from this Government in the last Parliament. It is a continuation of what we have seen in the charter schools where unqualified individuals are able to stand in front of our classrooms and teach our children without having the necessary or requisite qualifications. We do not ask that anybody in this country goes to see a doctor who does not have the necessary qualifications. On this side of the Chamber we think it is vitally important that our children are being taught by someone who does have the necessary qualifications.If we go through each of these provisions and look at new section 365 which amends the 1989 principal Act and amends the notion of the limited authority to teach it tells us: “The purpose of granting a limited authority to teach is to enable employers to have access to skills that are in short supply and to enable those with specialist skills but not a teaching qualification to teach.” This notion of skills being in short supply is indeed what the principals did talk to us about when we asked about the need for these provisions in this bill. When we asked whether there is a need for this—whether this is something that would benefit their school and would benefit the students in their school—they said no as I have mentioned earlier in my contribution. But they did say that if there was a problem the problem was actually with the Government’s lack of workforce planning in the teaching profession. They said that if the Government really did perceive that we had such gaps within our education system instead of saying we should just warrant unregistered and unqualified people to stand in front of our classrooms—CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou e te Whare Paremata i tēnei pō. I was very pleased to join my colleagues in discussing this bill at the select committee stage because that stage was as they have shown very interactive. There were a lot of people who came before the Education and Science Committee with a big background in the teaching profession. They had a lot of things to say and they answered a lot of questions that we asked them about the issues that have been covered so far tonight including the limited authority to teach.I want to touch on a couple of Supplementary Order Papers that the Green Party is putting up because we have some fundamental concerns about the purpose of the bill that we never got clarity on at the select committee no matter how many times we asked. So I have got Supplementary Order Papers 31 32 33 and 36 which are all about the functions of this body. The last thing we need in this country in education legislation is more loose and confusing rhetoric that does not tell the person reading it what it means. We never got answers from anybody about the reason for changing the functions of the Teachers Council. I could also expand at length about the reasons for changing the governance structures at universities but I think the first contribution will start with the issues relating to the functions of the Teachers Council.The changes that have been made were basically changing a body that was set up to oversee the quality of initial teaching education courses that lead to registration; to manage registration; to issue practising certificates; and to manage conduct and competence processes. These are the functions that are appropriate to a registration body. If the Government wants to change that and has some vision why do we not understand what it is? Why did we sit through days and days weeks and weeks and thousands of submissions and never get clarity about why the Government had decided to change this body? The clarity we got was that the Minister will decide who is appointed.And then we are going to change the functions to do things such as raise the status of the profession. What does that mean? I think the very least that we need to know is what is meant by “raising the status of the profession” that the profession itself is not doing or is not capable of doing and why a non-elected body would be fitting to do that.It is very bewildering—that is a very polite way to put it—because we already have these agencies that are under direct Government control such as the Ministry of Education and the Education Review Office which look after quality in schools and supposedly support and help to raise the status of the profession and ensure quality education. There are a number of other research groups that also contribute to that but now we have got another one. So instead of having a registration council with clear functions elected by teachers for teachers we now have a Minister-appointed organisation with broad powers that will be paid for by the registration fees in some part at least of the teachers themselves who do not actually get to choose and we do not know what it is for. We do not know what it means to talk about these things.A number of submitters raised issues about what was going on and how ensuring safe and high-quality leadership teaching and learning in all settings was going to be achieved with no information and no backup. We tend to support the submitters who said that the council needed a narrower function and that actually a narrower function is clearer.Like most professional bodies that are run by the professionals themselves it is about registration. It is about competence it is about safety and it is about maintenance. If the Government believes that is no longer important and that what is important is to muddy the waters and have a huge broad set of functions that no one really understands it has done a great job—if that is what the purpose was.Of course nothing is context-free. We have to look at the clauses that the Green Party has put up in these Supplementary Order Papers in terms of the political context in which these clauses have been introduced. It is a low-trust model as I said in a previous contribution and it is not based on listening to the people who want to raise the status of their own profession. It is quite concerning. It is about a confusion of roles. The long list of functions in section 382 enables all kinds of things but basically does not clarify the reason for the changes that are being introduced. Why is the registration body needing to morph into some kind of status-lifting best-practice profession? I will give you an example of a statement. The functions have been—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I proceed and I have worked out who I am going to call Catherine Delahunty has had her four calls on this part of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) and that is the limit of it. One of the disadvantages members have now is that I was in the Chair previously and I do know who has spoken and also what has already been said. I would like now for members to focus on the clauses of the bill. The principles have been accepted and I think we can focus on the clauses of the bill.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):I would like to focus on clause 6 of the bill. Clause 6 repeals sections 171 and 173 and goes to the issue of the governance of our tertiary institutions.This is the first opportunity that I have had since picking up the tertiary education portfolio for Labour to address myself to these issues. Of course I acknowledge and defer to the experience of my colleagues who have done the work on this previously. But good sense teaches me that when you are new to something what you should do is ask the stakeholders. In this context that of course includes students teachers professors and university and tertiary institution management and vice-chancellors. That is the logical thing to do. As I was reflecting on this bill it struck me that it is doing the opposite. It is turning away from a tradition of inclusiveness and representation. It is turning away from having the voices of students and staff and institutional governance all represented on the councils so that any tensions trade-offs and disputes can be transparently aired and good process put around the governance of those issues.I ask myself why would it be that a Government would seek such a radical departure from the status quo. To hear from the New Zealand University Students’ Association and from the Tertiary Education Union the first issue is there is nothing broken here. There is no obvious problem to be fixed that would require such a radical solution.I turned then to the records of the submissions which I note that the departmental regulatory impact analysis