Volume 635 Week 31 - Thursday 16 November 2006 
Volume 635 Week 31 - Thursday 16 November 2006 
[Volume:635;Page:6573] 
Thursday 16 November 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Energy Safety Review Bill the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill the Evidence Bill the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill and the first reading of the small but perfectly formed Income Tax Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising today to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 21 November 2006 as there is a luncheon for the President of the Republic of Chile. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Childcare—Free Hours Policy 
1. Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his pre-election statement that “86000 children will definitely get 20 free hours under Labour”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I stand by my statement made prior to the election that “86000 children will be worse off” under National’s plan to axe the policy of 20 free hours and replace it with a complicated rebate system that offers nothing to low-income families. In contrast based on current enrolments of 3 to 4-year-olds at early childhood centres Labour’s policy of 20 free hours will definitely be available for up to 92000 children. We would expect that figure to increase over time as the number of qualified teachers increases more parents take up the option of 20 free hours and Labour’s investment continues in this very very popular policy. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why did the Government promise at the last election that 86000 children would get 20 hours of free childcare when in Auckland and Wellington over 70 percent of providers will not be able to offer it and nationwide as many as 40 percent will not be able to offer it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What the Government said at the last election was that up to 92000 young people would be eligible for the policy of 20 free hours and that the numbers would increase as the resources for this policy increased. But where the member gets his figures from I cannot imagine because the consultation finished only last week. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the Labour-led Government doing to put quality early childhood education within the reach of all New Zealand families? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: To use an overused word heaps. Early childhood education is clearly one of the major success stories under Labour. This year we will invest more than $750 million in this area including more than $128 million to implement our policy of 20 hours of free early childhood education. As a result of our investments around 94 percent of all New Zealand children now take part in early childhood education. The number of qualified teachers has increased by 50 percent and funding has doubled since 1999. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How will a national average subsidy across the whole country accommodate cost differentials such as property costs staff salaries staff qualifications student-teacher ratios etc; if those differentials are not accommodated will that mean that many providers will have to reject the 20 free hours’ offer? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: They may not and of course one of the things in the policy design has been to work out what the rate of subsidy should be and how it will address different regional variances in terms of costs. That is what people are out talking about now. The policy has been consulted on throughout the country over the last week and we hope to set that subsidy rate prior to Christmas or soon after. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How many children will be excluded from the promised 20 free hours and when does he plan to tell the parents of those children that the children have been excluded and actually have no entitlement to the 20 free hours because it is not compulsory for every early childhood centre in the country to provide it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The policy has been non-compulsory since it was first announced so that is no surprise to anybody. No one is excluded from the policy. It will depend of course on how rapidly we can build up this policy to ensure that it is available to communities throughout the country. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Does the Minister believe he was premature with the announcement of 20 free hours for all 3 and 4-year-olds and would it not have been better to do the sums and work out the detail before announcing the slogan? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My predecessor was not premature; he never is. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has he seen on alternative policies for early childhood education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a report of a policy that would include scrapping Labour’s promise of 20 free hours; providing assistance for working families only through a complicated tax rebate system—the more one earns the more help one gets—not providing any help at all to low-income families; and leaving behind the children of beneficiaries. That is a summary of the National Party’s policy. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How will the Government deal with providers who decide they are able to offer say only 6 free hours instead of 20 and how does that sit with the Minister’s promise of 20 free hours for up to 86000 children? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not sure what the hypothetical case is that the member is raising about someone offering only 6 hours and not 20. What we are offering here is basically a subsidy for 20 free hours. The rate is the crucial issue as to whether people will take it up. As I say we will announce it either this side of or shortly after Christmas. As I have already said one of the components of this policy will be to make sure we have good teachers and centres around the country. Given our track record so far it is no wonder that everybody believes us and not the National Party. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Will he reassure parents that their children will be able to access their 20 free hours or is this just another cruel hoax being perpetrated on the young people of this country? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I thank the member for his very strong endorsement of the policy on 20 free hours given the advocacy through his questions today. It is good to see that the National Party is now adopting this Government policy as well as others. Will I reassure parents? Yes I will. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Examination Process 
2.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that the 2006 NCEA examination season delivers results that are fair and consistent for all students? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Over this examination season 136000 candidates will arrive at an exam room where they will receive a unique personalised booklet. Completed booklets will be submitted to panels of markers—all qualified teachers. The markers will put their results online on a daily basis. The performance of candidates will then be compared with a profile of expected performance. If any anomalies are identified marking can be halted temporarily to allow investigation. At the end of this process students can be confident that they will receive a fair and consistent result that reflects their achievement against the standard before the end of January. 
Moana Mackey 
: What practical improvements have been made for this year’s examination season? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government is of course committed to ensuring that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is as good as it should be. After extensive consultation with students parents educators and employers we have changed the following areas: the Record of Learning and results notice is now clearer; internal assessment results will be available online earlier than last year; the grade point average will no longer be recorded; the profiles of expected performance have been refined; the achievement standard consistency has been reviewed; more professional development has been delivered; a new technical over-group of assessment experts is in place; new governance and management structures are in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority; and the Ministry of Education and New Zealand Qualifications Authority joint work programme on further design refinements continues. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Minister decided to abolish the grade point average which was one of the few things that motivated more successful students to do better in NCEA; and why did he abolish it without making a public announcement until right now? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I took the advice of the member who said last year that the grade point average should be abolished; although this week he said it should not be abolished—consistency has never been the member’s strong suit. I think that everybody around the education sector understands that the grade point average was being translated into a percentage. That of course is not the way it works at all. Therefore it was misleading; therefore it was meaningless; therefore it should go. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What processes will be activated within the New Zealand Qualifications Authority if grades being returned by markers on a daily basis show variance from the profile of expected performance? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As happened last year to 17 of the standards out of the large number of standards that are sat when the forecast is not being met a trigger can be pulled and out comes the standard. That process allows the authority to go back and look at whether the problem is with the assessment or the standard itself. In some cases that has meant that parts of the standard or parts of the assessment guide have been rewritten before going back into the exam process. The same process will be used this year. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why does the Minister allow inconsistent policy that sees many students missing out on the right to retry for failed credits because their schools do not allow for this whereas other students benefit from other schools’ policies that allow for a second or third chance; and why does the Minister not instruct all schools to offer students the same opportunity to retry for NCEA credits? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know it is not a case of retrying; it is a case of a student having an opportunity to go back and do the standard again. That is part of the system and all schools can do that. 
Housing New Zealand—Subletting of Christchurch Tenancy 
3.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: When did Housing New Zealand Corporation first learn that Rana Martin was allegedly subletting her State house in Christchurch? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Firstly I would like to say what a pleasure it is to see our former Prime Minister Mike Moore in the Chamber. Secondly in answer to Mr Heatley’s question on 3 October 2006. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why did a Housing New Zealand Corporation spokesperson say that it only “began an investigation last month” when neighbours contacted Ruth Dyson’s office in June and Jim Anderton’s office in July and spoke to Ruth Dyson in person in September telling it that Rana Martin owns her own home and sublets her State house and why was no action taken way back then? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is an interesting question. I think you have to work through what the implications of the question are. Its implications are that somehow or other the Minister is responsible for whatever happened between those persons and the person making a complaint. I think the member could actually rephrase the question and bring it within the order of the House but at the moment it is hard to see what the ministerial responsibility can be for the fact that approaches were made to certain individuals in their capacity as members not in their ministerial capacity. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. The member is correct. Would Mr Heatley like to rephrase the question so it brings it squarely within ministerial responsibility. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why did Housing New Zealand not take action way back in June when Ruth Dyson’s office was contacted way back in July when Jim Anderton’s office was contacted and way back in September when Ruth Dyson was contacted personally because presumably those MPs contacted Housing New Zealand Corporation? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member has not actually managed to rephrase the question. I wonder if I could try to help him just a little bit. He needs to ask whether approaches were made to the Housing New Zealand Corporation on either of those days and if so why action was not taken. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Heatley clearly at the beginning of his question not the end brought it back to the ministerial responsibility of Housing New Zealand Corporation. That is what he said and the Minister should answer the question on that basis. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well if it is only on that basis then the Minister should ignore the second part of that question. I think that is what Dr Cullen was getting at; if it had stopped there the question is directly within ministerial responsibility. So if the Minister would like to address the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will ignore the second half of the question but I can speak on behalf of the corporation which is what of course I have responsibility for. On 3 October it was alleged—[ 
Interruption 
] Can I have a chance to answer? On 3 October it was alleged to Housing New Zealand Corporation that the tenant was not living in her State house and that the property was being sublet. I also received a letter on 21 October making the same allegations. Because proof rather than allegation is required by the tenancy tribunal the matter was investigated by the local housing manager. This particular investigation was made more difficult by neighbouring tenants providing conflicting information. Nevertheless the investigation is now concluded and the tenancy has ended. 
Tim Barnett 
: What reports has the Minister of Housing had from the member for Whangarei National’s housings spokesperson about alleged subletting of Housing New Zealand Corporation properties? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Interestingly—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. I know the member is going to ask whether this is within ministerial responsibility. The ministerial responsibility as I heard the question was for a query that was made to the Minister in his capacity as Minister. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Interestingly enough despite Mr Heatley’s claims that he “gets more callers anonymously dobbing in State house subletting scams than any other issue” he has not once provided any details of these allegations to either the corporation or my office. I ask Mr Heatley where the cases are. Perhaps it is time for that member to put up or shut up. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has Housing New Zealand Corporation briefed the Minister on the neighbours’ contact with Ruth Dyson’s office when they told the office that Rana Martin owns her own home and sublets her State house which resulted in Housing New Zealand Corporation staff yelling at Ruth Dyson’s secretary then doing nothing? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No it has not. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm that neighbours have been harassed by relations of Rana Martin this morning who are also State house tenants and can he confirm that the police have had to be called to deal with the problem and trespass orders have been issued? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No I cannot and as far as I am aware none of my relatives have been there either. 
Phil Heatley 
: When I asked the Minister last month about the subletting of State houses and he said he was “unable to provide the exact number length of absence of tenants and whether they were investigations” was he adamant or will he now make sure that Housing New Zealand Corporation keeps records to see how widespread the rorting problem is? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: One of the problems in this whole case is that the member seems to confuse boarders and subletting. If he clarifies his written questions to me on that issue I will be happy to provide the information. 
Phil Heatley 
: When I asked the Minister last month about investigating the subletting of State houses and he said he was “not prepared to authorise such an undertaking” was he adamant or will he now give an assurance that he will launch a transparent investigation to see how widespread subletting rorts are and fix them so we can house the 11500 needy families on the waiting list not these scammers? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am not sure where the member has got the quote from but I can assure this House that all allegations of scamming or dishonest behaviour by Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants are investigated. Frankly that member must be really embarrassed in the House to raise the question of the 11500 people on the waiting list because after all his Government sold 13000 State houses. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table 30 parliamentary questions to the Minister about subletting where he says he is not prepared to get the information or have any investigation. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Health Services—Wanganui 
4.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What investment is the Government making in health services in Wanganui? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 This Labour-led Government is investing around $30 million to provide Wanganui with a world-class public hospital. We have granted approval so construction can begin as soon as the district health board is ready. This is the latest chapter in the Labour-led Government’s historic public hospital building programme. 
Jill Pettis 
: What reports has the Minister received on local action on health issues in Wanganui? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I received a report late last week that the local National member was “requesting information and asking questions to keep the health issues in front of me”. In fact that member has not lodged a written question on health in 3 months. I have also received reports of that member saying that the Government should “just stump up”. That is an interesting proposition from a party that was prepared to deny funding to the health sector in order to pay for reckless tax cuts. 
Chester Borrows 
: If the Minister wants to score points for funding core health business in Wanganui will he accept the blame for the appalling Government performance in respect of Wanganui’s home-care services ambulance services paediatric and obstetric services recruiting acquired brain injury care funding for aged-care and hospice services and accident and emergency department which is so under-resourced that it took 22 hours to admit an elderly woman who had presented after a fall—or is that all someone else’s fault? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is terribly confused. That member stood on the hustings just over a year ago—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Courtesy was shown to Mr Borrows when he asked his question; courtesy will be shown to the Minister when he replies so that we can hear. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member cannot have it both ways. Money can be spent but once around this place and it cannot be spent on health and tax cuts at the same time. I advise the member with pride that the average level of funding per capita for Wanganui not only has increased above inflation every year that this Government has been in office but is 22 percent higher than it is for the rest of the country. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What is the Minister’s ministry doing to ensure that workforce shortages will not render the new hospital ineffective given that the Whanganui District Health Board is currently short of its required medical staff? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member raises a good question particularly in relation to paediatrics and obstetrics which are two services currently under review in Wanganui. Completion of these reviews and the development of a long-term solution for both of them are among the conditions the district health board must satisfy to receive final approval for the hospital redevelopment project. 
Tariana Turia 
: How can the Whanganui District Health Board attract obstetricians and how can midwives be retained when the new maternity facility will have only three delivery rooms as opposed to the current six and eight antenatal and post-natal beds compared with the current 18? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think the member should reflect on the fact that not only has the funding been given now so that the shell of the building can be begun but the reviews which are not yet completed set out to determine what the future look of maternity and paediatric services will be—that is to say the internal design is not yet complete. 
