Volume 658 Week 26 - Wednesday 14 October 2009 
Volume 658 Week 26 - Wednesday 14 October 2009 
[Volume:658;Page:6993] 
Wednesday 14 October 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I notice that the members of the entire Labour caucus appear to have on the front of their boxes a slogan promoting a union. I understand that such slogans should be limited to party identification and that slogans or logos promoting a particular cause are not permitted in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must say that I am not at all happy with what is on display on those desks. I believe that it is not treating the House with the dignity that it deserves and I ask members to remove them before the end of question time. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On previous occasions you have signalled your view about logos being displayed on boxes in the House and in the Business Committee for example it has been discussed and you have asked parties to reflect on it. The parties came back to you Mr Speaker and said that it was not a position that parties agreed with. If you look around the Chamber you will see that in fact the bench mate of the member who raised the point of order has turned his own box so that we can all see he has brought a slogan and a logo to the House as well. Apparently that is in order. The members of the party next to him have done the same thing. The National Party itself started it. It does not do it now but it could easily start doing it again. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard and will be heard in silence. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: That is the position that we reached: it was in order to have representations on House boxes. 
David Garrett 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear further on the matter. I make it very clear to the honourable member that when the Business Committee has discussed this matter in the past it agreed that party logos may be displayed in this House. I have made it very clear to the Business Committee that I do not support that position. I believe that it is demeaning to this Parliament. This is a House of Representatives for New Zealand. I believe that even party logos being displayed in this House is demeaning. But what is displayed on the Labour Party benches today is to me totally unacceptable. I repeat that I want them removed before the end of question time. I will be taking the matter up further with the honourable member to see what will be done about it because I do not consider that to be an acceptable way to treat this Parliament. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When someone is elected as the Speaker of this House that person goes to the Governor-General and asks for three privileges. One of those privileges is free speech. I ask you to reflect on your ruling in respect of the privilege of free speech that we have as members of Parliament. If you are to require people to take certain words off their boxes then you should explain to us how that requirement is consistent with our privilege of free speech as members of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member. When I was educated there was a difference between words displayed like that and speech. The privilege of free speech means that the member is perfectly entitled to speak freely in this Parliament but I make it very clear that signs that demean this Parliament will not be displayed while I am the Speaker. I will not take further time on this matter right now. The Business Committee previously made it very clear that the only signs that could be displayed in this House were the party logos so I expect these signs to be taken down. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the honourable member that I will not be trifled with. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not trifling with you Mr Speaker but I think you have just made clear in your ruling that these signs are to be taken away because you do not like them because you consider them to be demeaning. It is my view that we have to be very very careful when someone takes an opinion that is very different from that of a large group of members of Parliament saying that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is disputing my ruling. He will resume his seat immediately. Other Speakers have ruled in the past that such signs cannot be displayed in this House. I am not departing from what previous Speakers have ruled and that is the end of the matter. I look around these walls and see the names of the battles where people died so that we New Zealanders might enjoy freedom of speech in this House and I will ensure that this House is treated with respect while I am the Speaker. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about the rights of the minorities? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member who has disputed my ruling to stand withdraw and apologise for that right now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I asked the member to withdraw and apologise the Hon— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw as well. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to stop trifling with the Chair and to get to his feet now and withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member. 
Questions to Ministers 
Government Accounts—Cash Deficit 
1. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received about the Government’s financial position? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the Hon Bill English. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Today the Government issued the Government accounts for the year 2008-09 which show that as a combination of the recession and the reckless spending policies of the last Government the cash deficit for this year will exceed $10 billion. 
Amy Adams 
: What impact will the Government’s financial position have on Crown debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government expects that as a result of the recession and the reckless policies of the last Government Crown debt will double by 2013. The New Zealand Government will need to borrow about $40 billion in total over the next 4 years. That means we will need to raise $250 million per week for the next 200 weeks. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree with the International Monetary Fund which said the outgoing Labour Government “put in place sound macroeconomic and regulatory frameworks.” and as a result left New Zealand able “to limit the damage from the global recession and to support recovery as needed.”; and can he therefore confirm that Labour left this Government with near zero net debt and one of the world’s lowest levels of unemployment? What has he done to ruin it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not agree with the IMF or the World Bank because every day this Government has to untangle the regulatory mess that that Labour Government left behind. Every day we have to deal with the reckless spending decisions that that Labour Government made. The pity of it all is that thousands of New Zealanders are losing their jobs for two reasons. One reason is the recession and the other reason is the reckless policies of the last Government. 
Amy Adams 
: What extra costs will this increase in Crown debt impose on the Government? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Starting with your own self! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Labour may think that debt costs nothing but we actually have to pay interest on it. Over the next 4 years the cost for the New Zealand Government of servicing debt will rise from $2.5 billion to around $5 billion. The increase will be more than twice the size of the whole budget for Vote Police. 
Amy Adams 
: What alternative approaches to managing the Government’s finances has the Minister seen? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: One alternative approach to managing the Government’s finances that I have seen was recommendations from the Labour Party that the Government spend $6 billion more than it is already spending. I advise Labour members that if the Government followed their advice and borrowed another $6 billion per year on top of current deficits— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have previously ruled on this matter in two parts: firstly the Minister of Finance has no responsibility for Labour Party policy; and secondly and incidentally Labour has released no such spending pledges. The Minister is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the member’s point of order was fair; the second part was not. He cannot litigate— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It’s true! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker is on his feet. Clearly the Minister can refer in his answer to facts or information from the past that have affected the situation he is dealing with as the Minister of Finance and that is what I understood he was doing in answering that question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I appreciate your clarification Mr Speaker and I concur with it. I only submit further to you that the Minister’s comments were not in respect of past policies of a former Labour Government but were speculation on the future policies of the next Labour Government presumably of 2011 which are yet to be announced. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member. I ask the honourable Minister to carry on with his answer but to be cautious not to speculate on future Labour Party policy. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any number of people have recommended that the Government spend billions of dollars more on a range of policies including widening the benefit system reversing KiwiSaver changes and increasing the size of the Wellington-based bureaucracy. It would be irresponsible for the Government to spend on those things on top of record cash deficits. 
Prime Minister—Statement 
2.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “I certainly would describe my style as open and transparent.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Annette King 
: Were the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance informed on 2 September of the bid by the Maori Television Service for the broadcasting rights to the Rugby World Cup—and Bill English was also given details of Te Puni Kokiri funding—and were any concerns raised with Pita Sharples and Maori Television at that time? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot speak for the Minister of Finance; the member would be better to direct the question to him. In my case on 2 September a letter was sent by Georgina te Heuheu to my office. I do not know when it was received and I cannot be sure when I read it but it was sometime in the weeks after that. The letter was just an indication that Maori Television may put in a bid. There were no indications that it would use Te Puni Kokiri money or other details.  
Hon Annette King 
: Why did the Prime Minister say last week that there was no drama about Maori Television’s bid and that he believed that Maori Television could fulfil its obligation to provide 100 percent coverage of the games when behind the scenes a counter bid was being worked on contrary to an agreement that had been reached with Dr Sharples on 28 September? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it is correct that Maori Television could actually broadcast the Rugby World Cup. In fact it may well be leading the bid for the free-to-air broadcasting rights to the Rugby World Cup and a deal may well be struck between Maori Television Television One and TV3. I can tell the member that the three parties are sitting down in Auckland right at the moment negotiating just that deal. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that on 24 September copies of the Maori Television bid were delivered to Bill English and Gerry Brownlee and on 28 September to Murray McCully; and was it Murray McCully who shared the information with Television New Zealand as Derek Fox has said today? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I cannot confirm that. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister also support an open and transparent style in other countries such as China where political dissenters are jailed after sham trials as was Ms Rebiya Kadeer whom we are privileged to have in the gallery today? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure how that question relates to the primary question which related to the Prime Minister’s style being open and transparent. And the Prime Minister has no responsibility for matters in China whatsoever. I do not want to cut the member’s question so I ask him to reword it to bring it within the Standing Orders. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister’s style reflect what he would favour as an international style of openness and transparency; and would he argue that that style should be adopted by countries like China which jail political dissenters after sham trials— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has to comply with the Standing Orders during question time. He will have the opportunity in the general debate that is coming up to make any points he wishes but he cannot inject statements like that into a question. I have given him the chance to bring his question within the Standing Orders; I am afraid I now have to move on. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your initial ruling on my colleague’s question was that it did not relate to the primary question. The entirety of his question was put including the last part which you have now raised some concerns about. However that was not what you raised a concern about earlier; it was simply whether the question related to the primary question. My colleague rephrased his question as you had asked so that it was within the primary question’s parameters and now you have come back to say that the question had an additional problem—a problem that you did not raise earlier. I question whether that is fair in the circumstances. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem is that when the member modified his question it still did not come within the Standing Orders because he inserted into it a statement. If the member checks the Standing Orders 
  
she will find that what I have said is exactly right—members should not do that. On this occasion it was quite clear what the member was trying to do and I ruled it out of order. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is mana-enhancing for the Maori Party to have him reassure Dr Sharples there was no drama with the Maori Television bid while his Ministers and he had been working against that very bid; and could that be the reason Dr Sharples believes that treachery insider trading and a biased process have been used to undermine Maori Television’s bid and is gutted by the duplicity? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think it is important to acknowledge that the process has been less than perfect and all Ministers need to reflect on that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is the Prime Minister prepared for a legal challenge by Maori who know that 100 percent coverage can be achieved but insider trading and a biased approach have been used against them; and will he be requiring taxpayers to stump up with money to defend this debacle? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think that is a very unlikely outcome. 
Question time interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Signage in the Chamber—Support for Charities 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to a matter relating to visual aids. While answering that question the Prime Minister was displaying an item that he believes promotes a very worthy cause—and I think every member of the House would agree with him on that. The item on the lapel of his suit makes a statement about a cause that he has a political view on and we support his view. Mr Speaker I ask what your view is on that seeing that you do not support other members’ displaying in the Chamber today an item promoting an equally genuinely held belief. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no interruptions—a point of order has been raised and the House should treat it with dignity. If the honourable member cannot distinguish between the Prime Minister’s wearing a badge that reflects he has made a donation to the breast cancer campaign—and wearing such a badge is something people traditionally do; we often wear daffodils on days we make donations to cancer research in general—and what is on display on the bill boxes on the Labour Party benches today then he must forgive me but I am certainly in a different place from the honourable member. Surely he can distinguish between those. I have ruled on the other matter and I expect those signs to come down. I take the matter very seriously. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Methamphetamine—Funding for Treatment Programme 
3.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why has the Government approved a plan to invest $22 million over 3 years to help treat methamphetamine users? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Methamphetamine is a drug that destroys lives and communities. Every day we read about the pain that this drug causes not only the users but also their families and the innocent victims of their crimes. The Government has announced a comprehensive package of measures to control precursors break supply chains and improve access and routes to treatment. The $22 million being invested from the Ministry of Health is to provide better treatment options for users. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What details can he advise in relation to these better treatment options for users of methamphetamine? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As many members of the House will know from their constituency work the families of P users talk about their frustration in trying to find somewhere to get their loved ones treated and it is very difficult. The resources that the Government is making available under the leadership of the Prime Minister will be used to develop a dedicated treatment pathway for methamphetamine-dependent users which will include provision for 2700 users to have ready access to dedicated social detox beds over a 3-year period and 400 longer-term treatment places will be created for the most seriously affected users over the next 3 years. The Prime Minister has also requested that there be investment in dedicated methamphetamine capacity for the Alcohol Drug Helpline including new full-time clinical staff. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Minister confirm in terms of priority for the health care and well-being of New Zealanders that last year fewer than 10 people died from methamphetamine abuse 1000 died from alcohol abuse and 5000 people died from smoking? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can confirm to the member that the Government is making a significant investment in those areas that he identified but I think it is quite clear that the scourge that methamphetamine represents for our communities and families certainly warrants additional commitment particularly in the areas of providing a treatment option for those families. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Why will Kiwis suffering from flu symptoms now have to pay $60 to go to see their doctor and get the medication they need when the Government has already been offered a free electronic monitoring system that would have exposed the criminals while still maintaining pharmacy supply for bona fide customers? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Eighty percent of the cold and flu pills purchased in New Zealand today do not contain pseudoephedrine so most New Zealanders who are using cold and flu tablets are using those without pseudoephedrine; 20 percent are. I am very disappointed that Labour is so opposed to trying to deal with something that represents a huge scourge in so many of our communities including those represented by the member opposite. 
Hon John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that far from being free the computer-based model firstly does not work because most pharmacies in New Zealand do not have broadband; secondly it requires extremely intensive monitoring by police of every transaction; and thirdly rather than being successful it has been found to be ineffective in Australia where it has been trialled? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would be able to confirm that because the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that that is the case. I can also tell the member that my feedback from around the country is that New Zealanders consider methamphetamine P to be a scourge that warrants a coordinated attack by the Government. If any of those members opposite had ever spoken to parents of kids affected by methamphetamine they would be changing their minds. When we talk to a grandfather who had to pin his 19-year-old grandson to the ground to stop him from going out and buying his drugs then we know the heartfelt commitment that New Zealanders feel towards the policy that this Prime Minister has announced. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How are methamphetamine users treated now and what will change? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As any constituency member will tell us there is a real frustration felt by families regarding their inability to get treatment for their kids who might be P users. It is estimated that of the up to 2000 people seeking help for methamphetamine addiction each year only 1000 of them get the treatment they need. The new dedicated methamphetamine treatment pathway will provide short-term detoxification options whereby users will come off the drug and then be assessed for further treatment which will include the option of longer-term residential care. Additionally there will be a greater focus by district health boards on reducing the waiting list for community-based treatment. Treatment is well established in international studies as being cost-effective—in terms of both the personal and the wider social benefits and the reduction in crime in our communities. 
Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
4.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister for the Rugby World Cup 
: What discussions if any has he had with Rugby World Cup Ltd on broadcasting rights for the Rugby World Cup 2011 and what consultation has he undertaken on that issue? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister for the Rugby World Cup) 
: 
 As the member would know Rugby World Cup Ltd regards the broadcast rights for the Rugby World Cup as a matter between itself and the broadcasters that have bid for those rights. Accordingly any discussions regarding broadcasting rights have related to the process and timetable for those rights being resolved. I have had a number of discussions with Ministers and officials including attending a meeting convened by the Hon Mr English. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is he responsible for the overall coordination of Government matters to do with the Rugby World Cup; if so is he proud of his work in relation to this coordination? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I hold overall responsibility for the coordination of the Rugby World Cup. My position on the broadcasting rights is very simple: I want to see the widest possible access free to air for New Zealanders to see the games that they are at the present time substantially investing in. To the extent that Maori Television Service will contribute to that process in an economical fashion I welcome it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did the Minister confirm to Television New Zealand the financial detail of the Maori Television Service right bid? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: That assertion is simply not accurate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is he aware that his behaviour in relation to the chief executive of Te Puni Kokiri is to be raised with the Prime Minister by the State Services Commission? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: The meeting that I think the member is referring to occurred in the office of the Hon Mr English and several other Ministers were present. The member himself put out a press release on 2 October in which he raised a number of questions regarding the process for the Maori Television Service bid and cautioned against a bidding war in which the International Rugby Board would be the only winner. I substantially agree with the questions that the member raised in that press release and he will find that I put those questions firmly to Mr Comer only a few days prior to the member putting out that press release. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member’s question referred to a meeting and the possibility that as a result of that meeting the State Services Commission may be approaching the Prime Minister in respect of the Minister’s behaviour. That aspect of the question was not even remotely addressed. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I would be very happy to supplement my answer if you wish me to do so Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister does not have to do that because he answered the other part of the question but if he wishes to help the House that is to be commended. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am not aware of any complaint from Mr Comer in relation to the meeting but as it was chaired by the Hon Mr English and attended by two other Ministers I am more than comfortable that they will be able to verify that the questioning of Mr Comer and other officials that I undertook was vigorous and professional. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister’s description of the Maori Television Service as “a millstone around … the neck of … Government.” justify his approach outside the House which has been described as involving deceit? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I suspect that the member is quoting from a very old article that relates to a time when he was a Minister and I was not. My position has been very clear from the beginning: I and the Prime Minister want to see that the New Zealanders who have invested some hundreds of millions of dollars in the Rugby World Cup preparations are able to see the games of the tournament free to air in the easiest possible fashion and without significant additional cost. To the extent that the Maori Television Service wants to contribute to that process I welcome it now and I always have. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker kia ora tatau. Kua mohio ranei a ia ma te whakapaohotanga o te Taumahekeheke o te Ao i Peihinga i te tau 2008 me te takariri o te tokomaha ki Te Reo Tataki o Aotearoa mo te he o nga korero mo te koretake o etahi patai mo nga raruraru hangarau hoki ka mutu e kore pea enei raruraru e aki i a ia ki te tautoko ko ta Whakaata Maori tono ki te paho i te Kapu o te Ao hei whai haere i tana mihi nui i tenei rangi tonu mo nga mahi papai e hia ke nei a Whakaata Ratonga Maori? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings Mr Speaker and to us. Is he aware that during the coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympics Television New Zealand was accused of having left many viewers fuming because of mucked-up commentary some dumb questions and technical glitches; and would that not perhaps influence him to support the Maori Television Service in its bid to screen the Rugby World Cup particularly acknowledging his statement earlier today that the Maori Television Service has done a good job of much of its sporting coverage? 
] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am reluctant to accept the opportunity to dwell on the shortcomings of other broadcasters in this respect but I reiterate the response I gave earlier. New Zealand taxpayers have invested some hundreds of millions of dollars in preparations for the Rugby World Cup. Taxpayers deserve as the Prime Minister has stated in recent days the opportunity to see the games in that tournament in the easiest possible fashion and without significant additional cost. To the extent that the Maori Television Service will form part of that process—and that negotiation process is ongoing—I welcome it. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kei hea nga purongo kua whakatakotoria ki mua i tona aroaro e ki ana ko Whakaata Maori anake te teihana e kore e ahei ki te whakapaoho ki te motu katoa a ka whakaputaina ranei e ia te korero pono ara kaore e taea e tetahi teihana te whakapaho ki te motu whanui? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Where are the reports presented to him verifying that the Maori Television Service is the only television broadcaster that does not have universal coverage or when will he tell the truth and acknowledge that there is no television coverage that gets to all parts of the country? 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am very reluctant to defend Mr McCully against the obvious but the statement that the Minister does not tell the truth—the fact that he does not tell the truth—cannot be put that way in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have got myself into trouble here. I just invite the Minister to handle that question in the way he sees fit. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I again reiterate that New Zealand taxpayers have invested some hundreds of millions of dollars in preparations for the Rugby World Cup 2011. The Government believes that they deserve the opportunity to have access to those games without significant additional cost. To the extent that the Maori Television Service can contribute to that process I welcome it. I do not intend to enter the debate that others can have about what coverage can be provided by what channel. The International Rugby Board has a process which is ongoing for the resolution of the various bids that are on the table. I am comfortable with leaving that matter in its hands and with the issues amongst the various broadcasters to be dealt with through a different process. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He take whakatau e Te Mana Whakawa. Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ki taku mohio kaore tera whakautu i whakautu i taku patai ka mutu ae he pai tonu te korero engari ko taku patai hei whaiwhai haere ko tana i whakatakoto mai ai he ngoikore te paoho a Whakaata Maori ki era atu teihana. Ko taku inoi ki a koe mana tenei e whakautua. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Mr Speaker. To my knowledge that response did not answer my question; further to that yes his grandstanding was eloquent but my question for him to follow up related to the statement he made that coverage by Maori Television compared with that of other broadcasters was weaker. My plea to you is that he should be made to answer it. 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe in fairness that the question was a bit marginal in any case and I think it would be unreasonable for me to try to force the Minister to give a different kind of answer. 
Accident Compensation—Changes 
5.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What changes is the Government making to ACC to make it more affordable sustainable and fair? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Today I have announced a package of legislative regulatory and operational changes to accident compensation to secure its long-term future for New Zealanders. The board of the Accident Compensation Corporation has advised that levy increases of over 50 percent would be required under the current law. The changes I have announced today will more than halve those increases. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Why is it that the Government’s legislative changes will not reduce the increased levies on wage and salary earners by much? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Pushing out the full-funding date makes a big difference to the motor vehicle account and the employers’ account which have large residual claims. It is not a significant problem for the earners account where it will save only a few cents on the levy per $100 of earnings. To illustrate this point the average worker would pay an extra $500 without any change. Deferral reduces this by only about 40 bucks. That is why the Government needs to make broader real savings in accident compensation to get levies back to a manageable level. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Government intending to lower the upper limit on weekly compensation; if so by how much when and in what circumstances? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The principle of the accident compensation scheme going back to the Woodhouse report is for it to provide 80 percent of a person’s average earnings in the event that he or she is incapacitated and unable to work. Some changes that were made by the previous Government took the scheme well above that principle. The changes that we are proposing restore the Woodhouse principles where employees would get 80 percent and not those higher sums. We will not reduce the entitlements of any existing accident victims but people coming on to the scheme in the future will face that lower rate. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Can the Minister confirm that pushing out the full funding date does not actually save money but simply changes when we pay and can he tell the House what savings the Government is attempting to achieve from the changes? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is quite correct that pushing out the full funding date simply spreads the historical residual costs over a longer period. I also note that it adds to the Crown’s net debt in the intervening years. In terms of the broader package of reforms around entitlements regulations and the operational changes the package that we have announced today is aimed at saving $2 billion in terms of the accident compensation scheme’s future liabilities. 
Hon David Parker 
: How does the Minister reconcile John Judge’s assertion on Friday that he will reduce the scheme’s administration costs with the information in the latest annual report showing that those administration costs jumped by 8 percent in the last year and were $29 million over budget? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would point out that the biggest increase to the salaries of senior staff noted in the annual report was during Labour’s period in Government. A freeze was put on the salaries of senior staff members as soon as this Government came into office. The further point I would make to the member opposite is that it is a bit rich to raise a point about the staffing costs at ACC on the same day that members of the House are demanding we pay more to Public Service staff like those working for the ACC. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does the Minister agree with the National Party policy document of 2008 that stated: “In the brief time that these accounts were open to competition before the Labour Government abolished the concept in 2000 there was a substantial reduction in levies for most employers and self-employed and greater attention to workplace safety and rehabilitation.”; if so why will he not introduce that policy now? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: National campaigned in 2008 on a policy that stated that we would have an investigation into the option of competition in the work account. I have made it plain that the work account is in fact the one that is in the least difficulty. It is the non-earners account the earners account and the motor vehicle account that are in the greatest difficulty. That is why that policy is not a priority and why other reforms have been given the greatest Government attention. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why does the Minister think that partially privatising the scheme through farming out long-term claimants to third-party administrators will save money or provide better rehabilitation outcomes when 2008 evidence from Research New Zealand shows that the opposite happens with claimants under that system going back on to accident compensation more frequently because they have been forced out of the system too early? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point I would make to the member is that if the current system is working then I ask why there has been such a poor performance in rehabilitation which has declined over the last 5 years and such a huge increase in the income compensation portion of the scheme. The decision by the board to contract in third parties for dealing with long-term accident compensation recipients who are capable of going back to work is in my view a smart initiative and it is one of the things that we will need to do if we are to more broadly protect New Zealanders from very high levy increases. 
Hon David Parker 
: Can the Minister confirm that the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2009 shows that changes made to the scope of cover by the previous Labour Government in the period since 2004 account for only 4 percent of the increase in the scheme’s liabilities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No that is not correct and let me tell the member why. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s in the report? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No the member is reading only part of it. When the previous Government changed the rules around when somebody could be rehabilitated—say the change from the 30-hour test to the 35-hour test—and changed the rules with regard to taking into account a person’s high income those changes all had an impact on the rehabilitation costs. The member is drawing attention to only part of the changes. I give a further example. The change made around physiotherapy was not a statutory change but it was a very expensive and foolish change made by the previous Government. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: What message has the Minister got for Nelson residents who signed the petition opposing the Labour Government’s renationalisation of the workplace and employers’ account which reverses savings of $1.5 million for Sealord $433000 for Nelson Marlborough Health Services and a 40 percent reduction for Hislop Motors; a petition that was organised and signed by National MP Dr Nick Smith? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A very good member too. If we look at those major employers we see that both Sealord and Nelson Marlborough Health Services are part of the partnership programme so they have the opportunity under that programme to be outside of the main accident compensation scheme. It is all very well to quote what might have been the case but this Government is focused on what is right to do with the scheme now and the package of reforms that we have announced is a responsible response to a pretty difficult challenge. 
Hon David Parker 
: What steps has ACC taken to reduce home-support costs for seriously injured New Zealanders as reported in the  
Dominion Post 
 last week and how does the Minister reconcile the fact that such significant changes had already been undertaken before the public was able to engage in the honest conversation that John Key this week promised we would have before changes were made? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has been very upfront about the fact that an organisation that lost $2.4 billion last year and $4.8 billion this year has to make significant changes. In coming to Government we found many areas in which the previous Government was funding things that it was not allowed to under the law. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Like Bill’s house! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I am not surprised that Mr Mallard cannot focus on the very substantive problems that the previous Labour Government left this Government in respect of the accident compensation scheme without being his normal personal nasty self. 
Finance Minister—Statements 
6.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can he stand by his personal statement that his personal focus is on getting debt under control or by his call for permanent restraint when his colleague Nick Smith has made inept changes to the emissions trading scheme that will increase Crown debt by up to 8 percent of GDP by 2050 amounting to tens of billions of dollars? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The business of the Government is about making balanced decisions that take into account competing objectives. The Government is balancing all the time the need to keep debt down along with other legitimate shorter-term objectives that serve the public interest. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given his call for permanent restraint when will he restrain the Minister of Broadcasting and the Minister of Maori Affairs from spending millions of dollars of additional taxpayer money on outbidding each other; and can he confirm comments from the Minister of Broadcasting yesterday that a special appropriation will be necessary to support the Television New Zealand Rugby World Cup bid? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No that’s scuppered. They’ve given up now; TVNZ has dropped him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it that the member has finished his question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the member is getting a bit ahead of himself. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What recent reports has he seen on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a number of reports that the economy has stopped contracting. It looks as though it has stabilised. But there will continue to be restraint as the member opposite pointed out. Current forecasts include a significant pick-up in growth in the economy but even with that pick-up in growth the Government will be running substantial cash deficits and will need to borrow $250 million per week for the next 4 years. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister of Finance still stand by his advice to the previous Government that there was “room in the surplus to make reducing taxes the normal business of government” and does he agree that the Government’s accounts would now be in a much worse state had the previous Government taken his advice then rather than bequeathing some of the world’s lowest debt best growth and lowest unemployment to the incoming Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. The previous Government had choices with regard to the surpluses and it decided to increase Government spending by 50 percent in the last 5 years when the economy grew by only 25 percent. Now Kiwis are paying the price for that. 