describes as mixed. It was 1600 to one—1600 opposed to the Government’s measures and one in favour. That is described as mixed. I then turned to the analysis in the regulatory impact statement that supports clause 6 of the bill and it went through the typical and meritorious options analysis process. What it did up front was put in place the principle that the Government sought to serve which was quite simply to shrink the councils and then it tested a range of models against that determinant of shrinking the councils. Guess what? It came up with a model that shrunk the council. That is very different from what at least two-thirds or by the sound of it three-thirds of the sector—the students the staff and the management of universities—all want.So why is this occurring? Is it international benchmarking? Well the regulatory impact statement cannot confirm that. What it does say is that one notable study—and I will quote from the statement—says that “Smaller shorter Australian and New Zealand studies find that larger board size is correlated with better firm performance.” That is interesting is it not? The bigger boards actually perform better most logically because they integrate the various issues through one governance process. We are left not wondering but quite clearly opposing this clause and that is why Labour is introducing Supplementary Order Papers that would essentially delete clause 6 and leave in place the representative nature of university governance.As I have been around campuses during orientation weeks and during the election campaign this was one issue that virtually nobody agreed with. Virtually nobody on campus supports clause 6 of this bill. This is a Government railroading change on the sector and not listening. It is somehow appropriate starting off the third term of this Government at the end of 2014 the election year that it is demonstrating already that it is not listening. It is a Government that is not listening. The sector is unanimous in its objection to the fundamental nature of this part of the bill. The sector wants a representative university council structure and this bill takes it away.STUART NASH (Labour—Napier):I would also like to talk about clause 6—the governance of tertiary institutions—and I think Mr Cunliffe outlined it brilliantly. These institutions are not like corporates. These institutions are places of higher learning but also places where students come to grow to experience life and not just to study academically but to become productive members of society.I have a real concern that section 171 “Membership of council” says: “The council of an institution must have a total of 8 9 10 11 or 12 members” in total. I worked in a very senior position in a university and attended a number of the council meetings of this particular university. I can assure the members of this Committee that it was an incredibly diverse council but it was one that was incredibly empowered and did a fantastic job of the governance of the institution. In fact it is now the fastest-growing university and has been for about the last 8 or 9 years. That is not in spite of the council; it is because of the council.When I look at section 171B “Matters to be considered when appointing members” or actually throughout clause 6 there seems to be a number of clauses that tend to contradict each other. I cannot quite see the logic. Section 171B says—and I would not mind knowing what sort of weight this carries. It does not say “must” and it does not say “has to” but it says: “It is desirable …” which obviously means Parliament is sending a signal to those who are appointing members on to a university board. It is not compulsory but it is sending a very strong signal. But I would not mind knowing how strong the signal is.Section 171B says: “It is desirable that the council of an institution should so far as is reasonably practicable reflect—(a) the ethnic and socio-economic diversity of the communities served by the institution; and (b) the fact that approximately half the population of New Zealand is male and half the population is female.” Really? Do they have to state that in statute? I suppose what I am saying here is of course that is important—Hon Ruth Dyson: What if it changes?STUART NASH: Good question. But the thing that is most important is competency. The appointment of a council that reflects the community within which the university or the tertiary institution serves of course should be an admirable goal but it should not be a constitutional requirement.Then it does talk about competency. New section 171B(2)(b) states that the Minister or council “must appoint people who (in the Minister’s or council’s opinion)—(i) have relevant knowledge skills or experience;” but then it goes and talks about—and I am sure Mr Chairman that you will not like this—the limits on the number of occasions that people may be appointed as members of the council. So what it is actually saying here Mr Chair—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): You are not bringing me into the debate.STUART NASH: No I am not at all. The Chair is a former Minister of Education and I am aware of that. The thing that concerns me about this is that what it is saying is that if there are competent members who have been around for a little more than one or two or three times then that is a very good reason to remove them. To me someone having been in a position for a set period of time is not a reason to remove them if they are highly competent because the last thing we want to see is competent members being replaced by those who lack a level of competency simply because they have been there a while.But then to reflect this we look at new section 171E which is entitled “Membership of more than one council” and which states: “A person who is a member of the council of an institution may be appointed a member of the council of another institution (whether or not they are institutions of the same kind).” So to me what this recognises is that there are actually not that many people in our country who have the skills who have the time who have the energy who have the competency—everything needed to sit on a university or a tertiary council.I know for a fact that most people who do sit on these councils do so out of a sense of community service. I think that the chair of a university council gets paid something like—I do not know—$23000 $24000 or $25000 compared with the chair of a major corporate who may get $150000 or $200000. The budgets controlled by these councils are substantial. In fact I could be wrong but I believe that the University of Auckland is the largest employer in Auckland City and I also believe that Auckland University of Technology is the second-largest employer in Auckland City. So if you combine those in the tertiary education sector together you have a massively powerful organisation and yet what we are doing is limiting the ability of certain members through section 171D. This bill places limits on the time length that people can stay on a council. That makes no sense to me.Let me reflect on the Auckland University of Technology board for example. As mentioned I was in a senior position at the Auckland University of Technology. A number of people on that board and certainly the Government-appointed ones also sat on corporate boards. So these were people who knew about governance. These were people who also got paid a substantial amount of money which reflected their high level of governance competency but they were sitting on that council because they believed in education and in a way I suppose it was their way of giving something back. Yet what we are doing here in a way is seeking to limit the time or the description—well actually anything that limits people from sitting on a tertiary education council I do not think is a particularly sound move and it is not a way to move forward.At this stage that is my contribution but it is something that does concern me greatly. Thank you very much.