Immigration Applications—Ministerial Discretion 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Is it important that the Minister and the Associate Minister of Immigration have regard to all of the relevant factors when considering whether or not to exercise ministerial discretion? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Decisions are properly made on the basis of the best information provided to the Minister at the time. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is a letter from the Hon David Cunliffe relevant to the case of Mr Thomas Yadegary—a letter dated 11 November 2004 in which Mr Cunliffe provided detailed arguments as to why Mr Yadegary “has a plausible case” that he can “expect to face severe repression in Iran” and that the decision to deny him refugee status is inconsistent with precedent? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the case of the individual referred to in the question it is true that I made representations as a local MP in 2004 and for that reason I have been fully recused from that case in my capacity as a Minister. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that in the Hon David Cunliffe’s detailed 3-page letter of 11 November 2004 supporting Mr Yadegary he pointed out “the presence of conflicting decisions and findings of refugee status appeals despite strong similarity between appellant cases” and went on to point out that the authority was treating Christian applicants differently depending on their particular Christian denomination and the likelihood of such Christians to evangelise; if so has the Minister made sure that his views were in the possession of the Associate Minister when he made his decision not to exercise ministerial discretion? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As the member knows I was recused from ministerial consideration on that matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How reasonable is it for the New Zealand Government to discriminate against a person on the basis of religion given that the Government has kept Mr Yadegary imprisoned without trial for more than 2 years on the basis of an appeal authority decision arguing that it was safe to deport Mr Yadegary to Iran because he was Catholic whereas if he were Protestant it would be unsafe to deport him as he might be more likely to engage in evangelical activities? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although I am not playing any ministerial role in that case I am advised that the individual concerned has enjoyed the full processes available to him under the law. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was the Hon David Cunliffe making a compelling representation when he wrote to the Associate Minister on 11 November 2004 that Mr Yadegary “can expect to face severe repression in Iran” given that in February 2006 Amnesty International reported that since President Ahmadinejad’s election members of Iran’s religious minorities have been killed detained or harassed solely in connection with their faith; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that although the member to whom he refers is often compelling he is not always agreed with. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it relevant that Mr Yadegary’s father was responsible for suppressing Islamic revolutionaries his older brother was imprisoned for political reasons and the person he was with at the time was executed and Mr Yadegary himself was arrested in 1986 in 1992 lost his job for anti-revolutionary activities was shot at while being ordered to stop in the street and his house was searched on three separate occasions in 1992 and 1993; and how reasonable is it to maintain that Mr Yadegary has nothing to fear from the Iranian authorities? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although I am fully recused from the case I am advised that Mr Yadegary has made a number of unsuccessful appeals to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why are the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and other authorities looking at these matters not obliged to follow the conventions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which specifically guarantees religious freedom to people including the freedom to change religion; is that point understood by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and if not should it not be brought to its attention? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am sure the Refugee Status Appeals Authority is fully cognisant of all of New Zealand’s international human rights obligations. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table the compelling letter of the Hon David Cunliffe in which he supports the case of Mr Thomas Yadegary. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table section 35 of the Immigration Act under which Mr Yadegary could be processed after the failure of his refugee appeal. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Amnesty International dated 26 October 2006 stating that it believes that it is not now safe for Mr Yadegary to be returned to Iran and that any such return would see New Zealand in breach of its international human rights responsibilities. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Home Detention—Scheme Operation 
6.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: When was the home detention scheme introduced in New Zealand and what changes have been made to the scheme since its inception? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Acting Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Home detention was introduced in 1993 by the National Government of the time as a trial. It was rolled out in its current form by the National-led Government in 1999. It has had minor amendments since and has recently been subject to a review. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister confirm that the policy of back-end home detention which has allowed prisoners to transfer from prison to home detention was inherited from a National Government bill passed in 1999? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Yes I can confirm that this Government inherited a justice system that had been created by three successive National-led Governments and that today’s current home detention policy is a reflection of the work enshrined in legislation in the 1990s. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What evidence has the Minister seen that home detention is an effective sentence? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Reports show that 99 percent of offenders on home detention do not reoffend when serving the sentence. Furthermore 98 percent of offenders do not abscond while on home detention. Home detention assists the reintegration and rehabilitation of offenders by allowing things like accommodation employment and family relationships to be maintained. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm this statement of the general manager of the probation service at the time that home detention was first established: “Only prisoners convicted of non-violent crime would be eligible.” and what has the Government done since then to allow violent offenders to make up one-quarter of all home detainees—let alone the fact that the combined number of violent sex and drug offenders makes up half the number of all home detainees? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Given that the scheme was introduced in 1993 I cannot confirm what the member asks me. But in terms of what this Government has done next week a bill will be introduced in this House that will abolish back-end home detention. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether it is true that the most serious violent and sex offenders who are currently on home detention are there as a result of back-end home detention which was created by a National Government when it was in power? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Yes it is true that back-end home detention does allow serious offenders to be moved from prison to home detention. I am aware that New Zealand First as far back as 2002 has held some concerns over the number of serious offenders being granted back-end home detention. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not also true that New Zealand First started highlighting its objection to these happenings in our prisons in 2002 that we continued to do so up to the last election and that as a result of the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and Labour changes are to be made to the home detention scheme; and when will those changes occur? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Yes I can confirm that and a new bill will be introduced in this House next week. The new bill will give sentencing judges the power to impose up to 12 months’ home detention on offenders who are a low risk to the community. Back-end home detention will be abolished with offenders no longer being able to apply for home detention before their parole eligibility date. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is just a suggestion in the interests of saving time in the House. We have just had an interesting exchange between Mr Ron Mark and the Minister whereby Mr Ron Mark would stand up and read his carefully scripted question then the Minister would read his carefully scripted answer which was presumably prepared by Mr Ron Mark. I think it would be easier if rather than our going through the charade of questions from New Zealand First to the Government those members just tabled their questions and answers and we moved on. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Cancer—Radiotherapy Australia 
7.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many category C patients are being offered radiation treatment in Australia? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that 42 patients have so far accepted radiation treatment in Australia about half of whom have already started. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Are consistent criteria used by the cancer treatment centres to determine which patients are offered radiation treatment in Australia; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are criteria that exist throughout New Zealand. My understanding is that treatment is offered typically—probably always I would think—to category C patients. 
Maryan Street 
: What advice has the Minister received about treatment for people needing urgent radiation therapy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am advised that almost all patients in clinical categories A and B—that is patients for whom radiotherapy has a good likelihood of being curative or is being used to treat serious complications—do receive their radiotherapy according to accepted good-practice standards. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: When we have patients under Capital and Coast District Health Board being offered radiation treatment in Australia if they have been waiting longer than 8 weeks and a patient under MidCentral District Health Board being offered treatment because she has been waiting for 12 weeks and when it is clear that the Minister’s own official has stated that radiation treatment at 4 weeks is best practice and that with treatment after 8 weeks there is uncertainty in patient outcome why is there not a national policy that will provide certainty to patients and put a stop to this cruellest form of health care by postcode? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will know from her own experience that cancer patients fall into different categories and are treated differently. Different standards apply depending on the nature of the cancer. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Does the Minister think that the category C patients who have been waiting longer than 8 weeks knowing that their outcome could be compromised will agree with his own official who described those cases as non-urgent when we have an example of a woman under MidCentral District Health Board who is prepared to take the offer of treatment in Australia over Christmas and New Year and to be away from her family and grandchildren then because she does not want her cancer to return; does the Minister not realise that the crisis is worsening and that he must act? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: District health boards are acting—they are acting day by day. I would anticipate that this is hopefully a short-term shortage issue. It could be worsening as the industrial dispute worsens but one hopes that it will continue to be considered to be short term. The important things are that district health boards are responsible for these decisions and that they make them on clinical grounds. There is no impediment to more people being offered treatment in Australia if indeed clinicians believe that is in their patients’ best interests. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Is it not illogical to have a national Cancer Control Strategy and then to have all 21 district health boards doing their own thing in cancer care; and is this treatment-by-postcode debacle not just another example of the fundamental disconnection between the bureaucracy in Wellington and what actually happens out there in the real world? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think the fundamental disconnection may be between the member and the Cancer Control Strategy. There are not 21 radiation therapy centres in New Zealand; there are six. 
Unemployment Benefit—Reduction in Beneficiaries 
8.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports if any has he received on the Government’s progress at reducing the number of New Zealanders on the unemployment benefit? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The latest monthly benefit numbers show that the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit continues to plummet. When this Government first came into office in 1999 160000 people were on the unemployment benefit. Earlier this year the number of people on the unemployment benefit fell below 40000 for the first time. I am pleased to inform the House today that the number of people on the unemployment benefit at the end of October was 39001. This enormous success changes many lives and New Zealanders should be well pleased about it. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can the Minister confirm that the overall benefit numbers are also continuing to fall? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes. Contrary to the impression some Opposition members are trying to create in their local newspapers overall benefit numbers have recently fallen by an even greater amount than the unemployment benefit. In the year to October 2006 the total number of people on benefits fell by 11368. Although this period registered a small rise in sickness and invalids benefit numbers unemployment benefit numbers fell by 9938 and domestic purposes benefit numbers fell by 5489. People coming off a benefit in the last year outnumbered those going on to any benefit by a ratio of 4:1. 
Auckland Issues—Minister's Statement 
9.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: Does she stand by her statement in the House on 15 June 2006 when she said that “This Government is extremely busy on working for Auckland”; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues) 
: 
 The member has truncated my actual statement. What I said was that this Government is extremely busy on working for Auckland and is starting to deliver infrastructure that will make Auckland internationally sustainable. I stand by my comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it the case that she has the second-highest ministerial bill for domestic flights because she goes everywhere except Auckland; and why does the Government expect support—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday you made a ruling that one sentence was an interjection but continuous talking during a question was barracking and was out of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I did not make that ruling Mr English. I said that there can be interjections. Barracking is when the person asking or answering the questions cannot be heard. I ask members to give Mr English a fair go to ask his question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it the case that the Minister has the second-highest ministerial bill for domestic flights because she flies everywhere except Auckland; and how does the Labour Government expect support in the provinces for spending of taxpayers’ money on Auckland projects such as the stadium when she visits the provinces so often? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am not sure how the member for Clutha-Southland who lives in Wellington expects an Auckland member to get home other than by flying. But I am also the Minister of Consumer Affairs I am Associate Minister for Commerce with responsibility for intellectual property I am Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage I am Associate Minister of Transport and I spend a lot of time visiting many communities around New Zealand talking about all of those issues including how important Auckland and its economic well-being are for the whole of New Zealand. 
Keith Locke 
: What consideration has the Government given to temporary seating for the Rugby World Cup games in the Eden Park and North Harbour proposals particularly as the cheaper temporary seating option is increasingly common overseas; and will the Minister be attending the public meeting concerning the stadium being organised by myself and Rodney Hide this Sunday 2 o’clock at the Aotea Centre? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I am not the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. As a local member of Parliament I have a great deal of interest but I will not be attending that meeting as I have other commitments on Sunday. I say to that member that the Government has appointed Trevor Mallard as Minister for the Rugby World Cup. He has had a look at a whole lot of options which were assessed against the same criteria including the likely cost the sources of funding the potential for profitability access to public transport hotels restaurants and other amenities planning and Resource Management Act issues technical issues and governance arrangements. Through this process all possibilities have been assessed and I am sure temporary seating has been assessed. Fundamentally it comes down to a choice as to whether the final is in Auckland or in Christchurch. It is up to Auckland to decide whether it wants a stadium. This Government will work with every city in New Zealand to make the Rugby World Cup a success. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister outline some of the issues the Government is working on for Greater Auckland? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Getting back to the initial question I would be delighted to. We are spending in excess of $7.3 billion on Auckland roads and public transport projects over the next 10 years. We are diversifying Auckland’s power supply. The Energy Commission will make a draft decision by Christmas. We are strengthening our energy supply. Mighty River Power is supplying an extra 40 megawatts of power to Auckland from next month. Genesis E3P will have an extra 380 megawatts going to Auckland around April. We are making housing more affordable through a range of initiatives. We are working with Auckland local authorities to make governance and funding more sustainable. We have a range of projects and it is fascinating that the Opposition’s only concern is that I work hard across the whole of New Zealand. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it correct that the Minister told Radio New Zealand that she would refuse the radio interview about Auckland stadium proposals because she did not want to be shouted at and why does she think she would be shouted at by the polite people on Radio New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I note that the debate so far particularly as conducted on Radio New Zealand and other places has had rather more heat than light. 
Hon Member 
: Did you say it? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Yes I do not choose to be shouted at. I pick my fights. 
John Key 
: If as Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues she has not taken the lead role on the siting of the stadium in Auckland and if she has not taken the lead role on the proposed local government reforms in Auckland could she tell the House what issues she thinks are significant enough for her as Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues to actually take the lead role on? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I take a great deal of pride in the fact that the whole of this Government has recognised that Auckland matters to New Zealand and Auckland’s efficiency and effectiveness matters to New Zealand’s economy as a whole. I am very proud of the fact that a number of Ministers are regularly in Auckland unlike a number of that member’s colleagues. I just think that— 
Hon Member 
: Who? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Well Trevor Mallard is there today and we do not have to double up because nobody in the National Party is doing anything for Auckland. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister agree with the comments made by her colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard when he said that Aucklanders lack vision and does he think the Minister was actually referring to her? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I do not think that Trevor Mallard thinks that Aucklanders lack vision. I can understand that he is a little frustrated like many of us when the reporting of any debate in Auckland is seen as Auckland being unable to make a decision. Auckland has a third of New Zealand’s population and about one-sixth of New Zealand’s land area. We naturally have a range of views and we in this Government are giving Auckland plenty of time to debate a range of important issues including the siting of the Rugby World Cup stadium. 
Rodney Hide 
: In her busy schedule on what dates has the Minister responsible for Auckland Issues been consulting Aucklanders about the stadium on the waterfront option and has she had any success particularly given that the former mayor and Governor-General Dame Cath Tizard has come out publicly against the waterfront option as being a very bad idea for Auckland? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Given that the Government’s preferred option came out on 10 November and I was in the UK until 13 November I have not had a great—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Some members will not be with us for the rest of question time today if they continue not to allow the Minister to be heard. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I have talked to an enormous number of Aucklanders about the opportunities that the Rugby World Cup provides including attending all of the sessions of the Metro programme which that member obviously knows nothing about; and the START programme in Auckland which has looked at the opportunities. All I can say is that I do not need a global positioning satellite to find my electorate—unlike that member. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked about the dates on which the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues had consulted Aucklanders about the stadium. She started off with an answer that I was enjoying enormously. Then my colleagues in the National Party barracked her and you intervened quite correctly as Speaker to allow the Minister to finish her answer. Unfortunately she shifted tack because she was explaining that she had been in the UK when the decision had been announced and I do not think had had any opportunity— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The member is starting to make a speech. 
Rodney Hide 
: What I would like— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member’s point is that the Minister did not address the question. I listened very carefully and you are right; it was difficult to hear what the answer was. The Minister did address the question. She does not have to address it in a way that satisfies the member. But she did address a very general question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I have ruled on that Mr Hide. If it is a new point of order you are perfectly entitled. 