Broadband Roll-out—Rural Initiative 
7.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: How is the Government planning to improve broadband services in rural areas? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I recently announced the Government’s $300 million Rural Broadband Initiative combining direct Government funding with revenue from a proposed new more transparent and effective industry levy than the current telecommunications service obligation levy. Our target is to improve the coverage of fast broadband services so that 97 percent of New Zealand households and enterprises are able to access broadband services of 5 megabytes per second or better and so that 97 percent of New Zealand schools are able to access ultra-fast broadband of 100 megabytes per second. Given New Zealand’s dependence on its rural sectors for economic growth and productivity improvements there are considerable benefits to be obtained by delivering fast broadband right throughout the rural sector. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What will happen to the current telecommunications service levy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Currently Telecom receives approximately $70 million per annum largely to compensate it for supplying local services to rural customers. This money is sourced from the industry by the telecommunications service obligation levy which is paid by market participants including Telecom on a market share basis. However there is concern about the lack of transparency around where this money is spent and what benefit rural customers actually receive. Instead we are proposing a new more transparent and contestable telecommunications development levy which will deliver $300 million over 6 years. It will be contestable and made available on a grants basis primarily to develop rural broadband. Further details regarding the tender process will be released following the consultation process that is currently under way. 
Accident Compensation—Cost of Claims for Year Ended 30 June 2009 
8.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What is the estimated whole-of-life cost to ACC of all new claims made in the financial year ended 30 June 2009? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The annual report of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) tabled last week shows that the current estimate for claim costs for the year ended 30 June 2009 is $7.103 billion. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked what was the whole-of-life cost of claims made last year not what was the current claims liability that year. It is a significantly different answer and that is clear from the question. The point has been made on notice. I think the Minister should be asked to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member. I thought the Minister did answer the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The answer is the advice I have received from ACC. The question was forwarded over to ACC and that is the answer it has provided me with. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister really saying that he thinks the whole-of-life cost of claims made in the year ended 2009 was $7 billion? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The answer that I have provided to the member is absolutely true and that is that the current estimate for claims costs for the year ended 30 June 2009 is $7.103 billion. 
Hon Annette King 
: And he’s in charge of ACC! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The members interject about who might be in charge of ACC. That is not very good coming from that party when the unfunded liabilities have grown by $13 billion— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will resume his seat. The question was perfectly fair. It was examining whether the figure provided by the Minister is accurate. There does not need to be a diatribe against the Opposition on that. It is a perfectly factual question. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Minister concede that if it proves to be the case that the estimated whole-of-life cost to ACC of all new claims made in the financial year ended 30 June 2009 is significantly less than the $7 billion he has just told the House he is not on top of his portfolio? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What I think is not on top of a portfolio is when during the period of the last Government it ran— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Here we go! Answer the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask members opposite how it is that in the last 2 years ACC lost $4.8 billion in the last year and $2.4 billion the previous year. If I were a Labour member I would be ashamed of Labour’s record on accident compensation. Furthermore we should remember that Labour was the only party that breached the Public Finance Act by trying to hide the mess it left in accident compensation. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister seen on not fully funding accident compensation and returning it to a “pay as you go” model? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The problem with “pay as you go” is that the costs of today’s accidents are passed on to future generations. It also changes the financial incentives today to improve safety and makes it easy for politicians to extend the scheme without being upfront with the public about the true costs. I am concerned that the president of the Labour Party is advocating such a change. This contrasts with Labour’s policy in Government when it actually promised to have the scheme fully funded by 2010. I only wish that it had done that because my problems would be a fraction of what they are if it had achieved that. 
Oil Exports—Value in 2008 Calendar Year 
9.  
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What was the value of oil exports in the 2008 calendar year? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am pleased to advise the House that the value of New Zealand’s oil exports in the 2008 calendar year was NZ$2.8 billion. In 2008 oil was New Zealand’s third-highest export earner ranking behind dairy and meat exports only. In the last 12 months the Government has received more than $900 million in petroleum royalties and taxes. These numbers prove that it is worth New Zealand pursuing the full capacity that its offshore basins may contain. 
Jonathan Young 
: What initiatives does the Government have planned to stimulate further oil and gas exploration in New Zealand waters? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government has a number of initiatives planned. I am pleased to inform the House that this coming summer will see the largest exploration activity occurring in New Zealand during any drilling season to date. In fact New Zealand is ranked as one of the top 10 most prospective countries in the world. The Government has a number of initiatives planned to keep up the momentum. The Raukumara and Northland basins are currently open for exploration permits. Applications for those new blocks offers are considerable. Further there will be a new blocks offer in the Reinga basin which will open at the end of this year. Over the summer new seismic data will be collected thanks to the appropriation in Budget 2009 of some $20 million over the next 3 years. And of course the Government is continuing the 183-day tax exemption rules for explorers in New Zealand. 
Rugby World Cup—Broadcasting 
10.  
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: When did the Government decide to offer financial support to a TVNZ-led bid to gain the free-to-air rights for the Rugby World Cup? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: The Government is committed to the concept of a stadium of 4 million people supporting the Rugby World Cup in 2011. Free-to-air broadcasts of matches must therefore have the widest possible coverage. The Government is united in that view. However the specifics of any costs have not yet been determined. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need a point of order. The question on notice asked a very straight question: when did the Government decide to offer financial support to TVNZ? Either the Government has or it has not offered support but the House deserves to hear an answer to the question since it was on notice and it is a straight question. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: And I gave a straight answer. The specifics of any costs have not been determined. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question on notice did not ask what the cost was. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to point out that the Government has not decided to offer financial support but the question asked “When did the Government decide to offer financial support to a TVNZ-led bid to gain the free-to-air rights for the Rugby World Cup?”. It may be that the answer is that the Government has not decided to do that but if it has the question asked about when it decided. It did not ask about how much money is involved. I ask the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point or order Mr Speaker. You are deciding to interpret the question as being one that is correct. I would love to know where the verification that the Government has made such a determination came from in the first place. I decided— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to resume his seat. A perfectly fair answer to the question would be that the Government has not made such a decision. That is a perfectly proper answer but the Minister did not offer the House that answer. It is a perfectly fair and proper question and there is public interest in it. I believe that the House deserves to hear an answer. Forgive me; I am not interpreting the question. “When” is a very simple word. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government has not determined the specifics of any costs that may be required. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again I say the question was one of timing and “when” is a very simple word. I think your office has been supplied with material from the Hon Jonathan Coleman which I am sure people will be finding for us now indicating that the Government had made that decision. All— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to get into debating the substance of the matter. The question simply asked “When did the Government decide to offer financial support?”. It did not ask about the specifics; it asked when a decision was made to offer financial support. It may be that it is not in the public interest to reveal that but the question has been on notice for some hours and I think the House deserves to hear an answer. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have said three times that it has not made that determination. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well no I do not see any room for another point of order. Well— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem I have now is that authentication was given— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member is now disputing the answer that the Minister has given. The Minister has given a very clear answer that such a decision has not been made. There are further supplementary questions to pursue that and that is the proper use of supplementary questions. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is it correct as the  
New Zealand Herald 
 website is reporting this afternoon that the Government has now decided to do another U-turn and leave Maori Television as the lead provider of Rugby World Cup free-to-air coverage? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This Government has not made a U-turn on this issue just as it has not on any other issue. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister say how it was made clear to Maori Television in the week before the bids went in as the Minister claimed yesterday that the Government supported the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) - led bid for Rugby World Cup free-to-air rights? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the member is relying on a series of media reports in order to reach the assertions that were made in that question. I can confirm that all the parties are currently meeting. They are discussing the matter amicably and the stadium of 4 million people will be achieved by this Government. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that neither he nor his office directly—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. There was interjection from the Labour front bench which meant I could not hear his supplementary question. I must hear these supplementary questions and I must say that the interjection was unacceptable too. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that neither he nor his office directly or indirectly passed information to any other broadcasters regarding the size of the Maori Television Service’s bid? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government became aware of the Maori Television Service bid because the figure was in the general discussion around the matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the Minister’s answer to the original question why did Mr English tell Mr Sharples on 8 October and the media on 9 October that the Government was supporting the TVNZ bid? 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect although there is a great deal of interest that question cannot be in order. First of all it started off with a long rambling “In light of”. The Minister of Broadcasting cannot be responsible for what the Minister of Finance may or may not have said. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There is probably hardly any need to speak to that point of order but in his answer the Minister indicated that something did not occur when it is very clearly on the record from Dr Sharples and the media comments from Mr English that it did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as the first part of the Hon Rodney Hide’s point of order goes I do not accept the point he made because all the member asked was along the lines of “In light of an earlier answer” and in my view that is not to be discouraged. To me it is to be encouraged in this House that members listen to answers and ask supplementary questions based on earlier answers. In my view that is a good use of question time so I have no problem with the member saying something like “In light of an earlier answer”. In respect of where the Minister’s ministerial responsibilities may or may not end I leave that up to the Minister to be a better judge of than I am as Speaker. The Hon Trevor Mallard can ask his question again. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In light of the Minister’s final answer to the substantive question why did Mr English tell Dr Sharples on 8 October that the TVNZ bid was going to be financially supported by the Government and why did his office tell the media that on 9 October? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister of Broadcasting has no knowledge of what Mr English may or may not have told other Ministers but I can tell the member that this Government is committed to the notion of a stadium of 4 million people. That requires as wide a spread of free-to-air broadcasting as possible. As the Prime Minister has said today all parties are discussing the matter at the moment. There will be a good result for all New Zealanders. I think we should be very pleased that we have reached this position. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that you are very strict on not allowing people to dispute answers by way of a point of order but I am faced with an enormous problem. In the reply to the substantive question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
:—the Minister said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must resume his seat right now. I cannot allow answers to be disputed by way of point of order. The Minister gave a perfectly fair answer to that. He said speaking on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting today that that Minister has no knowledge about what may have taken place between other Ministers. That seemed to answer the question the member asked. We cannot litigate the quality of an answer by way of a point of order. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The essence of the concern on this side of the House is that we have good reason to believe that the Minister’s answer to the primary question in question 10 was an error. We have— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. No I cannot allow the accuracy of answers to be litigated by way of a point of order. I invite members to think about the answers they have given. They have more opportunities in the future and even further opportunity today to ask further supplementary questions on the matter if they remain concerned about the answers that have been given. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is all getting a bit silly but I can clarify that it is unlikely that Mr English was in a position to make those comments because he was actually out of the country at the time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In response to that I say some members on this side could use phones when they were Ministers—or even emails. I seek leave to table from the Stuff 
website something updated at 0907 hours on 13 October: a statement from Dr Coleman indicating that the Government would put up money to boost the TVNZ bid. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from the Stuff 
website. Is there any objection? There is. 
Brendon Burns 
: Are we to understand from the Minister’s response to the initial question that we are now seeing the Government in an attempt to save its coalition with the Maori Party overturn a comment and statement of only yesterday from the Minister of Broadcasting about a TVNZ-led bid supported by the Government for the Rugby World Cup? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. 
Westpac—Government Deposits and Bank Fees 
11.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much did the Government pay Westpac in bank fees in the last financial year and how much does the Government currently have on deposit with them? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 If the House will bear with me the answer is a slightly longer than usual answer. The Government has a master banking agreement with Westpac under which a range of banking services are provided to individual departments. In addition departments have supplementary agreements with a range of banks for services not covered by the Westpac agreement. Treasury does not centrally collect information from individual Government entities on the fees paid to or deposits held with individual banks. The account balances of all New Zealand dollar Crown and departmental accounts are consolidated at the end of each banking day and the net balance is then moved to the Crown settlement account at the Reserve Bank. So the Government in that sense does not have any deposits with Westpac; they are all held at the Reserve Bank. But the Government does not centrally collect information about bank fees. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is there an obligation on Westpac as the Government’s banker to behave as a good corporate citizen; if so does the Minister believe that Westpac was acting as a good corporate citizen when it structured its affairs to illegally avoid paying over half a billion dollars in taxes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That matter as the member will know is before the courts at the moment and in that context I do not intend to comment on it. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The matter is not currently before the courts. The Minister has refrained from answering on the basis of sub judice. The matter is not before the courts; Judge Harrison has ruled on it. There is no appeal currently before the courts. This matter is not before the courts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to consider his answer in that light. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The time for Westpac to lodge an appeal has not expired. Given the large amounts of money involved—in this case almost a billion dollars—I do not intend to make any comments that might compromise the Crown’s position. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If we are to accept the Minister’s position then we as a Parliament have our freedom of speech restricted during the entire period between a judgment being made and the latest that an appeal can be lodged. It seems to me that there is currently no case before the courts there is no matter of sub judice and we have a right as a Parliament to speak about an issue until an appeal is lodged. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister in his further answer to the question pointed out that he does not consider it to be in the public interest to further answer the particular question that the member asked and I think that only the Minister can be the judge of that. I think the member will accept that there is a lot at stake and that Ministers have to be careful in these matters. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the Minister commit to an exit strategy from his use of Westpac as the Government banker in the light of its conviction in the High Court for tax avoidance—a conviction that means Westpac now owes the taxpayer nearly $1 billion in back taxes and interest payments? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government will honour the terms of its contractual arrangements with Westpac which have been in place now since 1989. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What does the Minister say to hard-working taxpaying New Zealanders who honestly pay their taxes while Westpac the Government’s banker illegally avoids paying half a billion dollars in taxes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I say to those hard-working taxpayers that even the Government’s banker is subject to the highest courts in the land. In this case the Government’s banker along with other banks has been vigorously pursued by the Crown. 