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):In this contribution I want to refer to a matter that was raised by the Labour Party in its minority report. It concerns one of the amendments introduced by clause 38 in Part 1 which is provided for in the new proposed section 382(1)(i). This is related to the functions of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand or the Education Council as it is shortened to in the bill. The proposal is that the Education Council amongst other things has the obligation to issue practising certificates and set criteria for the issuing of practising certificates of different kinds including renewals.Paragraph (i) states: “to ensure that appraisals made by professional leaders for the issue and renewal of practising certificates achieve a reasonable and consistent standard”. The legislation is going to impose an auditing and moderating requirement for those appraisals for at least 10 percent of the practising certificates that are issued or renewed. So one in 10 practising certificates will have this more complex process that includes moderation or audit—in fact audit and moderation not either/or but audit and moderation. The point that was made by the Labour Party in our minority report was that we do not think this additional cost is justified. I know that National Party members like to think of themselves as being the party that stands against unnecessary compliance costs but this seems to be an obvious case where they are adding to compliance costs in a way where there has been no justification given.As was stated by my colleagues the research suggests that the best teacher appraisals are those that are conducted in a collegial manner in a high-trust environment rather than in a rules-based system where you have audits and moderation. So I would be interested to hear from the Minister in the chair Nathan Guy as to why he thinks the cost which is going to have to be borne by someone if you are employing auditors or moderators to do again what has already been done by the Education Council is justified. The Education Council of course is quite a large body and it has the obligation to appoint lead people on its behalf to issue these practising certificates. I would have thought that that was enough—that you could rely on the education authority to come up with its own systems. It might want to have an audit occasionally but why it should be specified in statute that one in 10 of the practising certificates that are issued or renewed in any one year should always automatically have to be checked seems to me to be a bit over the top.I do not know why we cannot just trust the Education Council to actually decide what is appropriate. If it comes across a problem it might think that to tidy things up it needs to test one in 10. But I cannot imagine it needing to test one in 10—to put through moderation or to audit one in 10 of the renewals of practising certificates for teachers for example every year. It just seems to me to be a waste of money and a waste of time and frustrating for everyone involved. So I would like the Minister to answer that. I do not know of other examples where we have other professionals who when they apply for renewal of their practising certificate—whether they be a lawyer a doctor an engineer or whatever they are—for every one in 10 they automatically have someone acting as a moderator or an auditor in respect of those functions.I am not going to traverse again the issue as to appointments to university councils but one issue that I did not have a chance to address is the other end of the process which is removals. My understanding is that the removals power in the legislation has been changed so that the Minister—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The Hon David Parker—on the basis of loudness.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will not take the full call. I am not sure what the justification is for the Minister having the power of removal not just of the members of university councils who have appointed by the Minister but of all of them. As I understand it until now the university council controlled its membership in respect of the removals. You would then expect that the ones whom the university council appointed would be the ones who would exercise a right of removal. But I am told—and in fact I have read the provision in the legislation; I forget the proposed section just offhand but I did have a read of it—that the power of removal is vested in the Minister in all instances including in respect of appointments that are not made by the Minister. I would like some explanation from the Minister as to why that is necessary as well.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East):I rise to take a call on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill will amend the Education Act 1989 and I would like to talk about sections 380 and 382 in new Part 32 inserted by clause 38. New Part 32 is about the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (EDUCANZ).Teachers have a very important and challenging task in Aotearoa. As a new member of Parliament I have spent the last few weeks visiting local schools meeting teachers and talking with principals and it really brings home just how challenging the task of teaching our children is for many of our low-income schools across New Zealand especially in many of the schools in the electorate I come from Manukau East in South Auckland. Most of them are decile 1a or decile 1. I can tell you very clearly that this amendment bill does not support our teachers. This is not a bill that puts the interests of students or our nation’s future first. The point of this policy should be to support our teachers to become highly functional and autonomous professionals at all levels in the education sector but in order for this to happen teachers must actively participate in the process and have their voices actually heard rather than just being told by Government appointees what to do.Teaching is one of our most important professions. Teachers spend thousands of hours a year with our children and young people. Teachers have an important role in building the future of Aotearoa New Zealand. We trust our teachers to be after parents and families perhaps the most influential people in our young people’s lives but this Government will not trust them even to democratically elect their own representative members on to their own professional body. The knowledge training experience and expertise of teachers are to be silenced by this bill—squashed at the whim of this Government. It is crucial that teachers and principals are democratically elected on to the proposed Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. After all we live in a democracy. It is only through a democratic process that we will end up with a council that is representative of the profession it is supposed to represent. This is only fair particularly given the fact that teachers are expected to pay a registration fee to this body. It is only fair if these fees are to be paid that teachers should be democratically represented on the council. As it stands teachers will be compelled to pay the fees to a body that is hand-picked and appointed by the Minister. The same lack of concern for value expertise and knowledge and for democracy is also apparent elsewhere in this bill and I will speak about this—about wānanga and universities—if I have time.When the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) was first introduced the Minister of Education stated that the bill was the result of a 3-year conversation and widespread consultation that began in 2010. According to the departmental report on this bill 1525 submissions were received. Of those 1032 submissions commented on the proposed establishment and functions of this new Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand which can be found in section 382 in clause 38 and the majority of those submissions were opposed to the amendments proposed in this bill. If this Government had actually had a conversation about this bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) we would be looking at a very different bill. What is really telling about just how much this Government actually listens care or understands is the fact that although there has indeed been wide consultation this is not a conversation as most New Zealanders understand it.You might say that this has been more of a one-way conversation rather than a conversation as the majority of us would see it. A conversation involves listening and it is pretty clear that this Government did not listen to the over 1500 New Zealanders who made submissions on this bill because most of them were opposed to the establishment of EDUCANZ in this form. It is not a conversation when almost everyone who makes a contribution opposes it and this Government is still intent on implementing exactly what it had initially planned on