Rodney Hide 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. My suggestion is that if we could just find out—because I am sure this was going to be the next point—what date the Minister got back from the UK. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Oh don’t be ridiculous. Please be seated. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a document relevant to the Minister’s answer on profitability. It is the editorial from yesterday’s  
Independent 
 with the headline: “The insanity of Stadium New Zealand” pointing out that it would be totally unprofitable. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Bottom Trawling—International Moratorium 
10.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Is he committed to protecting high-seas seafloor habitat from bottom trawling and taking every opportunity at the United Nations General Assembly meeting on sustainable fisheries starting tomorrow to seek an international moratorium on bottom trawling; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Fisheries 
: I am pleased to confirm that the New Zealand Government is committed to protecting high-seas seafloor habitat from the adverse impacts of bottom trawling. At the United Nations General Assembly meeting New Zealand will urge the adoption of a comprehensive set of measures to control bottom trawling on the high seas of all the world’s oceans. In particular we will advocate for: firstly an immediate interim prohibition on bottom trawling in unmanaged high-seas areas; secondly strong conservation measures within a set time frame—preferably by 2008—to protect vulnerable areas in existing and contemplated regional fisheries management organisation areas; and thirdly a moratorium on bottom trawling in those areas if effective conservation measures are not adopted within that time frame. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I thank the Minister very much for that answer. Would New Zealand not be in a better position to advocate for an international agreement if the Government withdrew permits to New Zealand vessels to bottom-trawl in the high seas including in the southern Pacific where New Zealand - flagged vessels are responsible for up to 90 percent of the bottom trawling; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: On behalf of my colleague I say I am sure that the member would agree that little would be achieved by forcing through such suggested action as the re-flagging of New Zealand vessels. Clearly any resolution that imposed a moratorium would not be binding and enforceable on States. I think it would be much more desirable through regional fisheries management organisations to move to legally binding measures and the membership of all States in those organisations with fisheries in those areas being enforceable. 
Pita Paraone 
: Does the Minister agree that it is imperative we stop using fishing methods that destroy ecosystems; if so does he not think that his expression of concern over a move by the European Commission Russia and South Korea to block a moratorium on bottom trawling at a South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation meeting rings rather hollow given that New Zealand is responsible for 90 percent of the high-seas bottom trawling in the South Pacific region? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: On behalf of my colleague I certainly echo the concern about the Hobart meeting and I report to the House the Minister’s comments in respect of that matter: “New Zealand worked hard to broker a range of strong measures that would protect fragile deep-water ecosystems in the South Pacific from bottom trawling. … I am particularly disappointed that the European Community refused to limit their current fishing efforts in the region. This went against the precautionary ecosystem-based approach that South Pacific and South American States were asking for.” 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Is the Minister aware that currently the only high-seas areas with restrictions on bottom trawling are the Southern Ocean the Mediterranean and the north-east Atlantic as shown in orange on this map and will New Zealand officials be instructed to point out the colonialist hypocrisy of the European Union which restricts bottom trawling in its own backyard but blocks international efforts to impose that in the Pacific and elsewhere? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Minister is aware of those facts and issues and he and the ministry are working hard to build on the excellent initiatives of his predecessor. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Will the Minister call on all Pacific Islands Forum countries which recently unanimously called for an international high-seas moratorium on bottom trawling to refuse to refuel vessels that are bottom trawling in the South Pacific in order to deter northern hemisphere countries that continue to think they can plunder the south after having devastated northern fisheries; if not what specific measures will he take? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: On behalf of my colleague I would agree with many of those comments. I repeat the comments of Messrs Anderton and Carter and the Minister of Foreign Affairs on this matter: “We want decisive action to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems by 2008. If that does not happen we will have no choice but to look at other options such as a global moratorium.” 
Child Safety—Threshold for Removal of Children 
11.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Is she satisfied that Child Youth and Family Services’ threshold for removing children from unsafe homes is adequate? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I am satisfied with the process for determining the threshold for removing children from unsafe homes. All of Child Youth and Family’s processes are developed consistent with international best practices. I am also satisfied that social workers are using the risk-estimation system to make professional judgments about the safety of the child. But of course like every New Zealander I am absolutely dissatisfied about any child being harmed in his or her own home. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does the Minister consider it a safe home environment when cannabis is given to a 6-year-old child as a reward for committing burglaries; if not why did Child Youth and Family not remove the young Christchurch boy who was known to her department from this situation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In answer to the first part of the member’s question no I certainly do not regard that as being part of a safe home environment. The information I have is that the original interventions between Child Youth and Family and the family to whom the member referred focused on strengthening that family’s ability to provide a safe and functional environment in which that child should live. Some of those attempts were successful and others were not. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Which agency is responsible to help protect children in unsafe homes? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: All agencies that work with children and families need to be aware of risk to children and to work with each other to keep children safe. However it is important to note that unless the wider community takes a responsibility for the safety of children and young people the agencies’ efforts will never be enough. All people are part of communities and all members of the community have a part to play. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why did it take until this boy stole a gun and shot his next-door neighbour before he was placed in Kingslea Residential Centre at just 8 years old when over the previous 2 years he had committed 46 offences—38 of which were violent and included robbery with a knife and bashing people with bicycle chains—and what does the Minister think can be done with him now that this criminal violent behaviour has been allowed to develop and dominate this young child’s life all the while watched by Child Youth and Family? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I say to the House that the representation of that member is at the same level as that of the  
Sunday News 
 which on one page demanded to know why that child was not in Child Youth and Family care earlier and in the same article talked about him being condemned to Child Youth and Family care. Frankly they cannot have it both ways. A professional assessment is used to determine the best way to keep our children safe. In some instances not all interventions are successful. 
Hon Member 
: It did nothing. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is not true at all that that member’s interjection is correct. There were a number of interventions some of which were successful; some were not. I would further note that for the last 17 months this child has not been involved in any problems with the police at all. I suggest that the member and her colleagues would do better to support the work of social workers rather than constantly attacking them. 
Tariana Turia 
: When children are removed from their homes for reasons of their safety what assistance and resources are then given to the families of those children to ensure their safe and effective return? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member raises a very valid point. The basis of the Child Youth and Families’ system in our country is that the family should have responsibility and therefore it is a function of the State to give every support possible to that family so they can provide the functional environment and the child can be returned safely to that home. That is done. In the case that the member’s primary question referred to a number of interventions were tried with the family. Some of those interventions were successful; others were not. 
Anne Tolley 
: Has Child Youth and Family now removed the other two children in this home in particular the 3-year-old whose own father has advised is in grave danger of turning out worse than his brother; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I know that one of the three rather than other two children is in the care of the department but the other two I am advised have not had any care and protection notifications alerted. 
Anne Tolley 
: If Child Youth and Family admitted yesterday that it knew about the Kahui family and that it had had previous dealings with the mother and her other children why did it just have conversations about the family and not take action about any subsequent children going into that home or are these two cases just another example of Child Youth and Family abdicating responsibility and when will the Minister take that responsibility for her department herself? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member should not misrepresent the information that was provided at a select committee. As I said to the House in reply to an earlier response the member just like the  
Sunday News 
 cannot have it both ways. The member cannot demand that children are taken immediately at birth despite there being no risk alerted to the department then condemn the department for holding on to children. The department social workers make a professional assessment and judgment and I am confident that those assessments are being carried out in an internationally regarded best-practice fashion. 
Sale of Liquor—Proposed Review 
12.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What input if any will the Ministry of Health have into the proposed review of the restrictions on the supply and sale of liquor to under-18-year-olds? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Health 
: The Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Health will work together in reviewing the restrictions on the supply and sale of liquor to under-18-year-olds. The role of the Ministry of Health will include the provision of evidence-based policy advice on the health implications of the review. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: If the Associate Minister believes that there should be a review of the sale of liquor and if he does not believe that the drinking age should be raised why did he send a letter to Denis Hampton last month stating: “I support raising the minimum legal purchase age for alcohol to 20 regardless of where the person may purchase or consume alcohol”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry the member has not had the opportunity to stay up to date on that issue. It was of course a typographical error for which an apology has been made both publicly and privately. It is possible that the member has never made a mistake in his life but I have and it will never happen again—until the next time. 
Ann Hartley 
: What are the terms of reference of the review? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The terms of reference have not yet been finalised but will include the effectiveness of the current restrictions and the effect of changes that have taken place since 1999 when the supply of alcohol was liberalised. The review will include ways in which the current Sale of Liquor Act could be strengthened in relation to controlling the supply of alcohol to young people. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Did the Associate Minister read the letter to Denis Hampton before he signed it; if not how many other documents has he signed without having read them? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not in a position to answer that question of course but it would seem that the member requires the Associate Minister to be word-perfect in every respect. I will say to the member that I have made a mistake every now and again and I will never make a mistake again until the next time. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why then—acknowledging that we all make mistakes—has the Associate Minister blamed the ministry for his mistake saying it was a drafting error rather than a signing error made by none other than himself? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because that is where the mistake originated. The Associate Minister however took responsibility and apologised privately and publicly some time ago. The member needs to stay up to date. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Given the replies we have had what sort of mickey mouse ministerial office is the Associate Minister running when he signs out letters saying he wants the drinking age raised although his actual position is the opposite and when his office is advised by officials of corruption involving Phillip Field but the Associate Minister is supposedly not told; with these two serious failings in his office—and I would suggest that they are more than casual mistakes—why should he continue to hold a ministerial warrant? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member draws a bow so long as to be really rather incredible. 
Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 February next year and that it have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
The bill introduces a number of changes to the administration of the student loan scheme particularly in relation to borrowers who are overseas. Since 1 April this year student loans for most borrowers who live in New Zealand have effectively been interest-free. In practice their loans attract interest but it is written off at the end of the tax year. Borrowers who live overseas generally are not eligible for interest-free loans. The rationale for introducing interest-free loans was threefold: to reduce the costs to students of tertiary education to encourage tertiary-educated New Zealanders to stay in New Zealand and contribute to the New Zealand economy and to help encourage skilled New Zealanders to return home. 
A number of concerns about the operation of the student loan scheme rules have emerged both before and after the introduction of interest-free loans this year. The rules are not working as well as they might in relation to borrowers who go overseas. Compliance is low amongst borrowers overseas and the legislation may well be creating disincentives for them to return. As well it is probably unrealistic—in some cases at least—to expect young New Zealanders to repay their loans while they are doing their traditional OE. Furthermore under the current rules it is also difficult for the Inland Revenue Department which collects the repayments to know the whereabouts of borrowers if they go overseas. That problem which has existed since the student loan scheme began was brought into sharp focus by the introduction this year of interest-free loans. The introduction of interest-free loans has increased the incentives for people heading overseas not to tell the Inland Revenue Department as borrowers who are based overseas generally attract interest on their loans. 
So this bill introduces changes to deal with these and other problems and generally updates the legislation to make it consistent with the policy intent of interest-free loans. These are the main changes. The bill introduces a new set of rules for borrowers based overseas to come into force on 1 April next year. The new rules will make it easier for people overseas to repay their student loans and will offer the chance of a fresh start for those who have fallen into arrears. There will be a repayment holiday of up to 3 years for borrowers going overseas. During that time they will not have to make repayments although their loans will still attract interest. This change recognises the fact that it is not always easy for people to repay their loans while doing their OE or working overseas in holiday jobs. 
For overseas borrowers who are not taking a repayment holiday the bill introduces progressive repayment obligations that are based on the size of their loan balances. For many borrowers overseas that will mean annual repayment requirements that are lower than they are under current law. Interest-free loans for people studying overseas will be extended from postgraduates to undergraduates studying full-time to bachelor degree level. The measure will be limited however to loans that are held before leaving New Zealand. 
The amnesty on penalties declared last year for non-resident borrowers who are in arrears with their payments will be extended by 1 year to 31 March 2008. The extension of the amnesty will allow borrowers who are identified as a result of the proposed data-match which I shall describe shortly to come within the amnesty. It will therefore become possible for those who are in arrears to make a fresh start. If they meet certain conditions their loan balance will not increase except for interest and that should remove some of the fear of returning home for those who have not been meeting their obligations. 
These changes are all aimed at making it easier for borrowers who are based overseas to meet their student loan obligations. The changes also seek to deal more effectively with those who have fallen behind in their repayments thus making it possible for those who front up about their situation to return home without having to face an overwhelming burden of debt. 
The bill also introduces two important changes for all borrowers whether they are in New Zealand or overseas. First the late payment penalty will be reduced from 2 percent a month to 1.5 percent a month in order to make it less punitive. Second the hardship provisions in the Student Loan Scheme Act are being amended to give the Inland Revenue Department greater flexibility in administering them. 
A number of amendments in the bill are there to improve the administration of the scheme. The chief of these amendments is a change to the law to allow data matching between the Inland Revenue Department and the New Zealand Customs Service—a mechanism that is missing under current law. That change will make it easier for the Inland Revenue Department to know who is overseas and who is not and to ensure that only those entitled to interest-free loans are receiving them. The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has recently advised me that data matching is expected to reveal about 40000 borrowers who are or have been non-resident and who received interest write-offs to which they were not entitled for the tax years before 1 April 2006. Their loan accounts will have to be adjusted to reverse those write-offs. The bill provides however that any loan that was repaid by 13 November this year will not be reopened to adjust any incorrect interest write-off. 
These and other changes in the bill are described in detail in the separate commentary on the bill that has been distributed to members. I therefore commend the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 National will support the passage of this bill at least for it to go to the select committee because it is an attempt to get to grips with a very complex and difficult administrative policy relating to interest-free student loans. This bill highlights the major problems that the Inland Revenue Department has had in applying any kind of consistency or fairness to borrowers who are resident overseas. I would be among many people who were alarmed to find that 40000 borrowers have apparently got lost. I am still slightly confused about what presumptions the Inland Revenue Department was making about those 40000 people who were not making repayments. Was the department assuming that those 40000 students were overseas when they were in fact here? 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Or the other way around. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Or was it the other way around—they were assumed to be here when in fact they were overseas—which tells us there are some very large holes in the system. I would like to make it clear to the Government and to the Inland Revenue Department that we sympathise somewhat with their predicament. The department has a computer system that I can recall being implemented—I think almost 15 years ago now—and fundamentally it has not altered. In that time it has had to take on family tax credits and Working for Families; the student loan scheme of course and all the changes to it which have been virtually every year; changes now in international tax; and probably the granddaddy of them all KiwiSaver. I will be interested to find out at the select committee whether these changes are dictated as much by the need to take some pressure off the Inland Revenue Department’s computer system by simplifying the system or whether further change will put so much pressure on the Inland Revenue Department that in fact it will need to make some fundamental changes or upgrades to its ability to administer student loans. Of course such an upgrade would no doubt lead to significant changes for all the other systems it has to administer. 
I spend a good a deal of time as an MP explaining to constituents that students who are getting an interest-free loan have to be charged interest and then have to have it written off. The fact that that is the process students have to go through tells me that the policy has moved well ahead of the administrative capacity to deliver. In behind that of course is a fundamental unfairness. This bill will extend the amnesty for a year. One of the reasons for extending that amnesty which the Government has not publicly stated is that only a couple of hundred borrowers have taken advantage of it in the first 3 months when there are evidently tens of thousands of people out there who have not been meeting their obligations. So the extension of the amnesty is necessary if only to give a long enough time for borrowers to understand it to realise they will be nabbed by the data match—which we support—and then to have time to work through with the Inland Revenue Department just what the effects of the amnesty are on them individually. 