NZ On Air—Dates of Meetings with Minister of Broadcasting 
12.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: On what dates did he meet with NZ On Air between 1 May this year and today? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: 
 The Minister had meetings with the chief executive officer and the chair of NZ On Air on 8 June and 18 August. The Minister was also hosted by NZ On Air at the New Zealand Music Awards on 8 October. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did he discuss at either of those meetings any issues concerning the Rugby World Cup; if so at which meeting was the first of those discussions? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: At the meeting on 8 June the NZ On Air quarterly report and Platinum Television Fund were discussed and on 18 August the Platinum Television Fund was discussed. The occasion on 8 October was primarily a social occasion; it was not a business-orientated meeting for the Government to push ideological agendas. That of course stands in stark contrast to when the previous Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage attended awards shows which were described by— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —top musicians as like a— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and there will be no interjection. The member is sitting right on my right-hand side. He can see when I get to my feet so in future he will not continue; when I am on my feet he will cease answering immediately. The question was a perfectly fair question asking whether a certain matter was discussed at those meetings. It did not deserve a diatribe of attack from the Minister on the questioner or the questioner’s party. I will not tolerate further abuse like that. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why have the public statements of the Minister of Broadcasting in the last 24 hours been repeatedly challenged by the chief executive of the Maori Television Service and by Mr Derek Fox? Might it be because they think that he is not telling the truth? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The primary question was directed to meetings relating to the Minister of Broadcasting and NZ On Air. The supplementary questions should flow from that and should not to quote you be a general diatribe in the form of questions about broadcasting issues. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The long history of this Parliament is that supplementary questions flow from supplementary questions and answers as well as from the primary question. The matter of the Rugby World Cup was certainly a prior supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need further ruling on this. Because I realise the Opposition is running out of questions I invite the member to reword his question to make sure it comes within the basis of the primary question. I will not penalise him; he will not lose a question. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he stand by his statement that an issue concerning his colleague Melissa Lee that he was advised of on 18 or 19 August was a relatively technical accounting matter that they just needed to let him know about? Was that advice in writing? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister is able to confirm that the advice was proffered. He is unable to confirm whether it was in writing or it was oral but he stands by what was said. It was certainly was not misappropriation which is a term the member has been peddling. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What action if any did the Minister take having learnt on 18 August that NZ On Air was investigating his colleague; and how did he manage as he advised  
Morning Report 
 earlier this week to completely forget about it given that $100000 was at stake? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister confirms that this was a routine audit matter that was mentioned to the Minister towards the end of a meeting. Nothing further needed to be done by him because—it may come as a surprise to the Opposition—it was an independent investigation. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an extract from page 6 of Professor Gluckman’s report on P which notes that the Ministry of Health intends to have 95 percent of pharmacies connected to secure broadband by July 2010—something the Prime Minister seems not to have heard of. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table page 6 of a report by Professor Gluckman. Is there any objection to that page 6 being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I seek leave to table page 8 of the same report which notes that based on Australian evidence electronic drug monitoring does indeed reduce pill shopping—again something the Prime Minister seems unaware of. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table page 8 from Professor Gluckman’s report. Is there any objection to page 8 being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Points of Order 
Signage in the Chamber—Labour Party 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You ruled earlier in question time that any offensive material should be removed by the end of question time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a perfectly good point. I would ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am not touching someone else’s— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the Labour whip please to remove that. I ask him to do it right away please. [ 
Interruption 
] This is a point of order and will be heard in silence. The Speaker ruled that those will be removed by the end of question time. I allowed members—[ 
Interruption 
] There will be no noise while a point of order is being considered. [ 
Interruption 
] I will choose to ignore that. 
General Debate 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I stand today because to paraphrase the words of Hamlet something is rotten in the overseas banks in our country. We have now had some very serious cases of tax avoidance in New Zealand. Two of the largest banks in New Zealand have been convicted of massive tax-avoidance on a scale that is seldom seen in our country. These are giant tax-avoidance cases which the High Court of New Zealand has ruled on. 
The most recent case involves no less than the Government’s banker Westpac. According to the High Court of New Zealand Westpac now owes nearly $1 billion in taxes and interest payments to the people of our country. It has been found that Westpac avoided tax of over half a billion dollars. When we take into account interest payments on top of that we see that Westpac owes nearly $1 billion. In the words of Justice Harrison who was the High Court judge in this case: “I have rejected Westpac’s primary arguments on all contested issues.” Justice Harrison ruled that the four transactions in dispute were created solely for the purpose of tax avoidance. 
It is extraordinary that the Government’s banker has just been convicted by the High Court of New Zealand of putting together a series of transactions that were created according to Justice Harrison solely for the purpose of tax avoidance. If we read the judgment we see that Westpac was able to decide what rate of tax it would pay in New Zealand. When we look at it from the point of view of the ordinary taxpayer who thinks that we have to follow the rules and pay our tax—because we all know that paying tax is the price we pay to live in a civilised society and all businesses in New Zealand know that paying tax is what they do because they are good corporate citizens—we see that it is extraordinary that Westpac was able to decide what rate of tax it would pay. 
According to the judge not only were the arrangements unlawful but the four transactions tested in the case were “tax avoidance arrangements entered into for a purpose of avoiding tax;”. Anyone who has followed this case will be amazed at the extent Westpac went to in order to have this series of structured finance arrangements—very very complicated structured finance arrangements—in order to in Justice Harrison’s words simply “avoid paying tax”. That was the only purpose of those arrangements. 
It is also quite sad that one of the people involved—in fact he was one of the key advisers to Westpac in this case—was no less than John Shewan who is now chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers one of our most important accounting and advisory firms. John Shewan according to the judgment advised Westpac to make tax payments as low as 6 percent—most taxpayers would be surprised by such advice—but no lower. That is in the context of New Zealand’s company tax rate being 30 percent. Westpac was advised by one of the most senior tax lawyers in our country to have a tax rate of 6 percent but no lower. Justice Harrison wrote in his judgment: “The bank”—that is Westpac—“was anxious not to reduce it unduly because of its reputational effect; it wanted to appear as a good corporate citizen paying a responsible level of tax. For that reason Westpac’s chief executive officer imposed a minimum ETR for the Westpac group of 25% in 1997. All these transactions took that factor into account. However management progressively allowed the ETR to fall first to around 20% in about May 2000 and then to the ‘high teens’.” The Government’s banker is organising its tax affairs in order to reduce its corporate tax rate to under 20 percent. It is an extraordinary turn of events. What is even more extraordinary is that one of Westpac’s key advisers John Shewan from PricewaterhouseCoopers is now on the Government’s Tax Working Group. 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting. Can I ask for an assurance via you Mr Speaker that the matters the member is addressing are not subject to an appeal before the court because there are very serious matters here. I am concerned that the member is straying very very close particularly given rulings around sub judice matters that came before the House recently. I suggest that it would be a comfort to the House if that assurance is given by the member raising those issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was listening very carefully to the member speaking because obviously this is a sensitive matter. We heard from the Minister that an appeal has not yet been lodged. I think the member speaking has been quite careful. He has quoted from the judgment as I heard him and referred to the matters contained in it. I have not heard any outlandish allegations being made that could perhaps be considered irresponsible. I think the member has been handling what is to him a serious matter in a pretty responsible way. As I understand it the matter is not at this moment sub judice. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: We have to say to the taxpayers of New Zealand that it is unacceptable that the Government’s banker has been convicted in the High Court of illegal tax-avoidance to the tune of over half a billion dollars. What would ordinary taxpayers say to that situation? I call on Westpac and all those who are involved in this and I say that it is time for it to clean up its act and it is time to do the right thing by the taxpayers of New Zealand because they expect Westpac to be a good corporate citizen especially in its role as the Government’s banker. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I join with most New Zealanders in congratulating the Prime Minister on his leadership in tackling the scourge of our communities P or methamphetamine. No member of Parliament can fail to be touched by the anguish of families seeking to find help for their loved ones who have become addicted to this evil drug. No one can fail to be moved by the stories of parents and grandparents and the anguish they feel in trying to get care for their children their husbands their wives or their grandchildren who have become addicted to this drug. 
This scourge has started to wash across our communities in the last 10 years. Time after time members of Parliament have risen and railed against the scourge of P and joined with communities in their anger about P and for too long previous Governments did nothing. Previous Governments did nothing effective and nothing that would deal with this scourge on our communities until this Prime Minister put together an action plan that would deal with this drug not only in terms of the availability of precursors but also customs control in order to stop the importing of methamphetamine as best we can right through to treatment options to deal with family members who are so affected by methamphetamine. 
This is a seriously addictive drug and it has been viciously destructive to the lives of so many young New Zealanders. It is hugely damaging to those who take it and to those who are around it. As the Minister of Police will confirm so much of the burglary and violent crime in our communities today is driven by people who are on P and who are seeking to get more money to feed their drug habits. This Government wants to deal with that. 
We are looking at it from a number of angles. When we look at the roll-call of shame that is associated with methamphetamine—William Duane Bell Antonie Dixon Ese Falealii and Steven Williams—we ask how anyone in this House can say that we should not be taking every step we can to stamp this drug out of our communities. We know that 80 percent of the cold and flu tablets purchased in New Zealand today are pseudoephedrine-free. Over time the association of methamphetamine with cold and flu medicines has meant more and more New Zealanders decided that they do not want to buy that sort of cold and flu medicine. I repeat that 80 percent of the cold and flu tablets that New Zealanders buy do not include pseudoephedrine. 
The most significant investment announced by the Prime Minister last week was $22 million into improving treatment services in New Zealand. We are all aware of the fact that there are just not enough beds to deal with this problem. About 2000 people have presented seeking treatment options for methamphetamine but only about half of those people got the care that they needed. In this plan we are putting $22 million over the next 3 years towards expanding the new methamphetamine treatment pathway. It will start with a stronger commitment by our district health boards to getting those waiting lists down and we will also provide 2700 social detox places over the next 3 years. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How many? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: About 2700. That is saying to methamphetamine addicts and users who want to get off the drug that there is a period of time when they can be in a serviced clinically-appropriate social detox bed for the time they need to get down off the drug. Then a plan can be put in place for their treatment. Most people will be treated in the community but there will be up to 400 additional places for methamphetamine users to be treated in longer-term residential facilities. That is 400 extra places over the next 3 years and it increases the number of long-term residential beds that are available for drug users by 60 percent. It is a very significant investment. There is also a doubling of the number of social detox beds. 
The Government wants to attack this scourge of methamphetamine on a number of fronts and in a coordinated and comprehensive way. There is no point in saying that no one can get pseudoephedrine in New Zealand if we do not have a tougher customs response—and we will have a tougher customs response—and there is no point in saying we will try to get people off methamphetamine if we do not improve treatment options. That is part of the comprehensiveness of what the Prime Minister announced in Auckland last week. New Zealand families up and down this country will appreciate his commitment to dealing with this problem. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 What a mess what a shambles and what a debacle—and that is just the comments that were made on television last night about the John Key Government’s antics sideshows and circuses. New Zealanders could be forgiven for thinking that they are seeing a chapter out of  
Alice in Wonderland 
. The Mad Hatter’s tea party comes to mind. The white rabbit John Key is rushing around on yet another overseas trip—he is up to six overseas trips now in 9 months—shaking hands with the President of the United States posing for photographs wherever he can performing as a stand-up comic on  
The Late Show with David Letterman 
 flying to a holiday in Florida as one does and then flying to Samoa all the time saying “I’m late I’m late for a very important shower.” 
John Key was in such a hurry when he was in Samoa that he had to speed through the streets at 120 kilometres per hour—maybe it is 130 kilometres per hour by now; it will probably be 140 kilometres per hour by next week—in a 40 kilometre-an-hour zone scattering children dust and animals in his wake as he rushed to take his shower before he went out to look at the damage and destruction. Do members know what he said? He said: “I didn’t look at the speedo.” It is funny that we have heard that before and that it was a terrible crime a few years ago for people to sit in the back seat and not look at speedos. 
It is more important for the Prime Minister to strut his stuff on the world stage than it is to show some leadership in New Zealand on the debacles that are going on here thanks to his Government. He is not interested in the real issues. He would prefer to have his photograph published in an overseas newspaper. The distractions and debacles that are going on here start with his own Minister of Finance. We have had weeks and weeks of the Minister of Finance being distracted by his own personal greed. That need to justify his own personal greed has overshadowed any look that he ought to have taken at the economy. He has no credibility or moral authority. He can stand up and tell the workers of this Parliament that they are not entitled to a pay increase but he can take for himself extra money for his cleaner and a salary of a quarter of a million dollars. He preaches to the people of New Zealand that zero pay increases or increases of 25c per hour are good enough for them. 
What does it do to this country when we have a Minister of Finance who is unable to concentrate on the real issues because he got caught with his snout in the trough and did not want to admit it? It will not matter what he does to try to correct that. He and the National Government can pay back all the money they like—and the amount of money the National Government has to pay back is sure mounting up—but it does not alter the fact that Mr English changed his arrangements to suit himself and his family. There is nothing we can say about such personal greed. 
Then we had the debacle over the Maori Television Service’s bid for coverage of the Rugby World Cup. There are seven Ministers involved in this shambles of their own making. First of all the bid would be from the Maori Television Service then it would be a joint bid led by Television New Zealand and a few minutes ago we were told it would now be led by the Maori Television Service. There has been skulduggery and all sorts of back-stabbing and duplicity going on. It is no wonder that Maori Party members are furious with their so-called friends in the National Government. Their friends were plotting behind their backs and having meetings as long ago as September planning a counter-bid against the Maori Television Service and the work that Pita Sharples was doing. I think we are now seeing the sort of duplicitous approach they can expect from a National Government that never supported and did not want Maori television. I say to members opposite that they should go and read Bill English’s speech and Murray McCully’s speech. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I thank members opposite for the applause! Last week when the Leader of the Opposition was charging around America making out that he was still the Minister of Trade—and of course he does not seem to have found his way back—the Prime Minister was dealing with a really big issue. He was dealing with a comprehensive plan on methamphetamine—P. It is a plan that by the way has been met with almost universal applause except from the Labour Party. Let me quote the Mayor of Manukau City Len Brown: “It’s good to see the government taking a lead on tackling this scourge and I’m also happy with the support for P treatment and detox. We need to help people who are caught up by this horrible addiction. I welcome this announcement from the government. We have now got to focus on tackling the drug runners and I’m working closely with the police on a campaign to shut down the P labs and dak houses in our city.” 