implementing anyway. It is not a conversation when this Government progresses the bill without actually addressing and taking into account most of the over 1500 submissions that have been received from teachers from schools from universities from wānanga from parents from academics from students and from the public in general.I will now turn to section 171 “Membership of council” inserted by clause 6. The governance changes proposed in section 171 will diminish the voice and representation of staff and students on university and wānanga councils. Staff and student representatives are key stakeholders at universities and wānanga and they should be required participants in council decision-making. Removing staff and student representatives will have a negative impact because both offer valuable skills knowledge and experience to councils. In addition students and staff have a democratic right to serve on tertiary education institution councils. Many of my esteemed colleagues on both sides of this House cut their teeth as student politicians—students who have represented other students—and some were on tertiary institution councils.The report from the Education and Science Committee clearly shows that the changes proposed by the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) are strongly opposed by most of the submitters. In fact of the 1525 individual submissions and 298 oral submissions to the select committee only five—only five—supported these widely condemned reforms. We may hear about the 1 percent but this is taking it to the next level—less than 1 percent. The changes proposed by this bill are universally opposed by the sector because the proposed changes are not based on any evidence or any real arguments and the entire sector says they will have negative consequences.One of these negative consequences includes a reduction in academic freedom and autonomy. Increasing the number and proportionate influence of Government members to up to 40 percent appointed at the choice or the whim of the Minister will indeed give politicians unfair and undue influence on Aotearoa’s wānanga and universities. Universities have the role of being the critic and conscience of our society. Our tertiary education institutions are supposed to be free from political pressure. The changes proposed by the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) will undermine the independence of our wānanga and universities.There is a need for this House to focus on raising the quality of education in Aotearoa and we can begin this by acknowledging by affirming and by supporting our teachers and our academics in the crucial role that the teaching and academic profession have in setting and maintaining the standards for the profession. This bill does not do this. Labour strongly opposes the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). Kia ora tātou katoa.Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Kia ora tātou. I thought it would be useful if I got up and clarified some of the understandings that are reflected in the contributions that have been made this evening. In fact it is true that there has been a 4-year process and there has not been selective listening. In fact the first part of the process was a sector-led group that went around and had discussions with its colleagues in 2010. In 2012 there was another review and it was based around who could or could not safely teach in schools and that was followed in 2012 by a further review of the Teachers Council as a whole and that went around and consulted. Then in 2013—Dr Megan Woods: How many submitters supported this?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well there are 102000 teachers registered and I will submit to you that far more than—Dr Megan Woods: What proportion of submitters supported this?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well a big number of those were consulted.Hon Trevor Mallard: A big number?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I cannot put a specific number on it and I do not propose to. But if members would just like to listen—as opposed to suggesting that I do not—I will tell them that what happened was we then had a ministerial advisory group which then held consultations all around the country. So it is absolutely true to say that a 4-year process of consultation—of listening—went on which culminated in the select committee. It is not true to say then that we have not listened to the select committee because a number of the recommendations made by that select committee have been incorporated into this bill.Members are very exercised by the idea that there will be nine members appointed to the council. What will occur then—what has been indicated from the outset—is that the competencies and capabilities expected for the governance of the institution will be publicly known and transparent. And it will be democratically possible for every individual teacher to nominate into that process if they choose to unlike the process we have now where it happens through particular organisations. Parents can nominate. What is required under this bill is that a majority of those appointments must be teachers who are registered and hold current practising certificates—that was a recommendation of the select committee and that has been taken up—and they have to be able to demonstrate through the final appointment that they meet all of the competencies required to govern this new entity.One of the questions that has also been asked has been about the proposition that there has been the removal of natural justice from this bill. I think that is just a small confusion; in fact it has moved to a different section. So although it was in section 353(2) inserted by clause 38 it is now in section 382(3) inserted by clause 38. So this bill provides for natural justice; it is just in a different section.This bill is absolutely focused on how we support the teaching and leadership of the education sector and the profession to have a professional body that is about them about standards that underpin their particular roles and about a consistent and moderated process that appraises whether or not those standards are being met. The 10 percent provision is to ensure that there is consistency across the country. Analogously this is what the New Zealand Qualifications Authority does when it ensures that we have consistent marking of our examinations. In fact I think that this provision enhances the quality provisions that are within this bill.I think that the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is a sound reflection of the characteristics that are necessary for a 21st century professional body. This bill has certainly been through rigorous scrutiny as it has been tonight and I am very pleased that we have had the opportunity to clarify some of the concerns that have been raised during the debate. Thank you.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Otirā e te W’are tēnā tātou. I want to speak on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) in particular on new sections 365 to 372 inserted by clause 38 under the heading “Limited authority to teach”.When I was the chairman of Te Kura o Rātana school board of trustees and we were dealing with these matters the limited authority to teach from our perspective was not the first option that we would go for. It was definitely a secondary option. The limited authority to teach was used in a way that supported the overall teaching in the school but our preference was always to have qualified and registered teachers. And so I stand to express my concerns about these particular provisions particularly from a Māori perspective because I think sometimes that the expectations on ourselves as Māori are lower than they should be. I think that these particular sections elevate the status of the limited authority to teach and in a way kind of devalue having a qualification and being registered. I absolutely believe that there is a better way forward than these new sections on the limited authority to teach.The other thing—and I am happy to be corrected on this—is that there is no clear reason as to why these changes are being brought about. From my perspective it seems to be that they have been brought about to make it easier I guess for some staff members to be able to teach in schools without being qualified. I think there are some situations where a limited authority to teach is the correct thing to have and that there are situations where you do not always need a qualified or registered teacher but I think that should always be the first option. That is the main point that I want to make in speaking on this Education Amendment Bill (No 2).The other thing from a school board of trustees’ point of view—and I have certainly spoken to my share of teachers and principals and indeed members of boards of trustees—is the whole process for the registering of teachers. The structure that has been put into this amendment bill around teacher registration seems to me to again diminish their role and I think that reducing the numbers will reduce the diversity—or the potential for diversity—of representation on these bodies. That is my contribution to this amendment bill. Ngā mihi nui.