Students will of course want to know individually what the effects will be. But the fact is that a significant number of students have always met their obligations on the way through and the Government needs to be very careful that the provision of this generous and lengthy amnesty will not undermine the perception of fairness among all those students. I accept that no doubt the Minister would argue that the amnesty is an amnesty only on penalties and that all the other obligations have to be met by the student. 
I will also be testing in the select committee the Government’s argument for that amnesty in respect of its incentive effect on borrowers going overseas. Much has been made of this in the political debate—the idea that every young person in New Zealand feels compelled because he or she has a student loan to head off to a stronger currency zone earn big money and pay off the loan and New Zealand is worse off for it. In fact the annual report on the student loan scheme shows that that is largely greatly exaggerated. At the scheme’s peak something like 8 or 9 percent of borrowers from any given year left and some of the figuring that I have done shows for instance that of those who left between 1996 and 1998 70 percent of them had returned by June 2006—and that was before any of these changes. 
So the idea that paying interest on one’s loan overseas and not paying it on one’s loan at home will have some dramatic impact on the behaviour of young people was I think a political convenience at the time. It fitted the public mood; it was a way of limiting the fiscal cost of a very expensive promise; but young people I am pleased to say are not as easily subject to the manipulations of adults and public policy as that. They will head off they will discover the world but the vast majority of them will come back to their homes and that is a good thing. 
As I have signalled at the select committee deliberation National will be testing particularly the capacity of the Inland Revenue Department to deliver on this. It is not necessarily part of the legislation but of course the legislation is only credible if the Inland Revenue Department can deliver on these changes in a way that it has simply not been able to do in the past. I think it is a warning to all of us who take an interest in the administration of the revenues of the Government—which are pretty important—that we have been putting in place student loan policy at least that cannot be effectively administered. I have not been involved in it to know whether officials assured ministers at the time—well they certainly did when I was Minister of Revenue—that they could administer it. But clearly those assurances have not been borne out and that warrants the select committee having a good hard look at it this time around. 
So this bill represents a number of steps in the right direction because it simplifies the administration of the policy and it brings in a data match that is long overdue. I wonder why National as a party actually did not put more pressure on this issue sooner. We will facilitate the passage of the bill to go to the select committee. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 On behalf of Labour I welcome this bill and rise to support the Hon Peter Dunne’s work on it. An amendment bill rightly presumes that a problem has been identified and also that it needs to be tackled. The problem that has been identified in this bill is associated with the Kiwi rite of passage—namely the OE. It is rare in the early months of an OE for young Kiwi graduates to be earning enough and to be earning steadily enough to be in a position to repay their loans. As a result some have been growing their loans with penalties as well as with interest and that can become a disincentive for them to return home to New Zealand where we need and want them. 
The second problem that has been identified and that has been a problem since the beginning of the student loan scheme is that the Inland Revenue Department does not know who is overseas let alone whether those people are actually overseas. It does not know whether they are in Outer Mongolia or inner London. When interest-free loans were introduced there was an even greater incentive for people not to tell the Inland Revenue Department where they were. The interest-free policy applied only to those living in New Zealand so why would people tell the department they were going overseas? 
The Government has in this bill introduced some solutions. First up it has introduced a fresh start amnesty and that amnesty for non-resident borrowers—those overseas—with arrears will be extended to 31 March 2008. I welcome the fact that Mr English recognised that that amnesty is for penalties only. Penalties will be wiped if people apply for the amnesty—because they have to apply for it. They also have to meet certain conditions including making regular repayments based on new repayment rules for 2 years. 
Another thing we are doing is making it easier to repay loans. There will be a repayment holiday of up to 3 years for borrowers who are going overseas during which time they will not have to make repayments although their loans will still attract interest. This will also apply to those who have met the amnesty conditions. That is a recognition of facts. As I said before when young Kiwis go on their rite of passage overseas they do not always walk into Stg£50000-a-year jobs as they come off the plane. That is not what they get paid in bars in the various parts of London—or that is what they tell me anyway. 
The third thing we have done and worked very hard on is encourage overseas study. The Inland Revenue Department will be able to grant interest-free loans to undergraduates—not just graduates—who want to study full time overseas to bachelor’s degree level. As well we have brought in some other things. For example borrowers who had repaid their loans by 13 November 2006 and who had had an interest write-off to which they were not entitled will not have that write-off reversed. So borrowers who have repaid their loans will not be revisited; we will accept that the main thing has been done. 
Then there are some things that apply to all borrowers. The late payment penalty for all borrowers will be reduced from 2 percent per month to 1.5 percent per month. The change will apply to amounts subject to a late payment penalty on or after 1 April 2007. The Inland Revenue Department’s powers to grant hardship relief will be made more flexible by allowing the department to suspend payments during the year for borrowers who apply for relief—and that is very welcome indeed. 
We come to the issue of data matching. In future the Inland Revenue Department will know when borrowers go overseas. Again I am pleased to see that the National Party supports this. A law change will allow data matching between the Inland Revenue Department and the New Zealand Customs Service. This will ensure that only those entitled to interest-free loans have access to them. The only thing about which I feel slightly differently from Mr English relates to the data match being expected to reveal—it has not revealed as yet—that about 40000 borrowers are or have been non-resident so their loan accounts will have to be adjusted. We have yet to get the proof in the pudding about that. 
This bill sits in a context. Sure it is right to correct a problem that has been around since the introduction of the student loan scheme but the context is even bigger than that. I think that everyone in here acknowledges that New Zealand needs its graduates whether they are graduates of polytechs private training establishments or universities. We need those graduates with their skills intelligence creativity and energy. We want them to come home and stay home eager to contribute. We also want to increase the numbers of students who are graduating from our tertiary organisations so Labour has continued to make tertiary education more affordable. 
We have done that largely with the interest-free student loans policy for all New Zealand - based graduates that started this year. We have also increased the numbers of students eligible for student allowances and we have done that almost year by year as we have looked at those issues. We are making available bonded merit scholarships and we have increased the numbers of those scholarships. We saw that in Budget 2006. So we have done our best to make access to tertiary education for our people absolutely important. 
It is not only that; the Labour Government is moving very strongly with help from its partners to improve tertiary education. It is making a shift away from the numbers-only policy which was promoted largely by the previous National Government in response to figures showing that in the 1990s we had one of the lowest numbers in the OECD of students studying at tertiary level. The problem was that we concentrated on the numbers of students studying not on what they were studying so this is a shift in tertiary policy away from the numbers-only approach to a focus on what people are learning. 
There is a new approach to planning funding quality assurance and monitoring for all tertiary education. The new system for tertiary education will promote a much stronger focus on the quality and relevance of education and on research outcomes. It will ensure that tertiary education organisations identify plan for and meet the needs not only of students but of employers industry Maori community groups and other stakeholders. It will do this through investing in tertiary education organisations in order to support and reward quality and through requiring tertiary education organisations to demonstrate that their educational research is contributing to economic social cultural and environmental outcomes for New Zealand and New Zealanders. That is far more than just concentrating on the numbers who are studying at tertiary level. They are studying at tertiary level for a reason and the reason is about a better standard of life for us. 
Again it is not only that; in this new tertiary education reform we want tertiary organisations no longer to be competing or ending up all offering the most popular courses because doing that has not served New Zealand well at all. We are instead talking about collaboration about competing against standards—not against each other—and about valuing each other’s differences. Each tertiary organisation has a different contribution to make towards success for all New Zealanders. This legislation sits in the context of being utterly ridiculous for New Zealand to compete for low pay and low skills; we are interested in high pay high value and a highly skilled workforce. We must use our talents we must support our people to grow their talents and this legislation is part of that whole scene. Thank you. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has long believed that the best immigrant is a New Zealander returning home and this legislation supports that philosophy. When I grew up the concept of an overseas experience was a trip to Australia in retirement although it has to be said that in virtually all generations there were some New Zealanders who did go overseas. I think Ernest Rutherford would never have split the atom at the University of Canterbury and Kiri Te Kanawa would never have become a world-leading diva if she had remained here in New Zealand. However for the present generation of young people an OE soon after the completion of educational qualifications is the norm—the rite de passage as I would say to my friend Marian Hobbs. This should not be seen as a bad thing for our society. In fact the experience these young people gain enriches them in many ways and possibly makes them better contributors to New Zealand on their return. 
The Hon Bill English brought up the good point I think that there has been criticism of the student loan scheme that sort of stated that the levels of student debt have driven our young people off overseas. However the evidence does not seem to validate that point. It seems that it is much more of a cultural element for our young people these days. So we should not be overly concerned about the phenomenon of a large proportion of young people indulging themselves in an overseas experience. What we must be concerned about however is ensuring that those young people come home settle down here and contribute to our society both economically and socially. 
The sad fact is that the way the student loan scheme has operated has often created strong disincentives for that to take place and for the return of our best and our brightest. Many young people have left our shores unaware that they are required to contact the Inland Revenue Department and to work out a means of regular repayments on their loans and if those repayments are not made then penalties accrue. So when those young people decide to return they find out that they have a whopping great bill. For many it means that remaining overseas becomes a rational choice and that cannot be good for the nation. This bill creates an environment that will eradicate many of these disincentives. 
There is a further complication. At present with no interest on loans students may believe that when they go overseas there will be no interest accruing on the loans that they leave behind. The problem is that the interest-free situation applies only to ex-students who remain in New Zealand so in fact those people are accruing interest on their loans while they are overseas. So this legislation makes the student loan scheme more user-friendly for ex-students who are going overseas. A remit payment holiday for 3 years will assist those who take on seasonal and low-paying work—working in pubs restaurants etc.—whilst they are overseas. Even though interest will accrue there will be no penalties for non-payment during that period of time. 
The legislation is also beneficial to the general taxpayer. At present the Inland Revenue Department does not automatically have knowledge of those with student loans who happen to take off overseas. It has depended upon ex-students themselves telling the department that they plan to travel. As the Hon Peter Dunne has said compliance is calculated to be very low. This legislation will ensure that the department is alerted to anyone with a student loan who has taken off overseas through data-matching with the Customs Service. The benefits of this are twofold. It prevents ex-students from inadvertently breaking the law and getting themselves into considerable debt and it also ensures that those who are deliberately flouting the law are identified and are made to pay what they are legally required to. As has been explained a large number of people have had interest write-offs to which they were not entitled. 
There will be some who say that this legislation is unfair because they have paid back what they had to and they ask why others should be let off. I would refer those people to the parable of the vineyard workers who contracted a deal to work all day with the owner. Halfway through the day the owner realised that he would not be able to harvest all the grapes so he contracted another group of workers for the same amount. Then with 1 hour to go the owner realised that he still would not be able to harvest all the grapes and he contracted another group of workers for the same amount. At the end of the day he paid all the workers the same and the people who had worked all day said that it was unfair. The owner pointed out to them that what he had contracted with them was fair at the beginning of the day and that it was still fair then. The fact that other people had been fortunate and lucky because of the circumstances in no way changed the fairness of the circumstances of the first group. 
As Peter Dunne has said the bill will go to the Education and Science Committee—a very good committee which is probably why we are sending it there although I am sure there are other reasons too. There is no doubt that the details will be looked at very carefully. I am pleased that Bill English mentioned that he was an ex - Minister of Revenue because he will be able to bring the knowledge and expertise from that experience to bear upon the scrutiny of this bill. I have to say that ensuring the provisions will be able to be put in place by April will put some time pressure on the committee to hear submissions and to do its considerations but I am sure that the committee members themselves—as I say the very good Education and Science Committee—will be looking forward to getting their teeth into the legislation. 
To summarise New Zealand First is supportive of this legislation. I say once again that as far as New Zealand First is concerned the very best immigrant is a New Zealander coming home and we believe that this legislation will support that position. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to indicate that the Green Party also supports the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill. We welcome the bill and thank Mr Dunne for its introduction. In a sense we consider this bill to be a band-aid but we recognise that a band-aid is better than a bloody wound so we do support it. 
I think it is interesting to reflect on the political context. This bill is really about cleaning up some of the anomalies that arose out of the Government’s change of policy prior to the election with regard to interest on student loans for people who stayed in New Zealand. It is worth reflecting on that because it is an example of a situation where the small parties have set the political agenda. The Green Party has had a strong position on student loans for some time and has called for a universal student allowance a loan write-off and a capping of student fees. I know that student loans have been an issue of great concern to United Future and New Zealand First for some time and that the Maori Party has had a progressive policy around student loans as well. So I think it is fair to say that the momentum that was being generated by the small parties’ concern for what I would consider to be some of the real injustices and problems arising out of the student loan scheme set the agenda and made the scheme a political issue such that the Labour Party came out with its change of policy prior to the election. We can all take that as a victory for the important role that small parties can play in setting the political agenda around such very important issues. 
Having said that I reiterate that the Green Party policy is to go much further than this bill does. We will continue to support policies that are progressive around student loans and to support in particular a universal student allowance so that all full-time students get a decent living allowance and a loan write-off—especially for those who are unable to pay off their loans over a long period of time. I say that because my particular concern is not perhaps for some of the very highly paid graduates in law medicine or whatever their profession may be who can pay off their loans relatively swiftly regardless of the fact that their loans can be significant. My concern is in some ways much more about graduates who work in areas where they will face fairly low rates of pay to the end of their days in their professions—for example social workers. We desperately need those professions. In fact some of the debate we had during question time today around Child Youth and Family—the enormous pressure on social workers and the like the under-resourcing of that sector and the need for more well-trained confident people in that area—highlights the real issues we face with regard to people who require a tertiary education in order to do what will continue to be for the foreseeable future relatively low-paid jobs. 
As I said before we also support the capping of fees because the issue is about not just living costs but also the increasing fees that are driving up student loans. 
We have a great concern about student debt because we know that it skews the demographics. There is some interesting work that shows that student loans can be correlated with delayed fertility an issue we are facing increasingly in the world today. We know that student loans impact upon the ability of young people to borrow money to buy their own home. Of course that is exacerbated by the ridiculous property prices that we have seen in this country over the last few years but certainly coming out of tertiary education with a significant debt makes buying a home even more difficult than it would otherwise be. 