Let us have a look at what New Zealand police say. They are very excited about this: “a whole-of-Government approach means that we can actually get some action.” That is what they want to see. As the Opposition worries about who is doing what where how when and how fast this Government is getting on with the job of dealing with the big issues. 
Why should we be taking methamphetamine so seriously? That is the question we have heard from Labour members today in their questions. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No you haven’t. That is wrong. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: We have heard from Jim Anderton today about why we are taking this so seriously. This is why we should actually. This is the difference. Methamphetamine has some very very serious consequences for people. It is extremely addictive in nature. We know that about 50000 New Zealanders are addicted to this dreadful drug and we also know that their families all suffer because of it. My colleague Tony Ryall has outlined some of the results of that: children killed because of this drug; babies left and abused because of this drug; families destroyed lives destroyed and young people dying of heart attacks because of this drug. 
What happened under the previous 9 years of a Labour Government? Absolutely nothing happened. In fact what has happened out in the community is that after 9 years of a Labour Government we now have organised crime in this country. Organised crime has gone right through the whole country. We now have organised crime involved in business. We have organised crime everywhere. The previous Government did not listen to the warnings of the Police Association—the union of police officers—which told it what would happen. And the Police Association was right. It was absolutely right. It is no wonder that the previous Minister of Police shuts up. The Police Association was right and she would not listen. New Zealand police know exactly what has happened. We know that this country has allowed organised crime to come into it. This is a country that used to be organised crime - free. The previous Government let it in. 
It is really important to remember that organised crime is about money. One of the great things that the police love about our methamphetamine plan is that the police can target the money. We are going to go after the money and the assets—the money that has been ripped off from our people. This Government has already introduced 10 bills this year. That is 10 bills in 10 months. How many more is that than the previous Government introduced? It is 10 more. 
The previous Government never recognised the terrible crime that P has done to our people in this country. Yet it has left us with the highest rate of methamphetamine addiction per capita than anywhere in the world. That is the legacy of a Labour Government that could not tackle the hard questions and instead went after only the soft answers. When they looked at burglaries they wondered why burglaries went up. Well that is because of P addictions. They wondered why violent crime went up. Well that is about P addictions. Those crimes are all fed by P. The previous Government never once recognised it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table media reports noting the Government’s cut of $21 million from the police budget. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member describe for the House where— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is a media report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the media report? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: A report in the media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I need to understand what I am putting to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: A newspaper report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But what newspaper? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The  
Dominion Post 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What date is it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not have the date with me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot put a document to the House if we do not know what the document is. I cannot seek leave for that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Hon Mr Cosgrove has told you that it is a report from the  
Dominion Post 
 newspaper. He has given you the substance of what the report contains yet you are saying that you do not know what you are putting to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. If the member is having difficulty understanding I say that I have made it very clear to the House that with regard to recent newspaper reports the Standing Orders Committee made it very clear in its report to this House that it considered that it was not appropriate for recent newspaper reports to be tabled. However the Standing Orders have not been changed. I have made it very clear to members that when they are seeking leave to table a press statement or media report we have to know the date of it because if in fact it is a press report from some years ago it may be perfectly sensible to make it available to the members of the House. If it is a newspaper article from only a couple of days ago the House is unlikely to accept it. That is why it is important that the date of a press statement is available to members so they can make a sensible judgment about whether they want to grant leave for it to be tabled. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just ask for clarification. It is a matter as I understand it for the House—not yourself with respect—to judge whether a document is old or new and whether it is acceptable to table it. As you rightly point out Standing Orders have not changed. I will go and get the date of the document for the House but I just note that it is a matter for the House not you to judge the relevance of it because the Standing Orders as you point out have not changed. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the honourable member but I warn members that I take this matter very seriously and I am not very amused. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I think it is fair to say that members on this side are not very amused either. I make the point that a number of members on this side are unhappy with editorialising from the Chair as to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. I have listened to enough. I will not tolerate this sort of nonsense. I have been very tolerant of Labour members today. At least that is my view of the matter. If members seek to table press statements I believe the House is owed the courtesy of knowing the date of those statements so it can make a judgment. I am not putting leave unless I know the date of the statement. I have ruled on that matter and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a new point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave to table a document from the  
Dominion Post 
 as described by Clayton Cosgrove earlier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If this is a press statement I want to know the date of it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not giving it to you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I am not putting the leave if I do not know what the document is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No you cannot Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the matter and the next member to dispute my ruling will be leaving the Chamber. I make that very clear. I will not tolerate more of this nonsense. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
:  
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not disputing your ruling. I am asking you and I would be grateful if you could rule either now or on a subsequent occasion whether you are now saying that the discretion in respect of tabling documents and the quality or lack of quality of those documents is a matter to be decided by the Chair— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. Look I simply ask members to treat this House with some respect. Members of the Opposition have heard me today sit Ministers down and stop Ministers from abusing the Opposition. I have been very hard on Government Ministers today. I treat this House absolutely fairly but I expect the House to be treated with respect. I consider it disrespectful to the House for members to get to their feet and expect me to put leave to table some vague press statement from somewhere. How can the House make a judgment about that? The member can go and get his press statement get the date of it and then I will put the leave. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn the member that he had better not dispute my ruling. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I fully respect you Mr Speaker and I am not disputing your ruling. But as I understand it from the Standing Orders I am entitled to simply ask for you to make a considered ruling. I am not disputing it; I am simply asking again whether you would confirm your advice to the House and make a formal ruling in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned I have ruled on the matter and that is the end of the matter. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am warning the honourable member that I have ruled on the matter and as far as I am concerned that is the end of it. It had better be a totally different point of order. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is. I seek leave—and I am indebted to my technologically advanced colleagues—to table a document from the New Zealand Press Association of 16 June 2009 regarding the police vehicle fleet being reduced by this Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document of 16 June 2009. Leave is sought to table that press statement. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It was not a press statement; it was a press report. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me if that affected members’ judgments. Let me put it again if my referring to it as a statement affected members’ judgments on this New Zealand Press Association report. I am seeking leave again. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. Te Mangai e te Whare tena koe. When will we hear an apology being made to Dr Pita Sharples? Dr Pita Sharples earnestly advanced his cause and that of Maori broadcasting and this Government sought to shame and embarrass him. It made him apologise to the Prime Minister and to National Ministers and it sought to deprecate him in the midst of his own people and what do we hear? Not a single apology. I say this afternoon to all the lawyers acting for the iwi that they should stand their Queen’s Counsel down. It will no longer be necessary to spend the hard-earned cash that the iwi holds to advance their Treaty entitlement to broadcasting rights to show the face of modern Maori in 2009. 
We have seen today one Minister—we do not need Queen’s Counsel to find him; we need search and rescue—Dr Jonathan Coleman. We are expecting a letter of resignation from Dr Jonathan Coleman this afternoon. Not only has he misled his colleagues about the member from Auckland who will enjoy infamy amongst the car owners of South Auckland and the sentient voters of west Auckland but also we have seen potential wrongdoing that could end up in the High Court. It is a very tawdry affair of the misuse of confidential information that was provided in good faith by Maori Television to stakeholder Ministers. 
That information was somehow fed into the process of a competing bid. Writs were to be served this afternoon in the High Court on behalf of iwi and Maori who were going right back to fight the fights they had to have against National members in this House in times gone by. The Prime Minister has come in and essentially sacked Dr Coleman this afternoon and he has done an extraordinary thing: he has closed down Murray McCully. He has shown that Murray McCully who was responsible for this situation can no longer abuse the position and privilege of being a Minister. Not only did he seek to humiliate the Maori Party—and I am glad for the sake of Maori Party members because they do enough embarrassing things to themselves—but also he has sought to erode to undermine the commercial interests and to ruin the brand of Maori Television. 
Maori Television is an institution that members on this side of the House gladly supported. It has tried to find a way to show the full personality of what it means to be a Kiwi in Aotearoa. Maori Television followed a process only to find that it was being undermined by Ministers and members on that side of the House. So Dr Sharples had no reason to apologise and we did not like to see him apologising and embarrassing himself in front of his senior Pakeha colleagues because it reminded us too much of that historic relationship between Kiwi and iwi—that Kiwis would triumph à la through the senior Ministers. But what a shambles it is. It was almost as if if it was a Maori Minister spending public money there would be a hue and cry but if it was Dr Jonathan Coleman then who cares? 
This is a historic day. Not only has good sense prevailed but also High Court writs did not need to be served. It remains to be seen whether those guns will be fired but this is a very very dark day for the Government and its tawdry treatment of our colleagues in the Maori Party. Admittedly the process was slightly awry but that paled into insignificance compared with the way in which public money was used fast and loose by the Minister of Broadcasting and most important by the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. It just shows New Zealanders that not only was one arm of the Government competing and bidding with another arm in the process but also the process was enriching the administrators of the Rugby World Cup. Not one cent would have gone back to garden-variety Kiwis—not one cent. 
The Minister responsible for this situation is gone; he is gone. I am not entirely sure whether it is a chance for Mr Foss or someone else to emerge but I ask whether we have ever seen the gutting of a Minister in such a short period of time. He was swaggering on national television last night boasting that he had found the money and he was sat down by Mr English in embarrassment. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I am seriously delighted to take a call today and to talk to this House on what I think is probably the big issue of the day that needs to be considered. I congratulate the Prime Minister and other Ministers of this Government on taking the steps that were announced the other day with regard to the drug P. Those of us who are constituent MPs and who know about various issues to do with offenders on P will all have our own stories to tell. 
For me I guess there are a number of stories. Antonie Dixon who members will remember was the samurai sword man did some dreadful damage. He was one of the stories. But I think that the worst of all times in my electorate was the killing in a Pakuranga pizza parlour one night of a young 23-year-old man Marcus Doig. He was shot after he had complied with everything he was asked to do. He had handed over the money when he was asked to he had walked away from the cash register he had knelt down when he was told to but he had then been shot in cold blood. Only 3 days later the animal who had done that to him went and did the same thing to a 44-year-old bank teller John Vaughan in Mangere. There can be no more compelling stories than those to say to us that we have to take control of this drug. 
In the customs portfolio we have already done a number of things that I think are quite spectacular yet there is more to do. But before we talk about that I will have a little smack at some of the editorial writers and the so-called knowledgable commentators who have had a smack at the National Government about stopping the over-the-counter sale of pseudoephedrine. Do members know what some of the commentators and editorial writers have said? They have said that this will not make any difference. Well at the end of this speech I intend to table this sheet of paper if I can get leave. The article is from the state of Oregon in the United States. It shows that until 2004 Oregon was having about 470 480 or so methamphetamine lab busts per annum. That is how many methamphetamine labs were being busted. Then the state of Oregon moved to ban the over-the-counter sales of cold and flu medicines that contained pseudoephedrine and let me repeat the numbers now: from around the mid-400s per annum it dropped in 2005 to 192. In 2006 it was down to 63. In 2007 it was down to 18. And this year until the month of June there have been seven lab busts. The number is now seven down from the mid-400s figure for busts of methamphetamine labs. So to all those so-called know-it-all writers who say that banning sales across the counter will not have any impact I say that they should look at the state of Oregon in the United States because it has made a huge difference to what was going on there. 
With regard to the New Zealand Customs Service I was pleased when I negotiated the first priority settings with our Prime Minister at the beginning of my term that the control and the stopping of methamphetamine and the precursors to it such as pseudoephedrine was one of our three key priorities. We have had a number of successes but I will report one issue which is that the amount that is coming across our border is still growing in volume. Last year 733 kilograms of pseudoephedrine in the form of Contac NT was detected. We do not get a lot of P itself because it is baked once the Contac NT gets here. This year to date I am sorry to report we have been able to intercept 796 kilograms so far. We have already intercepted more this year than in the full calendar year last year. That interception is great but boy there needs to be more. 
I can tell members that there are dedicated people within the Customs Service. Task forces specific operations and sting operations are going on regularly. One operation that went on in August had a fantastic outcome. I can report to the House that over a 2-week period in August we trialled a new approach to P. It resulted in 26 separate seizures totalling 46 kilograms of methamphetamine precursors. Just as Tony Ryall is doing stuff within the treatment side in the health portfolio and just as Judith Collins is lifting the performance of the police in this area I am happy to report that the Customs Service is taking this drug very seriously. We are doing a fantastic job of intercepting it and we are going to do even better. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Following on from that speech made by Maurice Williamson I think that those numbers from Oregon showing a reduction in methamphetamine lab busts after the ban on over-the-counter sales of cold and flu medicines that contained pseudoephedrine are quite insightful. Many New Zealanders would be very heartened to hear that there will be results from this great initiative led by our Prime Minister. Many a time in this House in this Parliament New Zealanders do not see actions that will result in success for our country and our people. The drug P has touched the lives of many New Zealanders not only family members of those using the drug but also victims of crimes carried out to pay for this drug abuse. To finally have some action taken that will provide some serious results by restricting the use of this drug and by restricting the activities that go on to fund such drug use is something that many New Zealanders will take a lot of comfort from. 
The Prime Minister has engaged in a very strong process in looking at this drug. He has looked at and dealt with not only the issue of the manufacture of the drug but also the way in which we deal with the drug users who need help and assistance to get over their use of the drug. That two-pronged approach that the Government has taken will be effective. We are not only trying to reduce the supply and use of this very addictive drug P but also looking at solutions for those individuals who have been caught in that process and need help and expertise to get out of it. When one looks at the process one sees two prongs to it. Essentially the first is to restrict the supply of the drug through the restriction of the purchase of it over the counter. Labour has come out against that measure. Labour members say in this House that they are against the use of P but at the same time that they do not want to restrict the use or purchase through pharmacies of the ingredient drugs. 
Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they have a cause and campaign against the drug P but at the same time do not wish to take the vital steps to reduce its ingredient components. Labour members need to stand up and understand that if they want to be against this drug like all New Zealanders want to be then they need to take some firm steps and not just look the other way and say that they want to have it both ways. They cannot say that they want the ingredients able to be purchased through pharmacies yet want to stamp out the drug. We cannot do it both ways. We have to make some hard decisions and this Government has made the hard decisions because we have set priorities. The priority is for New Zealanders not to be in a society that has this drug to the extent that it has it at the moment. 
Overseas experience has shown that the first step of reducing those ingredients does lead to an effective constraint on the supply of that drug; Maurice Williamson just explained some of the statistics that are vital in showing that. When we look overseas in respect of the use of ingredients in the typical flu remedies that many people may try to purchase through the pharmacist we find that most other countries that have banned the drug have found that the ban has not necessarily been detrimental to the health of their citizens. Leaving the ability for New Zealanders to go through the medical process of a doctor’s prescription still enables those New Zealanders who desire to use those ingredients to do so. We are giving New Zealanders that opportunity to use those ingredients but in a controlled manner. They will be going through a process that will be in the best interests of our country. That is what we are doing here. 
We are looking at a drug that should not be available to the extent that it is in New Zealand. There is no excuse for P to be so dominant in New Zealand when in other countries it is not so dominant in the drug world. If that is the case then we need to take those actions to make sure that that dominance is removed. These are the actions that are needed to do so. I applaud the Prime Minister and the Government for their strong work in this area to achieve those goals. A big part of the second prong is the strategy of dealing with those who are users of the drug and who need help to get out of it. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 During my speech I said I would seek leave to table a document so I now seek leave to table a document called  
Pre and Post Pseudoephedrine Control Oregon Meth Lab Incident Statistics 
 which indicates the statistics in Oregon since 2003 to year to date. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like some clarification. As per the Speaker’s very strict ruling previously if we can have the date and publication of the graph it would assist the House in making its judgment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I ask the Hon Maurice Williamson whether he would care to elaborate and give the date to the House. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Unlike a newspaper article which appears on a certain date this is just a published statistic over all those years. It could have been published on any date you like. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: What is the date? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There is no date. It is published by Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have been consulting carefully with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings on this matter. I can find no precedent whatsoever for the requirement of a date or any right for any Speaker other than the current one to decline to put a matter of leave to the House. I respectfully disagree with the shadow Leader of the House. I think there can be no objection to that being put to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will say that there is no reluctance on behalf of the Speaker to put the matter. The Speaker is required to put the matter because the Opposition wants clarification. The member is the author of his own misfortune. If the member wants to have the matter tabled then he will not object. Is any objection to the document being tabled? There is none. The member may table to document. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document from a Parliamentary Library research request on pseudoephedrine in Oregon. It says that because of the measures that were taken the increase in trafficking of the finished product has now occurred in Oregon. The demand for the drug has continued and drug cartels have now stepped into the gaps with the local market increasingly supplying methamphetamine. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member should only describe the document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The document can be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 It has been a bad year thus far for the good and honourable Dr Jonathan Coleman. He is a junior member of Cabinet and when junior members of Cabinet have a bad year then they are likely to be earmarked for the reserve bench at the next reshuffle. I do not think Dr Jonathan Coleman will be a Minister of anything for very much longer. It began much much earlier in the year. I can remember a situation in about March or April where allegations had been made against one of Dr Jonathan Coleman’s colleagues Mr Bakshi in respect of a fake jobs-for-cash offer. The investigation by immigration officials turned up nothing. The immigration report said as much when around about March or April it was made public under the Official Information Act. So incensed and distressed was the good Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman that he had a bit of a hissy fit and got a three-person inquiry to work out precisely why New Zealand’s officialdom had obeyed the law. 
Then it turned out that things got worse. You see soon after that there was the resignation of the Rt Hon Helen Clark and an inevitable by-election occurred. “The Maestro” from Mt Albert the minder of Ms Melissa then had a meltdown. His candidate almost came third. But in the middle of it allegations were raised against his preferred and popular hand-picked candidate the aforementioned Ms Melissa Lee and those allegations concerned his portfolio. Did he say that he had a conflict of interest? Not on your nelly! Did he say that he needed to distance himself from one thing or the other? No he did not. He just marched on gravely and gravelly saying that he thought that National would do well. Then the “not guilty” finding came out before polling day. It came out broadly and widely. Almost every letterbox got a copy of it. But what did not come out any time soon was that the “not guilty” call was wrong and that the aforementioned candidate had been inflating her invoices to the tune of a little over $100000. That came out only in very recent weeks. 
What did the good Dr Jonathan Coleman say about that? In a very careful and gravelly manner he said that he did not learn about that until August. I see so we are to believe that—OK. Then in August he did nothing about it; actually he almost forgot about it. At some point credibility gets beggared and I would have thought that credibility and therefore perhaps the Minister is beggared by now but worse is to come. It happened this afternoon with the Maori Television Service debacle in this Government. Ministers were behaving conceitedly and deceitfully towards one another so the Prime Minister finally stepped in this afternoon and said that Maori Television can have it after all. That is a bit of a shame for the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman because he spent the past few days being the one Minister who was really in charge of this and the one who as the Minister of Broadcasting was really promoting the Television New Zealand bid and now he has been cut off at the ankles by his Prime Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Knees! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: He has been cut off at the knees and that may be why he is currently on urgent public business in some other part of the country even though his own bill the Immigration Bill is due up in a few minutes. I do not know whether the Minister the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman will be able to rush back excitedly to the House to see his own bill through. After all it has taken a year and he did have it written for him when we were in Government. He has taken his time over it. He might be able to get himself back to the House today but he has had a terribly terribly tough afternoon. He who was in charge of fixing this has himself been fixed. He has been fixed by his boss. He also as the Hon Shane Jones pointed out needs to consider an apology to the Hon Pita Sharples as does the Hon Murray McCully whose contribution to this thing so far as I can work out has been to lose his temper on a repeated basis. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I do not believe that anyone in this House is disputing the devastating effects that methamphetamine is having on so many New Zealanders. Some estimate the cost of this drug to New Zealand as being in the billions. The cost is in what we pay out to help the victims of meth crime. The cost is in our health system and the rehabilitation and treatment for meth addicts. The cost is in the prisons and in the police officers that we need to fight this drug. But the more difficult cost to measure by far is the personal cost to so many New Zealand families. How do we measure the personal cost to the father or mother who has spent months cleaning up the trail of destruction that their son or daughter has caused as a result of this drug? How do we measure the sleepless and tearful nights of parents waiting for the next phone call not sure whether it will be a call from the police or a call from the hospital? How do we measure the cost to the parents who have had to bury their daughter or son because of this drug? How do we measure the impact on a young child who has been abused at the hands of someone on this drug? Some of the most horrific and violent crimes against our young children in this country have involved people on meth. Some of these crimes have snuffed out the lives of these young children. The question that our Government had to ask given the devastating cost to New Zealand of this drug was how far we as parliamentarians are prepared to go to try to get rid of methamphetamine from New Zealand. 
The plan that we have delivered is tough and it tackles the P problem from many different angles. The plan includes using powers to break drug supply-chains by attacking the gangs and criminal organisations that make supply and distribute this drug. The plan provides support to families and communities to stop people from becoming P users. 
I want to focus on two key parts to the plan which are restricting access to the precursor chemicals that P is made from and improving treatment services. One part of the proposal that has been criticised by the Opposition is the banning of over-the-counter sale of pseudoephedrine. This step has not been taken lightly and this action reflects how seriously our Government takes the P problem. We want to make it harder for people to make P and banning over-the-counter sale of pseudoephedrine will help us achieve this. One-third of all P labs busted each year were using cold and flu medication to create P. This is clear evidence that these medications are fuelling our P problem. Let us be clear. We are not banning pseudoephedrine at this stage. But making it available only with a doctor’s prescription will make it harder for people to make P. The other key point is that it is not about banning all over-the-counter cold and flu medication. Between 60 and 80 percent of cold and flu medications contain phenylephrine rather than pseudoephedrine. These medications are a safe and effective alternative and will still be available over the counter at pharmacies. 
Many New Zealand drug addicts and their families have struggled because they have wanted help but have not been able to get it. That is why we are ensuring more P addicts get treatment through rehabilitation and addiction services by providing more treatment capacity and better routes to treatment so they can quit. There will be an extra $22 million for P treatment over the next 3 years. This includes 2700 patients who will be able to access new beds and social detox facilities. Another key aspect of this treatment plan is that families will be given the power to force addicts into compulsory treatment. Too many families in New Zealand feel absolutely powerless to help their loved ones. This aspect of the plan will help give power back to the families so that they can help their loved ones. 
No one today has disputed the devastating effect that methamphetamine is having on so many New Zealanders. We all know the cost to mums dads and young kids. We are taking strong action in this Parliament to help New Zealanders suffering from this drug. I am proud to be part of this Government. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I think it was Harold Wilson who said in the 1960s that a week is a long time in politics. Here we are in the 21st century and a day is a very very long time in politics. I think that rarely has the House seen two successive question times quite like yesterday’s and today’s. Yesterday the Minister of Maori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples sat slumped in his seat having just learnt that the Government was going to fund a rival bid by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and TV3 against Maori Television’s effort to obtain the free-to-air rights to screen the Rugby World Cup. We cannot help but say his mana was trampled by that exercise. So was that of Maori Television—absolutely. I suggested last night in a blog that there would be some utu extracted from the Government because of that. 
Today we have seen exactly that occurring. There has been no sign today of “The Maestro” Jonathan Coleman. Instead we had the Leader of the House attempting to deny what the Minister of Broadcasting had said yesterday which was that the Government would fund TVNZ and TV3 to compete against Maori Television’s bid. This was a State agency bidding against a State agency. This is a Government that makes a virtue out of frugality and out of the need to cut funding. We were going to have a situation of two State agencies bidding against each other to the benefit of the International Rugby Board. 
So what changed? Well I think what has really changed is that Dr Sharples has made a threat. I suggest to members opposite that the Maori Party must have said to the Prime Minister that it was ready to do something like walk out of the National-ACT coalition. We cannot see changes of this force of this nature and of this rapidity without those kinds of threats being put in place. I think Dr Sharples had every right to be very angry about what transpired yesterday. He had apologised to the Prime Minister for his oversight in not briefing Cabinet about the approach to Te Puni Kokiri to assist Maori Television in its bid for the Rugby World Cup coverage. It was not a very glamorous spectacle for that approach to have come together without his Cabinet colleagues having been told. There is no excuse for that. But while Dr Sharples was apologising his Cabinet colleagues were secretly putting together a rival bid against Maori Television. What an absolute shambles that was and it was happening under a Government that supposedly makes a virtue of not spending more money than it needs to spend. 
Mind you the Government’s broadcasting policy throughout this year as masterminded by “The Maestro” has been a totally hands-off approach. Let me remind members opposite that just 3 weeks ago TVNZ announced it could no longer fund and run the free-to-air coverage of next year’s Commonwealth Games. It decided to on-pass those rights to Sky television. Where was the outrage? Where was the Prime Minister’s defence of the rights of all New Zealanders—100 percent of New Zealanders—to see the Commonwealth Games coverage? Where were New Zealanders going to tune to on free-to-air television to watch Valerie Vili win gold for New Zealand in New Delhi next year at the Commonwealth Games? There was not a squeak about that from the Prime Minister. The Minister of Broadcasting was totally relaxed about it. In fact he said that the end was now in sight for the free-to-air coverage of major sporting events and he was totally relaxed about that. Not a word was said. Next year New Zealanders in their hundreds and thousands will not be able to see the Commonwealth Games. Hundreds and thousands of New Zealanders will not be able to see the New Zealand competitors wearing the silver fern on their chest. Not a word was said about that by this Government. Not a word was said by “The Maestro” Dr Coleman the Minister of Broadcasting. In fact he is the junior Minister because we all know that the real Minister of Broadcasting is Mr Joyce. 
Then what happened? The Maori Television Service got Te Puni Kokiri funding lined up for the bid for the Rugby World Cup coverage. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. 
Paul Quinn 
: What do you know that we don’t? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: We know a lot. I endorse the comments made by my colleague Shane Jones in saying I very much doubt whether Dr Coleman will retain the broadcasting portfolio for much longer given his performance on that issue yesterday not to mention the issues he is facing in terms of Melissa Lee and her failure to deliver properly to New Zealand On Air—but we will put that aside. So the Maori Television Service got Te Puni Kokiri’s funding which was admittedly not an ideal policy move and Dr Sharples apologised for not briefing Cabinet about that. Yesterday Dr Coleman despite the attempts of Mr Brownlee to deny the patently obvious publicly stated fact that the Government was prepared to fund Maori Television— 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I join my National colleagues in congratulating the Prime Minister John Key and the great New Zealand Government under the National Party on a fantastic initiative in its fight against P. This is a well-resourced campaign. It is a comprehensive well-researched evidence-based campaign directed against an estimated 55000 addicts and the crime syndicates that fuel their habits. 
I was somewhat concerned this afternoon when I heard the Hon Jim Anderton comparing the problems of alcohol and tobacco with the problems of pure methamphetamine. He is quite right they cause huge challenges to New Zealand but in no way should the scourge of pure methamphetamine be belittled. Shortly after in this debate we heard the Hon Annette King trivialise just how serious the scourge of P is in this country. Over the last 15 years we have seen a logarithmic increase in the number of clandestine P labs. We have seen a logarithmic increase in the number of addicts in New Zealand. We have seen a logarithmic increase in the huge costs to every level of society because this scourge affects families young and old and people young and old at every stratum and level of society. 