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21 in the name of the Hon Hekia Parata to Part 1 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 22 in the name of Chris Hipkins to clause 6 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 24 in the name of Gareth Hughes to clause 6 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 24 in the name of Gareth Hughes to insert new clause 6A be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 23 in the name of Gareth Hughes to clause 12 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 27 in the name of Gareth Hughes to insert new clause 12A be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 22 in the name of Chris Hipkins to clause 38 to rename the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 28 in the name of Catherine Delahunty to Part 1 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of Catherine Delahunty to Part 1 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 26 31 32 33 and 36 in the name of Catherine Delahunty to Part 1 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 22 in the name of Chris Hipkins to clause 38 to replace new section 380 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 22 in the name of Chris Hipkins to clause 38 to delete new section 382(1)(i) be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 34 in the name of Catherine Delahunty to clause 38 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision to an amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 22 to delete new section 382(1)(i).The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 22 in the name of Chris Hipkins to clause 38 to replace references to “code of conduct” with “code of ethics” be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Catherine Delahunty’s amendments replacing the word “conduct” with “ethics” as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 35 are out of order as they are inconsistent with a previous decision on Supplementary Order Paper 22 in respect of replacing references to “code of conduct” with “code of ethics”.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 35 in the name of Catherine Delahunty to clause 38 to delete new section 387(6) be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 29 in the name of Catherine Delahunty to clause 38 to add new section 388(1)(f) be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Noes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Consequential amendmentsCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):Mr Chairman as I begin my contribution on Part 2 can I just confirm with you that the debate on the schedules was all conducted under Part 1—am I correct?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Correct.CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you Mr Chair. Part 2 pertains to the consequential amendments that are created by the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). It does result in amendments to the Crown Entities Act the Education Standards Act the Ombudsmen Act the Privacy Act the State Sector Act the Education (Early Childhood Centres) Regulations 1998 the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008 and the Education (Registration of Early Childhood Services Teachers) Regulations 2004.Primarily what these amendments do is replace existing references to the New Zealand Teachers Council with references to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand which of course highlights one of the follies of this legislation which is the renaming of the body for no good reason whatsoever—a move that has in fact come up against very popular opposition from individuals within the sector who wanted to see the word “teaching” remain within the title of the organisation. This bill could have given effect to its desired changes without the need to change the name of the organisation and therefore it would not have needed to—Hon Member: It’s a waste of money.CHRIS HIPKINS: It is a waste of money. All of these consequential amendments would not actually have been necessary. The only reason these consequential amendments are necessary is that against overwhelming opposition the name of the organisation has been changed from the New Zealand Teachers Council to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand thus resulting in changes to the Crown Entities Act the Education Standards Act and the Ombudsmen Act.This is important because of course the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand does fall under the ambit of the Ombudsman and I think that that is an important protection. It was also a specified agency for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1993. I think that that is really important because of course the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand does deal with a number of very sensitive and private matters and it needs to navigate those carefully. Of course issues around privacy have been quite contentious within the Teachers Council which is now being replaced; therefore ensuring that the Privacy Act continues to apply is important. However I would note that throwing out effectively the existing organisation the Teachers Council and creating an entirely new entity the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand does potentially mean that all of that good work that has gone on in the last year or so specifically around issues of privacy could well be discarded and it would have to start again. I think that was one of the major criticisms that came out at the Education and Science Committee—that in fact while the Teachers Council had had a rocky start it was improving and it was getting better.Privacy is very important and there were some very controversial issues that the Teachers Council was dealing with with input from the Privacy Commissioner around what information should be disclosed around individual complaints and around what should be withheld. The Teachers Council had had a blanket suppression previously and with a lot of public input including from the Privacy Commissioner it changed that so that there was more of a presumption of the release of that information and that is important. I think that in making these changes and in changing the name of the organisation this amendment should not just slot a new name in for an old name. We should be focused on—Parliament and the Government should be focused on—ensuring that all of the good work that has been done by the Teachers Council around the issues of privacy are carried over to that new organisation because although they have had some very challenging circumstances in the past I believe that they have made significant progress on those matters in the last little while.The issue around the incorporation of the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand under the State Sector Act 1988 is also controversial because of the changing nature of the organisation. Although the Teachers Council was also covered under the State Sector Act of 1988 the new Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand—which will now also come under the ambit of the State Sector Act 1988—is different because of some of the changes that have been made around issues like the code of conduct. Teachers could now find themselves subject to codes of conduct issued by the State Services Commission under the State Sector Act that relate to the entire Public Service. I do not know whether that was the Government’s intention but by simply replacing the reference to the Teachers Council with the reference to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand taken in conjunction with other changes that this bill makes it could result in fact in the teaching