We know that the student loan scheme skews people’s study and career choices. I have indicated some ways in which I think that is a very significant issue for our country. It is also a philosophical issue because if we treat education as a private good and say that students should pay for it then the corollary of that is that they will treat education as their personal private good as well. The choices they make will be about maximising the benefit to themselves rather than keeping in mind the broader picture of the benefits to the country or the community. 
We face some very significant challenges in this country at this time. The Prime Minister’s statement of the need for New Zealand to become carbon neutral showed us just one challenge we face in order to overcome the ecological degradation in the world today. If we are to become serious about those kinds of ambitions—and I desperately hope and pray that we do—then we will need educated people who are able to think creatively about the challenges that we face. That does not necessarily mean that we need a lot more accountants and lawyers—no disrespect intended at all to my accountant and lawyer colleagues. We know that we have a real issue arising from a shortage of soil scientists in this country. We have an issue around attracting people into engineering. I talked before about issues connected with the likes of social workers. Those are important issues. 
The Hon Marian Hobbs talked about the shift in tertiary education away from a focus on numbers to a focus on quality and I welcome that. It is very important that we take a strategic approach to tertiary education in a country like New Zealand which is small and has to use its resources strategically. We have to remember that it is important to address not just the issue of the drivers of our tertiary institutions but also the issue of the drivers of student choice. That is where the student loan scheme is so significant. 
The bill does not address that situation at all. It does not really begin to fix the problems with the student loan scheme as a whole at that higher level. But it does do something to mitigate some of the anomalies and to patch up some of the holes—in the words of Bill English—and I think that is useful. So as I say we support this bill. 
Graduates are rightly going overseas on their OE. They are going overseas to work for better pay and conditions than they can get here. I agree with the Hon Brian Donnelly that that is not something for us to be afraid of. Actually there are real benefits for New Zealanders in going overseas. The connections they develop the networks they make and the expertise and experience they develop can be a vital contribution to New Zealand when they return. The crucial thing is that we make sure there are no barriers to them returning—that there are no disincentives for people once they have gone overseas to return and make their contribution to New Zealand. One of the problems with the current student loan scheme is that it does set up very real and expensive barriers to graduates who want to return home. That is why this bill is a welcome addition to the legislation. In part the problem is that the current regime is largely unaffordable for graduates overseas and they often return home to significant debt after both the interest and the penalties that are attached to the loans have been taken into account. 
Green Party members are very pleased with a number of the provisions in this bill—for example the 3-year payment holiday. During that period the repayment amount is set at zero and no penalty for failure to pay will accrue. The interest will still accrue but the penalties will not. That makes a lot of sense because as previous speakers have indicated when people go overseas—for the first period of time at least—they are doing casual work they are moving from place to place they are not really in a position to necessarily make repayments and of course they are enormously difficult to keep track of in any case. So that provision makes a lot of sense. After 3 years the hope I guess is that people will have got into a more steady career and be working overseas in a more long-term fashion. 
We are also pleased that the repayment amount will be calculated as a percentage of the loan rather than being income based. In reality there is no practical way to do an income-based assessment so a simple formula that is easy to understand and easy to apply is sensible both for us here in New Zealand and for those graduates so they can understand what their obligations will be. We are also pleased to see that late penalties where they do apply have been reduced a little and that the current amnesty period for people to notify the Inland Revenue Department that they are overseas has been extended for another year. Of course there are people who go overseas and do not notify the Inland Revenue Department of that because they are attempting to evade their obligations. But is seems to me that when people who have just graduated go overseas the last thing on their mind is telling the Inland Revenue Department where they are going. They are thinking about what they are going to be doing making their plans writing to their friends or doing whatever else is needed. It is quite obvious that many people fail to contact the department so I think that provision is important. 
In the brief remaining time that I have left for this speech I will also touch on the ability to grant an interest-free loan to borrowers who are studying full-time overseas at an undergraduate level. I think that is a useful thing as well. 
Brian Donnelly talked about fairness and about how some people who have paid all of their obligations think the provisions are unfair. He made the analogy that if the student loan scheme was fair at the beginning it was fair at the end. I take that slightly differently. I do not see the student loan scheme as ever having been fair; I see it as a case of intergenerational theft. Nevertheless that is not an argument for perpetuating an unfairness or an injustice. The bill does not solve the inherent injustice or foolishness of the student loan scheme but the Green Party supports the bill because it makes the process slightly easier for graduates. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker tena tatou katoa. On 31 July this year the working-group on indigenous peoples in Geneva invited Aotearoa to share its views on Maori student debt. Nominated to represent Aotearoa was Potaua Biasiny-Tule of Tuhoe Ngati Pikaio Te Whanau-a-Apanui and Niuean descent. Potaua is a student of the world from anyone’s account. He graduated with a cooking diploma at Wairakei Polytechnic a Bachelor of Arts in political science from Canterbury a postgraduate diploma in Maori and Pacific development from Waikato University and is currently looking towards studying for a masters degree in public policy and administration at Victoria University. Potaua has assisted with research related to sustainable biotechnology and Pacific Island communities and in 1994 was invited to attend the Gallipoli reforestation project in Turkey. 
As the eldest son of eight children Potaua was born in Opotiki in a family that he describes as working class. He was raised in Ford Block Rotorua and nurtured to have big ambitions. It was a dream of his family to benefit from university education and Potaua now shares those same aspirations with his wife Nikolasa that their young son Atutahi may attend a good university a whare wananga and is able to live the life he dreams of. 
Potaua has travelled extensively but not this time to Geneva. For Potaua is saddled with a personal student debt of $75000. He is another statistic faced with the costs of user-pays—the loans incurred from a wish to enter the halls of higher learning. Potaua is one of almost 70000 Maori students who are faced with a cumulative student loan debt which is estimated at $1.225 billion out of a total student loan debt of $9 billion. 
That is the rude context—the reality—with which the Maori Party is able to receive the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2). The key focus of this bill is to remove barriers to student loan scheme borrowers who are living overseas but seek to return home. The bill aims to promote fairness in introducing a 3-year repayment holiday that takes account of the graduate student trend to go on OE. When the 3 years are up students will be able to take up a fairer progressive repayment scheme to support them in meeting their financial responsibilities. 
The student loan scheme is of particular concern to the Maori Party. Maori make up 21 percent of all borrowers who have had to rely on student loans to support their academic aspirations. The cost of repayments are however crippling. In 2000 nearly two-thirds of Maori and Pasifika students had not reduced their debt at all 3 years after study. This compares with 41 percent and 47 percent for European and Asian groups respectively. 
The reasons for this are complex. One key factor reported by the Ministry of Education last year is low income particularly income around the student loan repayment threshold. As the ministry states: “The average income for Maori with level 1-3 certificates is notably lower than for non-Maori with the same level of qualifications.” Does this sound like one law for all or one income level for all? How can one group of graduates be rewarded with an income that is “notably lower” than other students? Is this fairness? Is this equity? 
It gets even worse. The ministry states: “Maori who did not complete have notably lower incomes than non-Maori who studied at the same level without completing. This may in part explain the lower rates of progress in debt repayment for Maori who did not complete diplomas or bachelors degrees.” 
 The conclusions as explicit in the briefing from the Ministry of Education are that whether Maori complete qualifications or do not complete a particular course or study is irrelevant. Maori will still be rewarded with notably lower incomes than non-Maori. The Maori Party therefore comes to the 2006 annual report of the student loan scheme published just last month with a natural curiosity about whether issues of systemic bias or in this instance institutional racism are being tackled by the bureaucracy. 
It looked fine from a quick read of the principles for student support: to ensure equity and fairness; to ensure tertiary education is affordable for students; to ensure consistency with the wider income support system. Yes we thought we could all sign up to that. But hello! Institutional racism was absent from the report. The crisis of Maori earning notably lower incomes than non-Maori must be addressed and it must be addressed now. For what we also know is that Maori students are leaving study with some fairly hefty debts to repay. It does not seem to matter which profession; the student debts are really massive. 
A survey of 841 respondents working as early childhood or primary school teachers found that 70 percent of teachers reported stress because of their student loan and that 48 percent of teacher graduates who leave our shores cite their student loan debt as their main reason why.  
Teachers in Debt: A Report Card 
 stated that the average student loan debt was $19089 for Maori compared with $16035 overall. 
Then there are the medical graduates. Was it not just last week that headlines announced that the pandemic of diabetes was threatening the life chances of Maori? And was it not just yesterday that the Minister of Education agreed in question time in the House that “by Maori of Maori for Maori” is a worthwhile goal although he added some other comments? Yet “by Maori doctors of Maori medicine and for Maori communities” is clearly not something that this Government is investing in. 
It is around this time when the questioning gets uncomfortable that Ministers start saying that the issues are complex. What is so complex about prejudice covered up by words like “fair in the circumstances” which is code for “We are going to continue to deny you justice.”? What is so complex about that? What is so complex about politicians who espouse property rights and then collude in denying Maori in their rights to property rights? What is so complex about a Government that having seen how popular playing the race card can be then goes back on funding “by Maori of Maori for Maori” programmes and in terms of this debate removes the manaaki tauira funding programme for Maori students? That is not complex. That is simple political opportunism of the worst kind. 
The study of the effect of student debt on doctors entitled  
Doctors and Debt 
 recorded that the average debt for Maori graduates was $81250 compared with $68682 for Pakeha and $48180 for Asians. Over $80000 to pay off before one can even walk in the doors of a health clinic! I do not think so. 
The levels of student debt are a blight on this nation. Seven years ago in November 1999 the Prime Minister told the nation: “Tertiary fee rises are crippling our future. Labour is committed to first stabilising and then lowering tertiary fees.” Yet the average fees per student are now grossing $5000 a year. In the New Zealand University Students Association’s 2004 publication  
A Mortgage on the Future 
 it described the concept of free education as being a possibility. Most students in the Czech Republic Germany Norway Sweden Denmark Brazil Poland and Romania pay no fees. Indeed in Finland free education is a constitutionally protected right. The Maori Party wants to take part in a vision where Aotearoa is included in the list of nations where “Everyone has the right to education.” can be interpreted in such a way that there are zero fees that students will not be saddled with outrageous levels of student debts and that debt repayment is achievable because the levels of incomes upon graduation are sufficiently high to do so. 
We will of course support this bill because we believe that any incentive to prevent the brain drain of students leaving for overseas must be supported. But we remain on guard to ensure that the wider context of increasing fees and lack of access to student allowances is also given priority in this Parliament so everyone can truly enjoy the right to education. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Education and Science Committee 
referred to Education and Science Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 February 2007 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Energy Safety Review Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 15 November. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Energy Safety Review Bill. This is a significant bill and it has been a very useful introduction for me during my first term of Parliament to the process of select committees. The bill seeks in its purpose to assure the public that electrical workers are competent to undertake the work of electricians and that electricity and gas supply systems do not put the public at significant risk. This is a bill that affects every single household in New Zealand and every single householder. 
I guess in talking about risk it is worth reflecting on personal experience. During my career with the dairy industry we moved around New Zealand a little bit as I was posted from place to place. When we bought a property it was usually a lower-priced property and we always had the wiring checked and every single time we had to have the place rewired. In one of the houses in particular a previous owner had done the wiring himself and the electrician we engaged described the load factors. It was an absolute horror story of what could have happened if we had used more appliances than the system would have coped with. We could easily have had a fire in the roof. It is a very significant aspect of energy safety that houses and industrial sites are properly wired. 
The bill as introduced contained parts relating to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Regulations. It is significant to mention that because the Commerce Committee had to divide those parts from the bill to give proper effect to the concentration required for the various skills. It was a substantial work and I think the select committee demonstrated a real commitment to having legislation that worked. I along with my colleagues from National was a little surprised to find considerable acrimony being expressed by groups of submitters towards the changes imposed by the bill. It was almost as if the very people who were supposed to benefit from the legislation viewed it antagonistically. So we listened carefully to them. 
We then found that it was almost as if the Hon Harry Duynhoven the Minister responsible was expecting the select committee to do his work for him. There seemed to have been no consultation with the industry in putting the bill together—none at all. There had been no consultation with the tradespeople—master plumbers gasfitters or drainlayers. Electricians were equally upset. It seems as if the Minister simply sat around the table with his officials and drafted up what they considered to be an appropriate bill without reference to the people who would be carrying out the work. It is a bill that is full of compliance issues for the tradespeople. He brought it to Parliament where he then expected the select committee to accept what had been dished up. 
I will always recall the groups of sincere and extremely concerned master tradesmen who came before the committee. Their concerns extended well beyond their personal interest. They had their industries and their trades at heart. I will always remember the phone calls that I had from people back on the West Coast who were equally concerned about the bill as it affected their trades. I shall never forget meeting a plumber who with some considerable pride explained that he was a fourth-generation master plumber and was deeply hurt by the aspects of the bill that would take away that creditable reputation and tradition that his family had pursued. 
The initial bill sought to remove the registration of plumbers electricians and other trades. and I never quite understood why but the Government sought to do that. National strongly argued the importance of keeping those registrations so parts of the bill were changed. It was a major win for all the relevant tradesmen. It is very easy sitting in the isolation of Parliament especially in the pleasurable surroundings of a select committee to forget the reality of the world outside. Plumbers have extended our quality of life considerably more than the medical services have. If we did not have good plumbing and if we did not have safe electricity that would certainly be a major blow to the quality of life. 
Turning back to the positive aspects of the bill having been a little bit critical of the way it was presented to the select committee I can honestly say looking across at my colleagues who were part of the whole team that there was a genuine desire on everybody’s part to come up with the best possible result. So we worked hard for that. The purpose of the bill was to assure the public that electrical workers are competent to undertake the work that electricity and gas supply systems do not put the public at significant risk. 
The bill improves procedures for addressing complaints against workers and enhances enforcement provisions. This is particularly important. When we reflect on the goodness knows how many millions of dollars of problems that have been the result of the kinds of issues that have led to the leaky building debacle in the building sector we certainly would not want regulations that allowed that kind of thing to happen in the electricity and gas sector. So there are improved procedures for addressing complaints against people and the enforcement provisions are enhanced. 
The bill broadens obligations to notify authorities of accidents caused by or involving or affecting electricity or its generation conversion transformation conveyance or use. It was interesting to note during the discussion on the bill the various considerations that had to be taken into account. I well remember one of the gasfitters explaining that a gas fitting was not necessarily a gas fitting until such time as it was connected. In other words the people who came before us had some concerns that the gas fittings or articles that were going to be powered by gas could be installed by people who were not qualified only then to be connected having been installed incorrectly. So we had to make sure that the legislation covered those circumstances beyond just connecting so that installation was covered as well. 