I would like to go back to Pukekohe in 2006 when a very brave Maori woman by the name of Marie Cotter set off with a contingent of people to march on Parliament. She was a very courageous and humble lady whose relatives were affected by this scourge. Young mothers were causing huge harm to their babies and she decided to do something about it. Indeed that march ballooned as it headed from Auckland. Many thousands of people joined it and finally it came to Parliament in the latter part of 2006. I am afraid to say that at that stage of events the Labour Government was doing very little about this situation. But at that time in Pukekohe we heard the local policemen say that within 5 to 6 kilometres of every town and hamlet in the vast rural electorate that I represent there was a P lab. One of the reasons was that very few police were available to enforce the law. 
In the last 12 months it has been announced that there will be 300 extra police in the Counties-Manukau district and already we have more than doubled the number of police in the Waiuku area. I acknowledge my colleague the Minister of Police for her great effort in ensuring that that election promise was there to ensure the enforcement of the various aspects of this multi-faceted initiative against P. 
One of the great strengths of National’s fight against P is the evidence base behind it. I pay tribute to Sir Peter Gluckman for his very well-reasoned thinking and his excellent report which has resulted in part in this initiative and in the fact that pseudoephedrine will be taken off the shelves of pharmacies throughout the country. Only last year in Pukekohe a highly respected pharmacist was convicted of dealing in P. No one had any idea whatsoever that this man was involved in that; it can affect every stratum of society. I want to end by quoting from the Science Media Centre. Again this is part of the Government’s approach to having an evidence base behind what it does. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 This Government is working hard to cushion our country not only from the effects of the worst recession we have seen since 1930 but also from the ravages of the most inept period of administration that New Zealand has seen in decades. I refer of course to the damage done by the spent drained terminally fatigued listless limp and late Labour administration. 
It was an administration for which the last years of Government were bereft of ideas. Creativity was a distant dream and the idea of action was a barely recoverable memory from a cobwebbed cerebral closet. These last days of wheezy decrepitude extended over at least 3 years possibly 5 years. They were 5 years during which an original thought stood out like an acoustic set at a Gaye Bykers on Acid concert or a moment of fun at a temperance meeting. The empty husk of the late unlamented Labour administration subjected our country to years of “hurry up and wait” calls to inaction. It was an omnipresent legislative leaden hand that stifled innovation and fresh thinking. It was a cloying embrace from a nanny seduced by the idea that consideration of process equated to action. Inaction was the default position of the previous inept administration. Nowhere is that seen more clearly than in the inaction addressing the scourge of crime and P in New Zealand. 
I am proud of the work that John Key and the National-led Government have done to cope with the multitude of deficits that the previous administration left us to pick up. We have a quiver of measures to address the problem that P makes for all New Zealanders. We have given the police the legislative teeth they need to recover property and proceeds of crime from criminals—crime that is funded more often than not by the production of the scourge on all levels of society of P. We passed the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act and the Sentencing Amendment Act. They are all part of the tool kit to make our country safer. 
We have also directed that we will not just take away gang profits but we will also use those profits against the gangs. We will ensure that the ill-gotten gains of criminal activity are poured back into the fight against crime gangs and P. In addition in our first 100 days in office we introduced the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill. That legislation will be passed as a matter of priority. It doubles the penalty for participation in a criminal gang which is often making P from chemicals. It gives the police greater powers to investigate gang members and enable removal orders to gang fortifications which often cloak the nefarious activity of the evil drug cook. 
These measures are supported by the new Search and Surveillance Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill. These will give the police the extra powers for investigating and fighting the scourge of P and of organised crime that afflicts all areas of our society today. They are scourges that were largely overlooked by the previous administration year after year. Some of the measures we are taking in our broad plan to tackle P include restricting access to the precursor chemicals of P. We heard some points on how that will impact upon ordinary New Zealanders upon men and women who want to go and fix their sniffling colds. It will not impact upon them at all because as we heard from the Minister of Health 80 percent of the commonly used medications do not contain pseudoephedrine. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Immigration Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 22 September. 
Part 8 Compliance and information 
(continued) 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 32 and 68 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 8 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 8 as amended agreed to. 
Part 9 Detention and monitoring 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to Part 9 of the Immigration Bill. This part is about detention and monitoring and the purpose of it is to establish a tiered detention and monitoring system in order to ensure the integrity of the immigration system through providing for the management of persons who are liable for deportation. This part also ensures the safety and security of New Zealand when a person who is liable for deportation may constitute a threat or risk to national security. 
Part 9 relates to quite a small minority of individuals. Most individuals who have gone through the refugee appeal process and failed will accept the decision and leave New Zealand in an appropriate and timely way through a deportation process. This part relates to those individuals who are obstructive and actively hinder their deportation from New Zealand. The initial period of detention can be up to 96 hours without a warrant. In that case the individual would be in police custody. Following that a warrant of commitment can be applied for in the District Court for up to 28 days. The warrant can be reapplied for on consecutive occasions. 
Generally speaking there is a 6-month limit on immigration detention except where a foreign national hinders his or her own departure. Those individuals who actively hinder their deportation from New Zealand compromise the integrity of the immigration system. There is the option that the individual can be released into the community but that would have to be negotiated. There would be conditions of release into the community and there may be reporting requirements residential requirements a requirement to present for interview and so on. 
The actions of foreign nationals who deliberately hinder their deportation sets a precedent to others. Such actions suggest for example that if someone refuses to sign travel documents for long enough he or she will secure release into the community because the Government cannot deport him or her. Therefore the Government is proposing to strengthen the detention provisions by way of an amendment whose effect is that such people cannot seek to be released from detention due to the length of time they have been detained. I commend this part to the House. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 As the previous speaker Jackie Blue indicated Part 9 of the Immigration Bill is about the detention and monitoring of those who have or may have broken the law in respect of immigration. It lists what the powers of the State are and are not. I want to spend a little time exploring the circumstances under which those powers may be used. 
At the moment the New Zealand Police is conducting an inquiry into allegations against a member of this Committee that there was the possibility—so say the allegations—of a false or fake jobs for cash deals going on. That is against the law of the legislation we are passing and the detention and monitoring powers in Part 9 are how we find out. In more recent days it has become clear to me that this may not be the only case of its type involving a member of the Committee. Melissa Lee who now is a member of Parliament made a National Party video using her facilities at Asia Vision Ltd and hired a woman by the name of Miss Casalme. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The only one that’s in prison is a Labour Minister! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Attempts by the Opposition to shout me down will not work because I have the microphone. I am led to believe that Miss Casalme worked voluntarily for Miss Lee in making the National Party video—so far so good. There are issues around whether the video should have been authorised but that is well outside the scope of this bill and I would not dare dwell on it. But the case is that a job was created for Miss Casalme. She desperately wanted to stay in New Zealand she desperately wanted permanent residency and she desperately needed the immigration points that one garners for this or that reason to get herself across the threshold. She did not have a job that was sufficiently senior so Melissa Lee created one. She created a job that was sufficiently senior and that did not exist before in her company. This was not a fake job for cash deal; it was a fake job for voluntary effort deal because the same woman Miss Casalme worked on a National Party video voluntarily and then the job was created. One assumes though I do not know that the woman then went on to put in her permanent residency application. 
Part 9 of the bill deals with this sort of stuff; it deals with people who take our immigration law and try to bodge it. It deals with people who set out to— 
Simon Bridges 
: Like Taito the one Helen Clark said was guilty only of trying to work hard. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I ask members who is guilty of trying to work hard. 
Simon Bridges 
: That is what Helen Clark said about Taito Phillip Field. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Taito Phillip Field is in jail because he did some things against the existing legislation that he ought not to have done. He got caught got taken to court and got put in jail. My question is: who is joining him? That is what I want to know. I want to know whether other members of this Committee— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Only Labour Ministers! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am asking the question. If we know there is a police investigation into allegations of jobs for cash I wonder whether there will be— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask for your guidance on whether this matter is relevant to the question under debate under Standing Order 107(1). 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is quite correct to point out the Standing Order but I say that it is generally accepted in this Chamber that members speaking can and are entitled to respond to interjections. A healthy stream of interjections has been coming from the National benches to which the member speaking has responded. The interjections are quite off the matter in debate so if National members want to keep to the narrow letter of the Standing Orders and then hold the Opposition to account for that then they should do so themselves. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your advice about whether the speaker’s comments are out of order in relation to Standing Order 116 which makes out of order offensive reference to a member’s private affairs particularly those that are completely unsubstantiated. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that Standing Order 116 states: “A member may not make imputation of improper motives against a member an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs or a personal reflection against a member.” As I understand it the member speaking has repeated issues that have been raised publicly and that are part of the public record—I may have got that incorrect but that is how I understand it. If it is in the public domain and is being publicly debated then I will not rule it out of order. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I accept that point unequivocally but I question whether the member’s implication that others may join a former member of this Committee in jail as a consequence remains outside of Standing Order 116. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member correctly—[ 
Interruption 
]—I am ruling on this matter—identified the words: “others might join them”. I did not take that to mean necessarily other members of Parliament; it could include them but also others. Had the member said: “other members of Parliament will join them” then of course that is a reflection on the House and the member would be unwise to do that. 
Simon Bridges 
: I think you should say some of this outside the Chamber Pete. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Oh so they have not stopped interjecting. You gave them the advice Mr Chairperson that if I was to stick to the knitting they would have to keep their mouths shut. But as soon as I get to my feet away they go! So away I go! It is easy: if members want me to stick to the knitting then they need to keep their mouths shut. The Chairperson just told them that. 
I have some advice for Melissa Lee: if she thinks I have said anything wrong in part or in whole she can either take offence now or later or take a call as soon as I finish or later. She has plenty of options and I urge her to exercise them as she sees fit. As I understand it there is the case of a job being created for a woman who did voluntary work in the unpaid employ of Melissa Lee. I wonder whether the detention and monitoring provisions under Part 9 are relevant. Certainly it is only by monitoring that these things are brought to account. The new law that we are looking at passing has an ability to detain people for short medium or long periods for a variety of reasons including questioning. So I would have thought that Part 9 is relevant to the issues that I raise. 
Now that National members are silent I say again— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’re still a scumbag. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Oh! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think you can anticipate what my point of order may be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I am not anticipating anything. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Well that is unparliamentary language. I think it is well know that under the Standing Orders one cannot use language like that in Parliament. The member should withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Normally it is the member who is speaking who would take offence. If the member is offended by it which I have the indication from him that he is then I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Well I advise the member to withdraw and apologise— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ll just get my stuff together. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No that is not good enough. I say to the member that there are rules in this place. I have never asked any member to leave and I want to get through this term without doing so. But if the member does not withdraw and apologise for that remark which is offensive then I will simply have to do so. Does the member refuse to withdraw and apologise? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member will leave the Chamber for the rest of the day. 
Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I think in a way—and sometimes I reflect on this—the punishment should be forcing the member to stay here till 10 o’clock and if I could do so making him read his own  
Hansard.  
But never mind the standard thing is for the member to withdraw to leave the Chamber until 10 o’clock. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: So we have in Part 9 the detention and monitoring provisions and what I have done—though I have been interrupted throughout which is why I needed to take a second call—is point out the possibility that two members of this Committee may find themselves having a careful interest in this part. It is good to see that at least one of them is here and I hope we might get to see the other later because it matters to manage our borders in a way that is legal and according to law. Jobs for cash allegations are serious and jobs for voluntary assistance allegations are serious. Of course they are much more easily made than proved and we need to be careful about that. But those allegations are swirling around two members of this Committee. One of them is being investigated by the police to what end we do not know. One of them is not being investigated by the police. That one is being asked only to pay back an amount a little short of 100000 bucks for some accounting errors. But you see accounting errors are not part of immigration law so I cannot dwell on that either. 
If this Parliament is to pass legislation it would be good to know in advance that all 120-something of us think that the legislation is good and that all 120-something of us are prepared to be bound by the legislation. Right at the moment I have my doubts. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Part 9 as my colleague Pete Hodgson said deals with immigration detention and the hindering of deportation. I am a former Minister of Immigration and when my colleagues and I addressed parts of this bill some days ago we reflected on our relative experiences as Ministers of Immigration. I see that Damien O’Connor who is a former Associate Minister of Immigration is here along with me and the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman. 
I recall for instance the case of one Mr Yadegary who delayed his own departure—and I have to be careful because my memory is slightly vague on this—through not signing I believe a travel document. I think he was either from Iran or Iraq; I cannot recall which. I know that in that case the courts took the view that the length of time he had been incarcerated was a determinant factor in his release. I recall that case—and others—and was quite disturbed by it because in essence the courts took the view that even if immigrants were here illegally had gone through the relevant appeal processes and had been found wanting in those appeal processes they should somehow because they had hindered their own departures through for instance not signing a travel document be let out. That was the court ruling because of the perhaps inhumane length of time they were incarcerated. 
Part 9 attempts to deal with that and we support that because it should not be the case that by the action of for instance refusing to sign a travel document a person can somehow just wait out the time before being allowed to remain in New Zealand. In the Yadegary case the court effectively set a precedent or a benchmark if you will to say that if such people wait out X number of months a court is likely to deem that they can be let out and remain in New Zealand. 
There were people in the case of Mr Yadegary who protested that he should be allowed to stay for a variety of reasons. We have had cases and I think I mentioned them some days ago where those who were travelling from overseas converted to I think Catholicism—my own religion not that I am the best Irish Catholic in the world—en route. 