profession being covered by State sector provisions that the Government and Parliament did not intend. So I would like to get some reassurance that that is not going to be case and that this what should be a relatively simple amendment does not actually have an unintended consequence of extending the ambit when taken in conjunction with other provisions in the legislation.I think it would be very unfortunate if the Government was seen to be gagging the teaching profession in any way by bringing it under the provisions of the State Sector Act that previously had not applied to it. That was a concern that was raised at the select committee and I think that that reassurance would not be an unreasonable one for people to expect the Government to answer to.Finally the other Acts that are referenced here include the Education Standards Act of 2001—of course there is nothing substantive in that because in fact there is very little substantive in the Act itself. That was the Act amended by the Government after the election in 2008 and I do not think that that is going to make much difference. The Education (Early Childhood Centres) Regulations—again I do not think that there will be much substantive change there simply by replacing the names.So overall although these are technical amendments there are still one or two issues that I think could be resolved to ensure that those Privacy Act issues are dealt with by the new agency to ensure that we are not reinventing the wheel and to ensure that teachers are not inadvertently covered by sections of the State Sector Act as a result of other changes in the legislation. Those are also important things and I hope that the Committee can gain some reassurance on those.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21 in the name of the Hon Hekia Parata to Part 2 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11.Amendment agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have Chris Hipkins’ amendments to Part 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 22 which are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision that rejected renaming the education council—Supplementary Order Paper 22. We move to Catherine Delahunty’s amendments to Part 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 28. These are also out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision that rejected the renaming of the education council—Supplementary Order Paper 28.A party vote was called for on the question that Part 2 as amended be agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): There is a matter of procedure here. If a member of a party is in the Chamber they must cast their own vote. You cannot have a whip for another party cast the vote. In this case I will ask the Clerk at the Table to ask the ACT member what the ACT Party vote is.A party votewas called for on the questionThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Hekia Parata to new schedule 19 in schedule 1 be agreed to:replace “31 December 2015” with “30 June 2016”.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11.Amendment agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21 in the name of the Hon Hekia Parata to schedule 2 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11.Amendment agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have Chris Hipkins’ amendment to schedule 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 22. This is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision that rejected the renaming of the education council. Catherine Delahunty’s amendment to schedule 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 28 is also out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision that rejected the renaming of the education council.A party votewas called for on the questionThat schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 3The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21 in the name of the Hon Hekia Parata to schedule 3 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11.Amendment agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Chris Hipkins’ amendment to schedule 3 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 22 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision that rejected the renaming of the education council. Catherine Delahunty’s amendment to schedule 3 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 28 is also out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision that rejected the renaming of the education council.A party votewas called for on the questionThat schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I am happy to take a call in this the closing section of the Committee stage debate on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) which amends the Act from 2004. It is a very sad day I think for the teaching profession in New Zealand and for democracy within the education community in New Zealand. I do not think that the name of this bill actually reflects adequately just how bad this legislation is going to be.This legislation of course instils a low-trust model within the teaching profession a low-trust model when it comes to university governance and an anti-democratic model in all of those areas as well. It has been strongly opposed by the teaching profession by the universities and by all of the others who submitted to the Education and Science Committee. I think that only about 14 of the hundreds of submissions the select committee received were in favour of this legislation.I also want to talk in my comments on these clauses about the commencement of this legislation and to express my deep concern and the concern I think of the Opposition that this bill in effect uses what is commonly referred to as a “Henry VIII” clause in the sense that it gives the Government the ultimate discretion to change the law at will. That is something that this Parliament looks very very unfavourably upon and yet it is used in this legislation quite liberally. It gives the Government the power by Order in Council to change the law. That is something that we have for a long time been discouraging Parliament from doing. In fact the National Party when it was in Opposition railed against the Government having these types of provisions in legislation. In fact increasingly in recent times we have seen the National Government using exactly those sorts of provisions in legislation and they are not good.Constitutionally this is a bad bill because it removes the power from Parliament to create the laws of New Zealand and hands it to the executive. It means that the executive—the Ministers of the Crown; well the Governor-General by Order in Council which means on the advice of the Ministers of the Crown—can change the law at will without reference back to Parliament. That is something that is discouraged and that should be discouraged. It is named after Henry VIII because of course he would get Parliament to pass legislation that would give him ultimate power. It would allow him to change the law at will and therefore he had no further need for Parliament. That is something that we do not want to have and therefore we jealously guard against these types of provisions. There is no good reason for this.It is not as if the Government did not see this coming and it is not as if it did not have plenty of time to prepare because of course it introduced this legislation a very long time ago and then despite its rush through the select committee and the Government not giving the select committee any additional time to consider the legislation even though there were so many submitters who wanted to be heard it brought it back to the House well in advance of the last election with the intention of progressing it before the last election and its own utter incompetence meant that the bill did not get progressed before then. The Government could easily have deferred the report back on this bill in order to give all of those submitters who did not get the opportunity to be heard the opportunity to be heard on this legislation. I think that is the real irony of this legislation coming in to effect by Order in Council or as late as September 2016. So it is nearly 2 years before this legislation would be fully implemented.Given the Government has now given itself this power to defer the implementation the real question is why it did not therefore take an extra month or so to allow the literally hundreds of submitters who were turned away by