The bill provides for the obligation of electricity-system owners to implement a safety-management system and this is a particularly important aspect. The bill restricts people from doing or assisting with prescribed electrical work unless that person is licensed but it does provide for exemptions from this. It is a significant thing. I understand that with some plumbing work one can work towards installation then have it checked through by a qualified plumber or drainlayer but in relation to electricity the bill restricts people from simply assisting. It allows for different classes of licences and associated licensing standards lasting for up to 2 years. This was a significant part of the bill as far as the tradespeople were concerned. The bill provides for the licensing of employers for up to 5 years to ensure their employees are licensed and supervised. Supervision is a significant aspect of the whole bill and it establishes importantly a register of electrical workers that is publicly available. 
It allows for complaints to be made by any person. People do not have to accept work that is done to an unsatisfactory level and think they have to put up with it. Another aspect that I think that every member of the select committee was impressed by was the care and concern—the sort of overview—that master tradesmen have towards their work. They take their work far more seriously than just being a commercial operation. It is singularly important to plumbers that everything is done right and to electricians that everything is done correctly particularly from a safety point of view. 
National opposed the first reading of the bill due to the insufficient consultation with plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers and the appropriation of standards setting. We objected also to a lack of assessment of additional costs and impact on availability of skilled tradespeople. Finally it has been a pleasure to be associated with this fairly major Energy Safety Review Bill. On behalf of the National team I am confident to say that we are proud of its production we think it will do the job and we are pleased to have stood by the tradespeople involved in it. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the second reading of the Energy Safety Review Bill. Before I begin on the points I wish to cover I need to address some points made by my colleague Chris Auchinvole who has just resumed his seat. He and I were both on the Commerce Committee. I have two points to make. First consultation did occur in the drafting of this legislation. There was substantial consultation on the part of the Minister with the electrical workers’ unions electrical contractors and the Electrical Registration Board. In fact it came as no surprise to anybody. So I need to put on the record that the presumption made by the previous speaker is inaccurate. A great deal of consultation went on beforehand. In fact submitters came to the table and said how long the process had been in train. 
The second point to make in rebuttal is simply that the process of hearing submissions is a fundamental part of the democratic process. If legislation on first drafting is not perfect that should be no surprise. The whole process of hearing submissions hearing responses to them and the work of the select committee in proposing amendments is the stuff of this Parliament. It is the stuff of this House. It is the material purpose for MPs sitting on select committees. So that should come as no surprise either. The fact that submitters recommended changes and at times registered complaints about parts of process is not unusual. It is part of the process; it is part of opening up the legislative process to the public for comment and that is as it should be. 
Having dealt with those matters arising out of the contribution of the previous speaker I wish to get to a couple of key points in this bill. First energy is critical to economic growth as the Minister said in his second reading speech. But it is also critical that energy is delivered to New Zealanders in a way that is safe for people safe for property and safe for the workers who are delivering that energy. As a result this bill amends a number of Acts: the Electricity Act 1992 the Gas Act 1992 the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the Ministry of Energy (Abolition Act) 1989. In the course of amending those Acts it is not just the safety of supply that is important but the safety of the workers is also important in the delivery of energy and in the case of this bill in particular of electricity to consumers throughout New Zealand. 
The process of splitting the original bill into two parts has been touched on by my colleague Chris Auchinvole. I want to comment on that briefly because it was important that the part of the original omnibus bill that related to electrical workers was allowed to proceed without hindrance. It should have been allowed to proceed without interruption to its next stage while certain issues relating to plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers were sorted. There were clearly issues pertaining to the latter sectors that did not pertain to electrical workers and it made no sense to the Commerce Committee to detain the progress of the bits pertaining to electrical workers until the rest could be sorted out. So we awaited the report of Hazel Armstrong which will become the subject of more discussion in this House when the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill is debated in this House shortly. 
The next point that I wish to make is probably the most critical point. It is to do with the registration and licensing regime that the Energy Safety Review Bill proposes. The original bill proposed a licensing-only scheme. It became very clear in the course of submissions that there was an attachment to registration that was readily understood by many of the members of the select committee. So the members of the select committee resolved to revert to a registration and licensing system. 
To make this perfectly clear registration is the “ticket”. Registration is what one gets when one has completed all the requirements to become an electrician. Electricians represented their position to us as strongly as any profession would represent its cause around registration to us: that it is a point of identification for electricians that they are electricians. It is a point of identification for doctors that they are doctors; it is no less the case for electricians. So the retention of registration—that is getting that ticket that says that one is a registered electrician—remains absolutely critical. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Here is Mr Duynhoven’s. 
MARYAN STREET 
: The Minister has his electrician’s ticket and still retains it to this day. That becomes a critical point of identification and we wanted to retain that. There was no useful purpose served in not retaining that point of identification for electricians. 
Licensing however is the ongoing attestation of competence. For example in the electrical field there have been huge advances in technology and they are issues that are way beyond my competence to comment on. But with technological advances comes the expectation that registered practitioners will continue to update their skills in order to provide the confidence to consumers—that is to customers whether they be householders or businesses—that the registered practitioners who are coming to repair modify or install energy to their premises are competent to do so on the basis of current best practice. That is what licensing does. So licensing is an ongoing process that attests to competence. 
I can give another example from the health sector that is comparable to this; it is nurses. People train for 3 years then become registered as nurses. Nurses will say that whatever else they do with their lives and whatever career they embark on being registered as a nurse is of fundamental importance to them. But they also receive an annual practising certificate. The annual practising certificate has to be attested to annually and is a statement about the holder’s competence to practise on an annual basis in the face of technological changes. It is the same for electricians. 
So the Commerce Committee came down in support of registration and licensing which is to do with the security that tradespeople—in this case electricians—have over their identification as tradespeople and the security for customers that the competence of those tradespeople is without question. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to take a very short call on the Energy Safety Review Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. We recognise that it is a very important bill for all New Zealanders as householders in particular are dependent on the safety of electrical wiring in their homes and their electrical appliances. We note with the return of this bill to the House that part of the original bill has been divided off to form another bill. This bill now focuses on the electrical workers as the previous speakers commented on. 
I must say that as a householder I have had dealings with electricians on a number of occasions for many small electrical jobs and all of them have completed an excellent job. I have never ever had any complaints about their work. This is one area that as a member of Parliament I have never had any complaints about from the public. The electricians always test their work prior to leaving the house and they always ensure that the customer is totally satisfied. 
When I did a search of the media coverage relating to this bill there was very little available. I could find only two references which were both from the  
Independent 
. Those references stated that this bill had the potential to cost consumers slightly more as affected industries will have to pass on the costs of licences. However that cost should be offset by the fact that the duration of a licence has been extended from 2 to 5 years. The commentary states: “This change aims to remove perceived disincentives in the form of increased costs for those contemplating becoming electrical workers.” The Commerce Committee has also recommended extending the duration of a provisional licence from 3 to 12 months. Again this will give provisional licence holders time to complete the licensing requirement within the duration of the provisional licence. 
 My late father would have been most interested in this bill as he was a registered electrician. I must say that it was a registration and a licence that he was very proud of and always kept up to date right throughout his life. As children and young people he always taught us to be extremely careful of electricity because it is very rare ever to get a second chance when something goes wrong in this area. 
So New Zealand First members support this bill and we look forward to more input into it at the Committee stage. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou te Whare. The value of the democratic process is in letting the people have a say—hearing the voices of the voiceless and providing an opportunity for their korero to be heard. So it was that at the first reading of the Energy Safety Review Bill we supported the bill going through to the Commerce Committee to enable the democratic process to proceed. 
One by one the submissions to the select committee raised concerns and issues that we have found of great interest in our further deliberations. We noted that the members of the New Zealand Electrical Institute opposed the bill concluding that it was neither practical nor effective for workers as it revamps a regulatory regime that is already sufficient. The Wellington and Southland branches of the New Zealand Electrical Institute considered that the changes are not necessary as any improvements that were needed have been made by regulation over the last 10 years. We also read with interest the views of the Electrical Safety Organisation in supporting the inclusion of section 80 “Testing certification and inspection” in new Part 9 inserted by clause 12. We have considered those issues in our further analysis of the bill and we want to say right from the outset that we believe that public and worker safety is of the utmost importance. Our voting in support of this bill recognises the need for improvements in the electrical safety regime and in the occupational regulation of electricity workers. 
But there are wider issues that we believe should be usefully addressed in the further stages of this bill. Electricity work is a career option. As a starting point we want to ensure that the status and professionalism of electricity workers are guaranteed. The Maori Party believes that in a buoyant economy we should expect more people to benefit from employment opportunities. In the 1980s the ruthless economic restructuring driven through by Labour increased Maori unemployment to record levels. The damage caused in the 1980s has left a lasting impact with the latest household labour force survey showing that the unemployment rate of 8 percent for Maori is still more than twice the national rate of 3.8 percent. 
The Maori Party believes that a responsible Government must target the workforce response in order to meet demand. To that end the fact that electricians are listed in the 16 trade areas described as suffering from acute skill shortages must surely make that occupation a priority. Furthermore in the Department of Labour’s current list of 57 priority occupations for immigration purposes electricians are included as one of the two traditional trades. Our research also tells us that at the 2001 census 651 Maori were working as electricians constituting about 6.5 percent of the total number yet that workforce makes up less than 0.5 percent of the employed Maori population. So there is plenty of scope for Maori to be recruited into this area of acute skill shortage—for tangata whenua to be enticed into taking up a priority occupation before we start looking offshore and making up immigration quotas as we have been doing in this particular trade for the last 26-odd years. 
The Maori Party has raised the issue in this House before of the value of the trade training schemes that used to be an accepted career pathway for many of our rangatahi. In doing research for this bill I came across the  
Auckland Star 
 of 1965. The paper featured the spectacular achievements of a Ngapuhi boy Eric Beazley from Rawene who had gained top marks—96 percent—in the practical section of the electricians registration board examinations. That outstanding achievement had won him a gold medal award from the British cable manufacturers association. Eric had taken up an apprenticeship in 1963 as an electrical trainee at the Auckland Technical Institute under the trade training scheme conducted by the Department of Maori Affairs. It made me think how important those types of schemes have been in creating a desperately needed workforce for this nation. 
This bill is meant to be focused on the needs of that workforce. It includes mechanisms that are meant to ensure the public of worker competence and to encourage us to believe that electricity supply systems will not be put at risk. But when I think about what will really change for electricians electrical service technicians line mechanics inspectors electronic security installers and workers in the other classes of electrical work I am not convinced of that. One of the key issues that came up again and again during the select committee process was that the current registration and licensing system should be retained. We support the recommendation from the select committee that the registration and licensing system that currently operates should be retained. We are influenced by the committee’s advice that the proposed change does not clarify the competency of workers to consumers and that it also undermines the workers’ belief that registration is the apex of their qualifications. 
On that matter the issue of accountability and transparency we were very interested in the submission from the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union where Paul Tolich described how workers do not have faith in allowing companies to self-regulate. He talked also about the risk that the skills shortages that I referred to earlier may mean that employers may use less trained and experienced people thereby placing other workers and the public at risk. The Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union does not support the proposal for the board to issue employer licences whereby employers can hold practising licences believing that this will compromise both workers and the public. The Maori Party absolutely agrees with the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union that it is vital that those employed are highly trained people whom their fellow workers can rely on. We know that it gives workers confidence to know that their colleagues are being properly trained and hold a practising licence rather than the licence being held by the employer. In recognition of the importance of those very concerns the Maori Party will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage of this bill seeking to remove the proposals for companies to self-regulate. 
The Maori Party certainly supports the recommendation from the select committee that the Electrical Workers Licensing Board must be guided by principles of public safety. We also support the commitment to prevent undue costs being passed on to electricians and/or the public. We believe we must do everything possible to uphold public and workers’ safety. The risk of danger being created through enlisting laypersons as electrical workers is too high and we do not support any moves that would threaten safety. But we are equally of the view that increased competency testing is an unnecessary expense for workers. Where there are increased compliance costs for workers and businesses we can be sure that those costs will be passed on at least in part to consumers. 
Finally I say that today my office made contact with the son of Eric Beazley the winner of the gold medal award from the British cable manufacturers association. Eric Beazley Jnr the son confirmed for the information of the House that his father still lives in Rawene and that the story of the gold medal award is frequently told. Through mud through ice and through wind and storm the story of Eric the sparky captivates the excitement of all the whanau from Rawene and beyond there. Members of the whanau light up when talking of Eric and talking about that gold medal award still gives them a charge. The Maori Party also celebrates that success and believes that that commitment and excellence is something for all of us to learn from. We hope that the Energy Safety Review Bill will build on that success. Tena tatou katoa. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 The Energy Safety Review Bill received its first reading in this House on 21 June 2005 prior to the last election. It was of course referred to the Commerce Committee which then in its usual way went out to the New Zealand public and particularly to the trades and professions involved in the original bill and asked for submissions. After the election I found myself the deputy chair of the Commerce Committee and I was therefore introduced to the bill for the first time. 
Being a member of that select committee has been something of an unforgettable experience because when we first started looking at the original bill I had no idea of what a huge wave of submissions we would receive and how negative many of those submitters would be in terms of the way the bill had been drafted. That is oversimplifying things a little bit because we actually had two groups of submitters: we had submissions from electricians and their professional associations and we also had submissions from plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers. 
It was those in the second group who came with their teeth gnashing in rage—and I will deal a lot more with them when we talk about the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill later today. Suffice it to say people came to the select committee from all parts of New Zealand at great personal expense to express their fury that there had been no consultation with them about the contents of Parts 5 to 8 of the original bill dealing with plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers. I will not go into that part of the original bill now because there will be an opportunity when the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill comes to the House hopefully later today to talk about what has happened from thereon in terms of plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers. 
At this stage it is right just to talk about this bill—which was originally Parts 1 to 4 of the Energy Safety Review Bill—as it now stands in relation to safety management systems the regulation of electricians and also the regulation of gas supply systems. 
I think one of the things that also impressed me about the select committee process was actually having electrical workers from various parts of that sector come to talk to us. Some of them brought along slides and photographs and it made us realise again just how dangerous it is to work in the electrical system: how dangerous it is to put in place our transmission wires and our transmission grids and how dangerous it is to repair the electricity wires that come into our homes in the middle of the kind of weather we have had all too frequently in Wellington this year with major gales storms and so forth. 