the select committee the opportunity to have their say on this legislation because there were heaps and heaps and heaps of people who wanted to have a say on this who were not given the opportunity to do so. I can say that I sat through days on end of select committee hearings on this legislation and as much as it was tiring and exhausting I would happily do so again because that is the essence of democracy.I think Parliament and the Government do a great disservice to the people of New Zealand when they simply stop listening and say: “No we have heard enough. We are just going to go ahead and ram through legislation without further reference.” particularly when it is controversial particularly as is the case with this legislation when those who are ultimately subject to it are paying for the body themselves but have no say over its governance—and I am referring specifically to the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand—and particularly in the case of the provisions relating to tertiary institutions when once again they have been overwhelmingly opposed to it. Why rush the legislation through when in fact clearly there is no rush because if there were any great rush this would be coming in straight away after it had been passed by Parliament and received the Royal assent? Unfortunately that is not going to be the case so this is bad law.Finally I guess if I could just wrap up and summarise the concerns that have been raised—and they have been many and varied—thus: the lack of democratic representation on university councils and on the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand is very concerning it is heavy-handed and it is anti-democratic. The requirements that it now places on the teaching profession are also heavy-handed. It is a very low-trust model that disempowers teachers and says to the teaching community that it cannot be trusted and that therefore the Government needs to seize control of that profession in a way that it does not do with just about any other profession in the country. It would not do it to the medical profession—doctors or nurses or any of those others—and would not even do it to real estate agents. Therefore why is it doing it to the teaching profession? There is no justification for it.This is a bill that transfers costs away from Government and on to the teaching profession by massively extending the powers of this professional regulatory body to include things that are currently covered by the employer by the Crown and transfers the cost of those on to the teaching profession itself. I want to know from the Government whether it is going to give teachers a corresponding pay rise in order to meet those additional costs because you can bet your bottom dollar that within a few years teacher registration fees will be increasing significantly to pay for the costs of the additional compliance burdens introduced by this legislation.This is a bad bill. It has been strongly opposed by just about everybody who is subject to it. Those concerns have fallen on deaf ears when it comes to this Government and I would certainly encourage the current Government to think again and to go back and look at the overwhelming number of submitters who were opposed to this to listen to their concerns and to make the amendments necessary so that this regulatory body can actually have the support of the profession that it governs.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):I will take a short call. I am not an expert on this part of the legislation. However I think it is important to register at all points during this process that we are not happy if we are not happy.I thought that the previous speaker Chris Hipkins made excellent points about the Order in Council and the “Henry VIII” clause. Henry VIII as we all know was not a role model. He had a bad history with women—with his abuse of power. He was a serial monogamist with a tendency to chop people’s heads off and he was not a democrat. He was not a pretty sight. So I think the clause is aptly named a “Henry VIII” clause.He killed a number of Catherines. I have always found that really disturbing. He also divorced some. He did not treat people well. I think the problem with the bill is that it is similar—not quite as Draconian not quite as many axes chopping and divorces involved but definitely a bad buzz. I think we would say it is a bad buzz. So “Henry VIII” clauses are not ones that we really want to focus on. They are part of a sad history. I am afraid that this bill is also going to be part of a sad history. Really as Chris Hipkins outlined this is not the kind of thing we should be doing regularly.In terms of the title of the bill the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) is an innocuous title that fails to describe what is really going on. As others have said this bill undermines representation undermines democracy and lacks clarity of function. The title does not reflect the purpose of the bill particularly in regard to university governance.I have to say I was astonished to hear from every level of the university sector their feelings on this issue expressed in the most surprisingly unacademic and intemperate language because they could not believe what was being done to them. This was from vice-chancellors right down to every form of representative. When there is that kind of unity when there is that kind of determination when everyone from what are normally different sides of the academic body come together and give us a message it is unfortunate that the Government has refused to listen. The Government could not justify the position. There was no explanation. Steven Joyce has never explained it. It is just one of his bright ideas. But it was unforgettable—the coherent and completely united approach from the academics on that issue as it was on the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand Bill.However I would just like to sum up rather than take up the time of the Committee much as I am enjoying myself.Metiria Turei: We’re enjoying you.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Thank you very much. I would just like to sum up what the bill is about. It is incoherent inconsistent conjectural undemocratic unfortunate and unsupported by the teaching profession. There may well be a fee boycott and it is the Government’s fault. Thanks very much.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chair. Again I will take just a short call on what is a very important bill. It is a bill that is another step on a process on a pathway on a pipeline as the Minister of Education might like to say. It is a bill that shows again the direction that this Government wishes to take for education. Also through taking the powers—and I believe that what we will hear the Government suggest is that using clauses like the “Henry VIII” clause and using things like an Order in Council creates this—it will suggest that it creates a more efficient Government and a more efficient system by which we can pass legislation. The Government is absolutely right. It certainly is more efficient. Democracy is one of the most expensive and the most time-consuming ways to govern a nation but that is actually the way this nation wants to be governed.This is not the first time. I think that if the country would like to go back and have a look over the 6 years that this Government has been here and how many times it has put Orders in Council into legislation people would be somewhat stunned. That is a withdrawing from this Parliament around decision making. That is a concern. It should be a concern. This is actually a sad day for teachers. It is a sad day for education as such in New Zealand because it is another step on a pathway that this Government has taken.I mean the fact is that the change of name that is inside this bill does more than just—and some people minimise that fact—take away the word “teacher” from the title. It is not just taking away the word “teacher” from the title; it is this creation of another body of individuals called educators inside this area of our society who are starting to have quite a reasonable amount of sway. If we actually go back to the first reading of this bill around this concept of educators—actually if we go back to the first Education Amendment Bill New Zealand First pointed out then that there was no registry body for educators. There was no term inside legislation for educators.The Government actually appears to have heard that statement and has found that it is moving down a pathway. Mr O’Connor mentioned when we had the submissions around the Education Amendment Bill that it was his belief that anybody can teach. He said that anybody can teach; it is a natural thing so it does not really need anybody to be qualified. What this bill does is start to close the hole for the Government that was pointed out in the first Education Amendment Bill. Although not specifically in this bill it starts that pathway of changing the process or the functions of this council so that when the Government needs to—and I believe it will be in the next 6 months—actually make this body the registry body for educators not teachers then we are going to see a continual shift away from this profession.Inside this bill it talks about the functions that are being created by the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand to enhance and uplift the profession and yet at the same time it destroys it. So it is a very sad day. It is another step on a path we should not be taking. It will be very efficient. There is no doubt about it. This Government is very efficient at pushing through legislation that takes away the rights of New Zealanders whether it be in the workplace—the local supermarket or any other workplace. So New Zealand First will oppose it as long as it can oppose it but we hope that in 2017 there is change here so that we can undo some of this stuff.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):I want to take a short call particularly around clause 2 “Commencement”. My colleague Chris Hipkins has talked about what this means in terms of a number of the provisions particularly in relation to the primary and secondary sector. I want to talk particularly about what the commencement is going to do in the tertiary sector.Of course the commencement of this legislation also triggers schedule 1 inserting new schedule 19 of this legislation and brings it into play. What we have here is a schedule that shows really what lies at the anti-democratic heart of this Government. If we have a look at the sequence of commencement and timings that went through under schedule 1 or new schedule 19 inserted into the legislation—we had some very learned contributions on this around what springing this into action and the commencement of this schedule would be. So what does this schedule do? Well essentially what it does is it puts in place some transitional arrangements for the universities.Actually the changes that this legislation is proposing for the governance of our universities as we have talked about in other stages of this bill are fundamental. Quite complex transitional arrangements need to be put into play because of course there are a range of constitutional rules that govern our universities and in order to change those rules there is a complex set of constitutional arrangements that need to be worked through institution by institution which will differ from institution to institution.The dates that were put on this really show how at the heart of the Government’s thinking there is an absolute commitment to stripping our institutions of their democratic functions and taking away representative functions. The dates that were imposed on our institutions were simply not doable. We had an incredibly good submission from the Auckland University of Technology on just this point which showed in the case of its institution not only its institution but a number of institutions that putting through the required constitutional amendments in the institutions—the statutes that would need to go through and the elections that would have to be held under the various courts of convocation to elect council members—simply was not workable within the time frames that the bill was setting out. These are the time frames that will spring into force by the commencement of this legislation.If we think about what a court of convocation is many New Zealanders are enfranchised through this body. I am enfranchised at the University of Canterbury and I am sure many members of this Committee are enfranchised at various institutions around this country. One of the democratic functions of a university is that any graduate of that university has a right to vote for the members of that council. What we have in the main part of the legislation in Part 1 is the Government reducing the size of those councils—with the ministerial appointments presently until this bill is passed sitting at around 20 to 33 percent of most of our institutional governance arrangements but under this new bill rising to between 33 and 40 percent.My colleague the Hon David Parker has already at previous stages of this bill talked about what this would mean in the commercial world and about what having a 40 percent representation on a commercial board would mean—it is getting pretty close to a hostile takeover if you had that kind of level of representation on a commercial board. You already have the ability of elected members being stripped away by the substance of this bill. The very commencement dates put in place under this schedule show that in the thinking of the members opposite there is a lack of commitment to democratic processes.The courts of convocation are something that have evolved through our university systems over a number of decades and a number of centuries and they are there for a very important function. They are there because the graduates of an institution should have a say in the way an institution is governed. This legislation is content to not only place all that power in the hands of the Minister but also to make it nigh on impossible for the universities to get their constitutional arrangements up and running in time for the commencement of this legislation. This is not something that is tolerable. These are the very reasons why we are opposing it.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.Motion agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 21 in the name of the Hon Hekia Parata to clause 2 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes64New Zealand National 60; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.Amendment agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes62New Zealand National 60; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11; Māori Party 2.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)In CommitteeDebate resumed from 28 October.Parts 1 to 4 and clauses 1 to 3 (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): When the Committee last considered this bill the Committee had given leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. Well the question then is—Chris Hipkins: Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call Chris Hipkins.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):I was waiting for you to say who it was who was still speaking when the bill was last debated but as it appears that nobody was speaking during that time I am very happy to take a call on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) because I think this highlights the absolute incompetence of the current Government that this legislation is taking such a long time to progress through the House. In fact there are now two gambling amendment bills before the House because the Government was so incompetent—Hon Member: Three.CHRIS HIPKINS: Three are there? There is a third one because the Government was so incompetent in progressing this legislation. In fact one of these bills dates well back prior to the existing National Government even coming into office and it still has Rick Barker’s name on it such is the incompetence of the current National Government and its inability to progress this legislation.The gambling amendment bills all of them deal with relatively technical amendments to the Gambling Act a very technical piece of legislation but one that is very important none the less and I am looking forward to a lengthy and drawn out and significant debate on the provisions of the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) when we next come to it.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill without amendment the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill with amendment the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill with amendment the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) with amendment and progress on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2).Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.