It is quite sobering for us to realise as we sit at home and flick a switch—which day by day brings power to our lights heating to our homes and power to our computers and to all the other things we take for granted like our television sets—that there are people who devote their professional lives and trade lives to ensuring that we get that kind of service. It is actually very very dangerous work. It is dangerous for men—I do not think too many women go up those great pylons but there might be a few—to repair the damage done to our transmission grid and to the wiring system that goes with it and at the other end of the system for the sparkies who come along to our homes to fix the problems that we have. We all know what a danger electricity is to the human body. I guess most of us have had shocks at various times so we have experienced hands on the danger involved with this profession. So it is right and proper for Parliament to put in place very rigorous safety management systems. 
A similar thing applies to the gas supply system. Again that is something I take for granted. I have a little device that I click on my gas heater at home and on my gas hob for making a cup of tea in the morning. The gas comes on and it is all fine. But we all know also that when gas goes wrong there can be very very serious consequences. I speak as one whose uncle actually died in New York after a gas leakage. He was one of a number of people who were killed in that particular instance and he was buried in New York. 
But here in New Zealand too even since we have been looking at this bill I have had people write to me who have had horrendous personal health problems and tragedies following gas accidents. In one particular case a woman who lives in Waikanae has been battling a whole array of illnesses all arising from one faulty gas-powered hot-water cylinder. Again it just makes us realise that a great deal of danger is associated with both electricity and gas. 
This bill has the intent of making those systems as safe as we can humanly make them. I think the bill as it has now come back to the House is a very very good bill. It legislates for a number of things to happen but it also allows for regulation-making powers through an Order in Council—through the Governor-General—so as to get down to some of the nitty-gritty issues around specific circumstances involving electricity or gas that could not adequately be dealt with within the legislative framework. So this bill is if you like the base of a pyramid of safety around these issues but it is not the whole story and there will be more to come as we go forward. 
As others have mentioned the bill also deals with the way in which electricians become qualified the way they become registered and the way their ongoing competency is licensed. That is all designed to ensure that when these men and women go on to the front line—be it in the middle of a raging storm to fix our power network our power system and our power wires or be it just coming into our homes on a day-by-day basis to ensure that our wiring systems are in order and safe—we will be safe because they are competent fully trained and proficient at the important work they do. 
I am pleased at the changes the Commerce Committee has made. I commend this bill to the House. It has the support of United Future. 
Bill read a second time. 
Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I move  
That the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill be now read a second time 
. In doing so I again thank the chairperson of the Commerce Committee Katherine Rich and the members of the committee especially Maryan Street for the work they have done on considering the bill including hearing and responding to comments received on it. I particularly thank Hazel Armstrong barrister and solicitor for her independent report on the relationships in the plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying industry and all those who made submissions to the Commerce Committee. Their considerable time and careful work has helped to improve this bill. 
The bill will repeal and replace the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 1976. Formerly the bill made up Parts 5 to 8 of the Energy Safety Review Bill as it was introduced but it was separated from that bill at the select committee stage to allow more detailed consideration of a number of issues raised in submissions from the plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying sectors. The bill sits alongside the Energy Safety Review Bill the second reading of which we have just been debating as part of a package to enhance the safe delivery and use of electricity and gas and to deliver good health outcomes arising from plumbing and drainlaying. 
The initial driver for the bill was the review of the occupational regulation of gasfitters alongside the similar review of the regulation of electrical workers under the Energy Safety Review Bill. It was a logical extension to also address the occupational regulation of plumbers and drainlayers as they are covered by the same Act and registration board. Also for the most part gasfitters are also plumbers and often work alongside or in conjunction with electrical workers. Broadly the two bills between them introduce consistent regimes for these sectors based on the registration of workers competency-based licensing updated procedures for addressing complaints against workers and updated enforcement provisions. 
During the select committee process it became evident that the industry was raising a number of issues about how the current regime is working. I particularly thank the committee for taking the extra time to work through these difficult issues with key industry stakeholders and to think about how these might be addressed in this bill and be reflected in the Energy Safety Review Bill. The particular amendments proposed from this process include providing greater clarity about the respective roles of the industry training organisation and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board requiring more accountability from that board and providing greater ministerial control and oversight of the activities of the board. The report prepared by Hazel Armstrong earlier this year at the request of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen Minister for Tertiary Education provided an independent view on the relationships between the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and the Plumbing Gasfitting and Drainlaying Industry Training Organisation. Overall the report makes many recommendations and those relating to the Energy Safety Review Bill were considered by the select committee. 
As with electrical workers the bill retains a dual registration and licensing system that plays a key role in consumer protection. Consumers and their families need assurance that plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying work is performed competently and safely. Registration recognises a practitioner’s initial obtainment of competence. Licences will be issued on the basis of a practitioner safely completing relevant competence programmes. This ensures that the competence of these tradespeople is up to date with any developments in the industry. This arrangement is also supported by the addition of limited certificates for trainees who need to be recognised while training but who have not yet reached full competency. 
The bill improves access to the registers of licensed workers to enable the public to easily recognise a licensed worker. The bill also allows the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to delegate some of its registration and licensing powers to the Electrical Workers Registration Board. For example gasfitters should be more easily able to gain the competence and registration needed to do the particular electrical work needed to install the increasing number of gas appliances that need mains electricity supply or that incorporate electronic controls rather than having to call in another tradesperson. This has to be beneficial for consumers. Many people these days who have gas appliances need an electronically capable person in order to have the servicing done properly. 
This flexibility is accompanied by stronger accountabilities imposed on the board. The board will be required to follow guiding principles set down in the legislation; to consult with stakeholders; to obtain the Minister’s approval for registration classes and notices relating to registration standards terms and conditions; and to report outcomes in an annual report. A particular requirement that directs the board to consider whether it should keep the existing classes of registration has been added to the bill. The board must consult with industry representatives and interested parties in this process. 
There is currently a special exemption for gasfitting in large industrial installations that is based on the recognition of “an approved person in charge”. This arrangement is to be replaced by an exemption that will allow the person in charge of the premises to authorise a person to supervise the work on large gas installations. This recognises the need for competent workers but also recognises that in large plants such as gas-fired power stations the nature of this competency is very different from that required by gasfitters working on consumer and commercial premises. What is required in a home or a business may well be very different from the skills required in a large power station for example. 
The bill also proposes some changes to the appointments to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. There will continue to be two plumbers two gasfitters and two drainlayers appointed with one of each required to hold at least a current practising licence. Also one of the board appointments must have experience in relevant tertiary or vocational education and two must be consumer representatives. These changes ensure that up-to-date industry knowledge is available to the board. 
During the development of this bill the opportunity was taken to make small amendments to the legislation that did not involve major policy changes. For example the definitions of gasfitting and sanitary plumbing have been updated and better reflect modern practices. When we read the current Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act we see that there are some quite archaic terms in it that probably do not reflect modern practice and it was seen to be the time to update some of these things. 
The bill also provides for a review of the operation of this legislation 3 years from the date of its commencement. Following that review a report will be provided to the Minister of building and housing. It will also be presented to the House. 
I am very pleased to support this bill. It will improve the occupational regulation of plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying and the operation of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. Plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers have made an excellent contribution to health outcomes for New Zealand. The improvements that this bill introduces will ensure that such contributions continue. The bill will provide greater assurance of safety to consumers wanting to get gas work undertaken. It will also make it easier for tradespeople to gain competencies that are relevant to their particular tasks. 
It is hoped that these amendments will help attract more people into the plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying industries as these trades are very important to New Zealand’s social and economic well-being. The bill was developed—contrary to what we heard previously—with substantial industry involvement and I again thank the Commerce Committee for its excellent work. There have been some teething problems but hopefully we have ironed most of them out and I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. The amended bill comes back with the unanimous support of the select committee and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand in the House today on the second reading of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill. First I acknowledge that the National Party will now be supporting this bill. We did not support the Energy Safety Review Bill in the first reading because we had some very serious concerns about the drafting of it. It was not so much that it was a dog’s breakfast; I would prefer to say that it was overly ambitious in terms of what was trying to be achieved in one bill. 
I also thank the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Harry Duynhoven for his patience with the Commerce Committee and his desire I think to reach a genuine solution for the industry. Sometimes select committees have seen Ministers who just want to push a bill through come hell or high water without genuine change. But in this instance we saw that there was a genuine desire to make improvements. It was not related to the political process but I think to a desire to do the best for plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers—and in the original bill electrical workers as well. 
What the committee did first was to strip out the electrical side of things and that matter was discussed at the first reading by my colleague Chris Auchinvole. The intention was that the Energy Safety Review Bill deal with just the simpler issues so that they could come back to the House earlier. It is a shame that that was a bit unnecessary because we are having second readings for both bills here today. But the aim was to have the electrical workers part of the original legislation come back to the House a bit earlier. 
So we split the original bill into two bills. The first bill dealt with the issues relating to electrical workers. This Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill has a more compact set of objectives. This area had its own complexity because there were real concerns about the situation in New Zealand for plumbers in particular. It is fair to say that plumbers were not well served by the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. In fact the relationship between the board and the industry training organisation was nothing short of dysfunctional. We did agree with the firing of that board because it was important to have a new broom sweeping clean. We were a bit unsure though as to how Mr Philip Routhan was able to make the jump from the previous board into his new role but as a result of our questioning at the select committee we have been told that that matter is under a separate review. This side of the House will be watching the process of that review very carefully because we are aware that there are concerns about that appointment not just on this side of the House but also among other parties within the House.  
. It seems that the relationship between the new Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and the industry training organisation should be improved as a result of changes that are made here but also as a result of changes made by the select committee as a whole. The members of the select committee felt it was important that it be clear there was more consultation between the board and the industry when it came to things like the designations of classes of workers. There needed to be consultation so that if classes were going to change those involved in the industry had a greater say. 
It was an absolute disgrace that the situation overseen by the previous board saw a 90 percent failure rate of students sitting their plumbing exams. What is most disgraceful is the impact of this on the lives of those young men—and I am sure they are mainly men; I hope there might be a few women plumbers—who are trying to get through their apprenticeships only to sit a mismatched exam that saw only 11 percent or so pass. Our concern in the National Party was the question of what happened to all those young people. Did they reach a certain point in their career where they could go no further? That mismatch between the training and the exam was totally unacceptable. I hope that the changes made here ensure that the system is one that can not only serve our nation as a whole to ensure safety and competence but serve those young people who have a desire to go into these trades where we do really need more people full stop. 
One of the wins for the National Party was the agreement to return from a solely licensing situation to a dual system of licensing and registration. Although officials felt there was some degree of tidiness in moving to a solely licensing regime one major fact was overlooked. Many people in trades see their registration as the pinnacle of their qualifications and the top of their career. One of the things that was not taken into account by those who were pushing for a solely licence-based regime was the amount of self-esteem and positive thoughts that many of those involved with plumbing and electrical work have about their registration. I know that the Minister Harry Duynhoven trained as an electrician and is deeply proud of the fact that he is a registered electrician. People such as the Minister would have been sent into the ether because they would not have an up-to-date licence to be able to practice—albeit that there is a great degree of pride and self-esteem associated with that initial qualification. So I am proud that we have saved that part of things for those tradespeople who came to the select committee and said that this was something that was really important to them and they wanted kept. 
There are also some good changes to the licensing regime itself. In the original Energy Safety Review Bill it was suggested that plumbers would need to renew their licences every 2 years. Two years is a very short space of time and the committee members felt it was important to extend that out to 5 years. We all understand the importance of competence; we all want to know when we hire a plumber and he or she comes into our home that that person is competent. But on the flip side of that we do not want plumbers in the situation where they are continually having to relicense; there are compliance costs and frustration associated with a 2-year-licensing regime. I think that this change is a win also. 
This bill introduces a greater amount of ministerial control. I usually argue strongly against that and in fact in the long term I would like to see self-determination for a lot of our trades. But in this instance where there was poor leadership from the board and we saw the shocking situation of 90 percent of our young people sitting their plumbing exams fail it was demonstrated that self-determination was not an option. In that circumstance we needed the Minister to have greater ability to ensure consistency continuity and a certain standard of service. I am glad that the board is now required to undertake more consultation with the industry on a regular basis. From the National Party’s perspective it is a win to see more people involved in the industry on that board. It is only as a result of those changes that the National Party is now in a position to support this legislation. 
It is a fine example of how the select committee process can work within Parliament. We have now come to a situation where there is agreement from both the major parties. I would like to thank those members on the committee and also in particular Evelyn Cole from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs who as an official worked very thoroughly to assist us through a process of additional consultation. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak with some relief to the second reading of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill. I echo many of the comments of the previous speaker Katherine Rich the chairperson of the Commerce Committee. A number of concerns were held in common across the select committee table. Those concerns were not the prerogative of the National Party only; they were held in common around that table regarding some of the key issues in the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill. 
When I looked at the work of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board—which I did by pulling out the last 10 years of annual reports and looking at what they had done with regard to passing young apprentices and admitting them to registration—I was appalled that the pass rate had become so low in recent years. Katherine Rich mentioned the figure of 11 percent as being the pass rate in recent times. That situation led to all sorts of questions. 
I commend Hazel Armstrong and record the select committee’s thanks to her for the report she wrote investigating what turned out to be a very dysfunctional relationship between the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and the Plumbing Gasfitting and Drainlaying Industry Training Organisation. It was apparent that all was not well and it was quite difficult to get to the bottom of it. I am satisfied that Hazel Armstrong did get to the bottom of it and the work she has done will stand young plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers in good stead in the future. 
This Labour-led Government has put a lot of resources into apprenticeships. We have been very proud of our policy and our achievements in attracting young people into apprenticeships across trades training. We hold that particular policy dear because it is about the future of young people. To come across the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board denying access to these trades and at the end of these apprenticeships denying access to registration for hundreds of young people—mostly to young men but also to some young women—was an absolute travesty. I am very pleased with the results that have come from Hazel Armstrong’s report and with the changes that have been made to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. That was a critical issue. 
I also want to repeat what I said a few minutes ago in relation to the Energy Safety Review Bill for the benefit of anybody who was not there and did not hear it the first time. I reiterate the importance that we attached as a select committee to the dual process of registration and licensing. Registration equals a ticket with which these young people identify—not only young people but older people who are registered tradespeople. Registration is a point of identification for them. But the licensing system is also important for making sure that ongoing competence can be attested to. That point is critical because in the area of plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying there are issues of public health at stake. It is absolutely critical for the maintenance of public health that we have competent and licensed—in an ongoing way—practitioners who are laying drains who are plumbing buildings and who are fitting gas appliances so that the inhabitants of houses public buildings and public spaces are safe. 
So plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying go to the heart of public health provision. Registration and licensing in line with the same provisions that we have just approved for electricians in the second reading of the Energy Safety Review Bill should be applied—and will be applied—through the changes that the select committee has made to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill. 
There were common concerns across the Commerce Committee that the right process should be in place that in this instance there should be a close degree of ministerial scrutiny of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and that there be some substantial changes that allow the access of young people to these trades—and an ongoing career in these trades—to be facilitated. That is what this bill does. 
I add my congratulations to those of Katherine Rich to the officials who worked on this legislation with us. We needed to pick our way through it quite carefully but there was no doubt that the committee was as one over the provisions needed in order to get these young people where they want to be and to provide New Zealand with the skills—the ongoing skills—that it needs in order to have a transformational economy. I commend the second reading of the bill to the House. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Bill read a second time. 
Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 16 in new Part 2 the definition  
Central National Preventive Mechanism 
 and substitute the following definition: 
Central National Preventive Mechanism 
 shall be the Human Rights Commission. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 29; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 16 in new Part 2 the definition  
National Preventive Mechanism  
and substitute the following new definition: 
National Preventive Mechanism 
 means 1 or more of the following: 
(a)The Ombudsman 
(b)The Police Complaints Authority 
(c)The Human Rights Commission 
(d)The Office of the Children’s Commissioner or 
(e)Judge Advocate General. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 29; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit section 26 from new Part 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 29; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit section 32 from new Part 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 2. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 29; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to other Acts 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 The Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill is in two parts. National supports the passage of this legislation and has done so from the outset. It is to be seen that Part 2 deals with amendments to a number of Acts and the particular legislation that I wish to deal with in what I hope will be a series of multiple calls is the Crimes of Torture Act 1989. That is the principal Act to which the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill is of course an amendment. 
The Crimes of Torture Act 1989 has been with us for some time. It is simple legislation that had as its principal purpose the implementation not of the optional protocol but of the substantive Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New Zealand entered an important reservation to that convention and that reservation was in respect of compensation. So the Government of New Zealand in an expressed reservation reserved the right to award compensation to torture victims referred to in article 14 of the convention only at the discretion of the Attorney-General of New Zealand. We now of course are dealing in the amendment bill with the optional protocol and although New Zealand has signed the optional protocol to the convention it has not yet ratified it. We see here a working out of constitutional principle—that international conventions are not incorporated into domestic law in the absence of relevant statutory implementation. 
In these calls I want to deal with an issue that directly arises under Part 2 and has been called the “ticking bomb” and the “licence to torture” because it raises very directly the very troublesome possibility of whether the State has a right to torture. Suppose a bomb has been placed in a crowded building and the State has custody of someone who knows where that bomb is. The bomb is set to go off in say 2 hours. It is impossible to get the people out. What should be done? That issue—the so-called ticking bomb scenario—is a thought experiment that has been used in the debate over whether torture can ever be justified in the war on terrorism. 
It is a scenario that was first painted by a German sociologist called Luhmann who mooted the scenario in the early 1990s. It has been picked up on as a possible justification for torture by no lesser a person than Alan Dershowitz a prominent American defence attorney who surprised some observers by giving limited support to the idea that torture could be justified. We have seen recently that FBI interrogators decided to withdraw from all participation in the interrogations conducted on detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba because some of the techniques being used would preclude any possibility of the detainees being tried in a US court of law. 
It raises hugely difficult philosophical issues which I would suggest are best avoided. Because what happens if the customary methods of torture do not work? Those customary methods probably would be sacking tying someone into painful positions sleep deprivation shaking enclosure in a cupboard where one cannot stretch out and blasting with loud music. If the person does not succumb to those particular methods of torture is it permissible to beat him? And if that does not help is it appropriate to apply electricity to rip out his fingernails or to crush his testicles? If we accept the ticking-bomb scenario as an argument justifying torture then we can find I believe no principle at all to limit the extent and degree of the torture it justifies. That is why it is appropriate that this legislation which National supports be passed. I note in Part 2 that amendments to a range of statutes are required to more perfectly implement the optional protocol. That is all I wish to say. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Following on from Richard Worth’s arguments I think it is important that we have an absolute principle against any endorsement of torture. That principle—that cruel and degrading punishment is simply not allowed—is contained in the optional protocol and in the international convention itself that the protocol was added to. 
The ticking bomb scenario can be given no credence in law in practice or anything else because if we start to justify torture in any sense whatsoever we become as bad as the terrorists or whoever the bad people are whom we are fighting: we have lowered the standard of treatment we have reduced the humanity in the processes of the State and we have become in effect like the people we are claiming to fight. 
In practical terms the ticking bomb scenario falls down because we could always argue the case of the ticking bomb in order to engage in torture then say that oh the bomb was not ticking but we thought it was. We could imagine that scenario particularly in the many countries that this protocol is directed at—countries where there is systematic torture by the State. We need just to read the Amnesty International reports to see that to leave any chink in the international legal armour allows dozens of countries to engage in torture because they say they are dealing with a ticking bomb scenario. It is not the road to follow at all. 
Part 2 amends several Acts including the Ombudsmen Act and the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 and my amendments were directed to adding more clarity. For example rather than leaving it up to the Minister to appoint the national preventive mechanisms in terms of the inspection of New Zealand’s places of detention of all types that process has to be independent of the State. That is contained in the Paris principles. It is clear that if the executive is left with the power to appoint an inspection mechanism in many countries that means there is not proper independent inspection. We have to set a model in the international arena in that regard which is why my amendments said that Parliament should do that. 
My amendment to clause 16 meant that this legislation would list the national preventive mechanisms: the Ombudsmen the Police Complaints Authority the Human Rights Commission the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the Judge Advocate General. They would be specified in legislation and the central national preventive mechanism would be the Human Rights Commission which although it is not in the bill at present everyone says would be the central national preventive mechanism reporting to the subcommittee of the United Nations Committee against Torture. 
People raised practical arguments. They said it would be a pain to change legislatively the national preventive mechanism if for example the Police Complaints Authority evolved into an Independent Police Complaints Authority or something different—and we do have a discussion of an Independent Police Complaints Authority on the Order Paper at the moment. To me it would be easy if there were a change to the Police Complaints Authority just to have a provision like those in Part 2 amending the Crimes of Torture Act so that the nature of the national preventive mechanism designated to cover the police could be changed by a simple amendment in the new legislation. 
I do not think that practically there is any problem with abiding by the idea that Parliament should determine these inspection mechanisms and that the executive should be out of the picture. There is a reporting procedure to the Minister. It is good that the bill states that national preventive mechanism reports must be tabled in Parliament and made public immediately so there is an open reporting procedure. That accords with the international principles for inspection mechanisms. But I am quite disappointed that in spite of all the submissions to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee about these inspection mechanisms having complete independence from the executive Parliament has not gone along with my amendments. It would be very straightforward to do so. Thank you. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to raise just a couple of matters about Part 2 which as both Dr Worth and Mr Locke have said deals with a number of consequential amendments to other legislation. I would be very interested to learn from the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who has a well-deserved reputation for having a deep knowledge of public international law whether he could answer just a couple of questions. But first I want to go through the various provisions in the bill that get to the questions I will ask. 
New section 26 in clause 6 deals with the designation of national preventive mechanisms. In accordance with article 17 of the optional protocol the Minister must not less than 1 year after the optional protocol is ratified by New Zealand designate the number of national preventive mechanisms that the Minister considers necessary. That deals with the part of the optional protocol—I think it is article 17—that places an obligation on New Zealand once ratification has occurred to maintain designate or establish at the latest 1 year after the entry into force of the optional protocol one or several independent national preventive mechanisms for the prevention of torture at the domestic level. 
Then I come to Part 2 because as one can see quite a few consequential amendments are required to other Acts. The amendments are to the Corrections Act the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act and to the Ombudsmen Act 1975 and the Police Complaints Authority Act 1988. Those are the ones that I focus on. 
I would be interested to know if the Minister could take a call just how many national preventive mechanisms once all these changes have been put in place the Government is considering appointing. I would have thought that at the end of the day rather than to have a plethora of national preventive mechanisms it would be much better to have one or two. Indeed I think a case could be made for having one specialist authority. I am interested in that because as so often happens with legislation these days the amendment bill is far longer than the Crimes of Torture Act itself. I can understand why that is. Some care has to be taken when one is establishing the new regime consequent upon our ratification of the protocol with regard to the provision for subcommittees to visit New Zealand and the establishment of national preventive mechanisms. I am interested to know whether the Government has given any thought to the number of mechanisms New Zealand is supposed to need after this bill becomes an Act. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I wanted to speak in the Committee stage of the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill and to thank the previous speakers and the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who worked on the bill. 
As Mr Locke has correctly said the select committee did look at the issues around national preventive mechanisms and as he has already said felt that it was not necessary to name them in the substantive legislation as it was felt that some flexibility was needed in terms of possible changes. The other things that the select committee did were to continue the designation of the Ombudsmen in the health and disabilities services area and to ensure that the reporting mechanisms were described in the bill so that those organisations that report to the House would do so and those that report to the Minister would be included under new section 27 in clause 6. 
So I want to thank those who have been involved with this bill. I thank Mr Locke for his amendments. The committee did consider them and although members conceded that he did make some points they felt it was not necessary to include those in the bill as a whole. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.  
Clauses 1 to 2A 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 We come to the closing stages of debate in the Committee stage of the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill. It is important legislation in the context of the stance that New Zealand takes in the international arena. This legislation amends principal legislation that has been in place since 1989. 
It is a curious feature of this bill in my view that it has two conventions attached to it. In schedule 1 it has the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In schedule 2 it has the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. One would have thought that the principal Act would have the primary convention scheduled to it. That was possibly an oversight because of the constitutional principle that to implement international law there must be a domestic statute. On the face of it the Crimes of Torture Act 1989 makes it clear that it is all about seeking to implement the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 
In another call I have taken in connection with this legislation which National supports I spoke about what is called the ticking time bomb scenario and the work of Alan Dershowitz an American defence attorney and jurist. He has argued that there should be limited support for the idea that torture could be justified. His proposition in very broad terms is that if a State is to sanction torture there should be a regulated procedure through which an interrogator could request what he calls a torture warrant and that requiring a warrant would establish a paper trail of accountability so that torturers and those who authorise torture could be held to account for excesses. Dershowitz’s torture warrants are similar to search warrants and phone tap warrants and would spell out the limits on the techniques that interrogators might use and the extent to which they might abridge a suspect’s rights. Fortunately New Zealand will have no part of such proposals. 
So we see in the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill the completion of the circle with the implementation into domestic law of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. New Zealand of course has signed that optional protocol; it did that on 24 September 2003. The next diplomatic step that needs to be taken is that of ratification. The passage of this legislation will permit that diplomatic step to be taken. When we look at the principal Act which is to be amended we see that there is of course a definition of torture in it. There is also a definition of torture in the principal convention. They are not in exact alignment but I would say that for practical purposes the alignment is sufficient. 
The bill itself did undergo some changes when it was considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and it was recommended that it be passed with a number of amendments which have been identified. The bill does not go as far as the Green member of Parliament Mr Locke would wish. No doubt that is a sadness for him but it is certainly a blessing for the Committee because in his particular proposals there was not seen to be any redeeming merit that would justify the far-reaching and radical changes that he proposed. 
The concept—the structure—of the legislation is simple enough. It contemplates that there be visits by a subcommittee and the setting up of national preventive mechanisms and a central national preventive mechanism. One might think that we would not need such legislation in New Zealand. Assuredly I hope that that is so. We have other offences on our statute book that deal with the type of event here described. But I think what is illustrated in the passage of this legislation is New Zealand’s readiness to play the role of an international citizen and to set a lead for legislation to be implemented in accordance with our international law obligations. National members support the passage of this law. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 2A agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill. I was a member of the Government Administration Committee at the time when it considered this bill and I say there were a number of reasons why this legislation was deemed to be necessary. The most compelling reason for me was the advance I guess one could say in technology—such as modern cellphones with their capacity to record visual images—and the growth in the exploitive use of that technology by some people. It was therefore deemed necessary to modernise the legislation with regard to intimate visual recording. The committee listened to a number of submissions on that. Certainly we took advice from the Chief Censor of Film and Literature on what he deemed to be harmful—and otherwise—to people’s privacy. We listened to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade which has a view on these things and we had various advisers from other ministries. For that reason the National Party is in total support of this action. 
I guess the most compelling thing for me from memory was the fact that people who possess these pieces of modern technology could exploit people on a range of fronts including for financial gain by threatening—or using other types of blackmail—to post intimate scenes on the Internet or to distribute the material in other ways. No one would ever want to have that imposed on himself or herself. Of course most of the surreptitious visual recordings are of persons in intimate circumstances where they would reasonably expect to have a high degree of privacy. The recording could be for example in children’s changing sheds or of various other private circumstances that people might find themselves in. 
The Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is supposedly a Minister who supports the bill. He has a certain view on various MPs’ attire and suchlike which could be described as falling under the ambit of this legislation. I am not sure whether I will participate in any of the debate around that but I am sure that he will take a call and explain some of those visual signs or the intimate visual recordings he has in his possession at this point in time. I challenge him to do so in his supporting speech to the Committee on the bill. 
It was interesting when we were listening to the various submitters to hear the wide range of views on what people think is an intimate recording and what is not and what should be acceptable in a liberal society and what should not. Some put forward the notion that perhaps our laws are old-fashioned or out of date not because of the technology but because society has moved on. Well I could not have disagreed more strongly with that. Some things are right and some things are wrong and I guess there will always be a debate about the boundary between what is right and what is wrong. But in my view this circumstance was black and white even if the images were filmed in colour. There were no grey areas for me. The fact is that it is wrong to film people in a compromised position without their consent and then to use that recording in a way that those people would never have intended had they known they were being filmed and that the film would be distributed. 
So National supports the bill. I do not know that there is a hell of a lot more I can say about the fact that this is good legislation with regard to trying to catch up with those who are causing a problem in this area. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I thank Shane Ardern the chair of the Government Administration Committee. As the previous chair I know that this Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill came out of an inquiry the committee had and that it was a promise of the Minister of Justice at the time Phil Goff to bring in this bill. 
The bill is about people taking dirty pictures in places where they are not supposed to do so and I am really pleased that some people are already implementing this law. Our local swimming pool has signs up to say to beware of people who might be around who might be tempted—especially with all their technology cellphones and stuff—to take what is now called “intimate covert filming”. So the bill is about people taking sneaky pictures in places where they should not. I think it is very good legislation and I thank the select committee for the work it has done on it. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill with amendment and the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.53 p.m.