Grant Robertson 
: You confess a lot. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do confess a lot; that is right so my colleague says. But today is not the day; that will wait for another time and I thank my loyal colleagues behind me. Some people converted by osmosis in one case I think in the airport lounge in Seoul en route to New Zealand. They then gained such a profile that they believed that they could not return to their country of origin—in one case I think it was Iran. They had raised their profile so much that they were deemed to be in a position having converted from the Muslim faith to the Catholic faith that if they were to return home something nefarious then might happen to them—they might well be imprisoned or worse. That being the case one could also argue that if they had kept a low profile they may well have returned. 
I recall that when I was Minister we used the UN guidelines—I cannot recall the technical term—from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that determine whether returning a person to their country of origin is detrimental to their well-being or health. I think those international agencies guided by our intelligence agencies and officials from our departments with their labyrinth of global networks and tentacles and the appeal agencies are the agencies that should determine whether somebody can legitimately stay. 
I agree with and support Part 9. Labour supports Part 9 as it attempts to tighten up on people who should be deported if they are hindering their own circumstances. It should not be the case that a person who refuses to sign a travel document is allowed to stay. I recall in one case we had to send officials to Canberra to try to get the embassy there—I think it was the Iraqi embassy—to provide travel documents. In the case of Iran I think it would accept nationals back only if they went voluntarily and had signed a document. So the New Zealand taxpayer either through the corrections system incarcerating the individual or through other social services if the individual is let out is in a bind where a person who is here illegally can by hindering the departure for a length of time and through the decision of a court remain in New Zealand. 
When those immigration decisions are made it is appropriate as this legislation provides that appeal authorities make proper decisions with the guidance of officials and others and ultimately the appeal authorities themselves. We have had high profile cases—and I mean no disrespect—where church leaders church organisations and other organisations have campaigned very heavily for individuals. I recall some people who said—I think it was about Mr Yadegary—that he was a nice bloke therefore he could have stayed. I never met the chap so I would not have known and that may well be the case. But I do not believe that those sorts of arbitrary tests should set aside the appeal authority’s work and research in decisions or the input from officials from intelligence organisations and from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in terms of whether somebody should be returned to their country of origin and we should then just put our finger in the air and say that somebody should stay if enough people jump up and down and make a fuss about it. I mean no disrespect to those people who through goodwill campaigned for individuals but there has to be a test and it has to be authoritative. There are appeal provisions—that is why they are there—and learned men and women and independent appeal authorities are trusted with making decisions. 
To conclude I have said in a previous debate that New Zealanders will be convinced of the integrity of our border and of our immigration system and that we are indeed letting in the right people only if the counterfactual prevails and we are vigorous in preventing people of ill will or people who should not be here from getting into the country. To put it bluntly we should where appropriate—after relevant appeals independent advice and decisions—remove those folks who are here by illegal means or under false pretences. If we do not have integrity in our removal system and if we do not have integrity in securing our border—if we do not have integrity in those areas—then it is difficult especially when we come to humanitarian cases; for instance in the case of the previous Government when it came to the  
Tampa 
 refugees. A Government of the day might say that we should be a humanitarian country that we should do our bit that we should take our refugee component as we do each year and that perhaps we should make an exception and take more from time to time. I do not think the community would accept that if it did not have confidence that we were securing the border. 
I support Part 9 and I support the amendments. I think they are sound and will deal with and perhaps take away from or move some distance away from court decisions that are simply based on the length of time in incarceration and not on the validity of one’s case as a legal migrant. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Allow me to address Part 9 of the Immigration Bill in the Committee stage in the absence of my colleague Keith Locke. The amendments we have proposed as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 31 of 22 July are first to clauses 271A and 285(10). Those measures would result in our view in allowing asylum seekers who have not committed any crime in the community but who are to be deported to remain in jail for the rest of their lives perhaps if they did not sign documentation necessary for their own deportation. The classic cases in the past forty-eighth Parliament were those of the Iranian Christian converts from Islam who were imprisoned for lengthy periods for not signing papers required by the Iranian Government for them to be deported from New Zealand to Iran. They refused to sign because they believed that they would be persecuted back in Iran and such conversion or apostasy as they saw it was a criminal offence there. The bill tries to eliminate any possibility that any such person might have a case for bail. It also eliminates the length of time in prison as a special case for release from prison. Our amendments try to stop this injustice happening and to stop New Zealand breaching the principles of habeas corpus. 
Our amendments are also to clauses 273 and 275 and keep the initial maximum detention time of asylum seekers arriving at our border at its present 72 hours rather than be extended to 96 hours as the bill proposes. There is no good case for such an exemption. Our amendment to clause 285 would reverse the proposal that “exceptional circumstances” would not include the period of time that a person has already been detained. Instead it would propose that such circumstances can indeed include such detention time. 
Finally our amendment to clause 289(2)(c) eliminates the phrase in the bill that “classified information must be treated as accurate.” What possible correlation can exist between secrecy and accuracy? Divine right to rule and the infallibility of the prince have gone out of fashion. It is information that must be tested like any other information. 
I recommend that the Committee revisit these five proposals for amendment in our Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will make a brief contribution to Part 9. I will reflect on the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of which I was a member during its consideration of this very large bill which took a large amount of time. The committee was under the excellent chairmanship of Mark Gosche. 
Paul Quinn 
: Who? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I tell the member not to be disrespectful. 
This part of the bill caused some considerable angst for the committee. It is a highly sensitive issue in a highly sensitive area. I mentioned in my second reading speech that getting our heads around this Immigration Bill was difficult both for me and for other members who have any sense of humanity and do not like to see anybody detained and detained for any length of time. However as others have mentioned during the last Parliament we had a couple of high-profile cases and I came to understand that we need to have a system of trying to manage those non-citizens who have been through all the appeal processes and have not qualified as refugees. Therefore they have no right to remain in New Zealand but they deliberately hinder their departure by refusing to sign documents that would enable them to leave. As others have mentioned there were court cases that created an incentive for those non-citizens to wait out time in detention in order to secure their release into the New Zealand community. 
From Labour’s point of view we felt that this impacted negatively on the integrity of the immigration system. Therefore the select committee when weighing things up looked hard at this issue. It heard many submissions but it also supported the amendments to the bill that create the presumption of exceptional circumstances—that a non-citizen who hinders his or her departure will be detained after the first 6-month period—and also exclude the length of detention from being an exceptional circumstance for the purposes of detention and monitoring. 
As others have said also Labour supports the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 32. The intention of this Supplementary Order Paper builds on what we were intending to do as reported back from the select committee but I understand that Crown Law advice is that it should be amended to ensure that Part 9 should work as it was intended to. We support that amendment. As I said it is a very very difficult area as is the whole area of immigration. It is extremely fraught. We are dealing with human beings and with families and we do have to act humanely and fairly but on balance I support Part 9. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 9 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 271A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 273 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 275 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The next amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 285(10) regarding warrants of commitment as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 289 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 9 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 9 as amended agreed to. 
Part 10 Offences penalties and proceedings 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Well there are no speakers from the Government so I am happy to stand and speak in favour of this legislation and to remind the Committee that Part 10 deals with offences penalties and proceedings. Clause 305 which is at the very beginning of Part 10 deals with the provision of false or misleading information. I have a couple of stories to tell. 
One of the features of clause 305 is that it is carried forward from the current legislation. In other words the existing law states that one may not provide false or misleading information. That is why presumably when New Zealand Immigration Service officials were investigating the case of Mr Bakshi and they sought from him financial information concerning his businesses in order to ascertain whether they were small medium large or indeed very small or miniscule he gave them the wrong business information not in a misleading way but simply by way of signalling that he would not give them the correct information. In other words being aware of the danger of providing false information he decided to provide none at all. 
Regrettably not all of Mr Bakshi’s friends were as savvy as he was. One of them Bhavdeep Dhillon has claimed not to the police or to immigration officials but to the media so legally it does not count that he never took part in any heavying of folk in India of the original complainant against Mr Bakshi or for that matter of the Indian police officials who became involved in the case at higher and higher levels. Regrettably one such person in India has his phone number recorded and that can only be because he received a telephone call. That person has said in an affidavit which the police do have that the purpose of that call was to raise merry hell and cause the original complainant to fall silent. That is why in December of last year when the original complainant was contacted by immigration officials who asked whether they could have a chat with him he said he had nothing to say and was completely happy. He said there was nothing to answer there were no problems and his complaint of only 2 months previously was not one that he wished to pursue. The complainant had been leaned on hard and he had been leaned on by the Indian police as well as by phone calls from New Zealand. That is an interesting example of what may be false or misleading information but for it to be so Bhavdeep Dhillon would need to repeat the remarks that he made to the press to immigration officials and presumably also to the police. 
Then there is the situation where information does not come forward at all. Of course the original complainant is the classic case of that but so too is the Indian gentleman from Tauranga who put the original complaint in front of Television New Zealand just before the election. He did not have anything to say to immigration officials either. He was terrified and the only reason those people are saying anything now is that they have come to believe that things cannot go bad for them because New Zealand’s processes are somewhat more trustworthy than the processes they are used to back home. They have developed the confidence to make their various remarks and to give their various interviews—video interviews included—to New Zealand Immigration Service officials and those have been passed on to the police. 
With those remarks about offences penalties proceedings and the importance of not providing false or misleading information I say that I think Part 10 should proceed but I am aware that my colleague Darien Fenton will when the time arises wish to make her remarks. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 In a departure from the previous member’s offering I will talk about Part 10. Although it may have been ruled to be within the Standing Orders I personally do not feel that his contribution had any relevance to Part 10 and neither was his offering prior to the last speech relevant to Part 9. I am sure that is a debating point that members may wish to take up with me. 
I want to talk about the three areas of Part 10 that deal with compliance with the obligations and the offences for not doing so. 
Grant Robertson 
: Stand up. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is a cheap shot. In particular I wish to talk about that provision where it relates to employers. As we know the 1987 legislation placed similar obligations on the employer to not knowingly employ a non-citizen who was not entitled to work in New Zealand. The nuances of the obligation have been changed. The things that are deemed to be reasonable excuses and therefore defences to an offence under Part 10 have changed taking out the issue of whether the IR330 tax code declaration form constitutes a reasonable excuse for employers to be able to say the employee gave them an IR330 and therefore as employers they did all they needed to do to establish whether the person was legitimately entitled to work in this country and therefore they are OK. 
When submitting on the bill at the select committee employers expressed some disquiet about whether that would impose some extra burden on them. I think the committee has very reasonably reassured employers that that will not be the case and that the requirements that employers need to meet in order to establish a defence are not necessarily onerous. As a former employer one who from time to time employed people who were not New Zealand passport holders but who were otherwise entitled to both live and work in New Zealand I can add that there really is no reason for employers to be worried about this part. There are some quite simple things that can be done in order to establish whether a person can be entitled to work here. 
I am also interested in the Department of Labour and in the enabling provisions that I think in the future will enable the department to develop an online system so that employers can go online and find out whether a foreign national is legitimately entitled to work in New Zealand. That is a really good example of the technologies that can be used to streamline the process around immigration. We have heard of a few examples in earlier debates on other parts; this is another one and I support it. 
We also talked in earlier debates in the Committee stage about the obligation on airlines to establish whether a person is legitimately entitled to travel to New Zealand. Of course this part imposes some fines on the carrier for a failure to do that. I think there are some very good provisions in here that employers do not need to be worried about and I certainly support this part. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will address Part 10 and particularly the provisions on offences by employers. I acknowledge what my colleague across the Chamber has said because he is right about the fact that we spent a lot of time on this proposal in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We looked at whether there were alternative means by which employers could get the information through the Inland Revenue Department. As Michael Woodhouse has pointed out we went to some lengths in our report to reassure employers about this provision. The whole integrity of our immigration system is affected by how we treat workers whom we bring to New Zealand to work for us and whom we need to fill the skills gaps during the good times. It is also affected by how we treat them when we do not need them. 
I talked about this issue in my second reading speech on this bill. I mentioned a particular circumstance that is occurring at the moment and said I hoped that the Minister was keeping a watching brief on the workers who were brought here to work in the telecommunications industry. They were brought here under work permits promised jobs and told that this was a great place to come. They gave up good employment in the Philippines where they had rights that they do not have here. I will get to that issue in a minute. They have been caught up in an industrial dispute whereby Telecom through its contractor Visionstream has decided that those workers should no longer be employed as employees and should become owner-operators. Migrant workers who are on work permits are unable to take that offer up because they would have to go on to business migrant permits and they are not able to do that. People cannot transfer from one type of permit to another. What is going on with regard to those people at the moment is an absolute tragedy. 
Three Filipino telecommunications workers in Nelson were in that situation this week. It is just a tragic story. Again I say those people were encouraged to come and work in New Zealand by Transfield Services which is an Australian operator and to migrate to Nelson to fill a skills shortage that we had here. Of course they have been made redundant by Transfield Services which as I have said is an Australian company. They have been made redundant with just 4 weeks’ pay even though it is an Australian company and if they were in Australia they would have had minimum redundancy protection—they would have received minimum redundancy pay. From the 4 weeks’ pay those workers have had to buy their tickets home. Because they have been laid off they are not entitled to anything so they are sitting in a house in Blenheim unsure about how they will feed themselves for the next 4 weeks while they wait to go back to the Philippines. 
One of those workers a guy called Librado Andales said he had left a good job in the Philippines that he had held for 14 years in order to come to New Zealand 2 years ago. It was his first time abroad and he was encouraged to believe that this was a good place to bring his children and raise them. He said it was far from his imagination that New Zealand would bring someone to do a skilled migrant’s job and then have that person face this awful situation. 
Transfield Services brought in 300 to 400 skilled migrants. 
Simon Bridges 
: Give us some hand movements! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It is not funny actually. It is a real tragedy for those people. 
Simon Bridges 
: Oh come on! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I will report the member’s sympathy back to them. It is a really really awful situation. I have been spending some time with the migrant action group in Auckland as has Jackie Blue. She assured them at the last meeting that I was at that she would be asking the Minister to be more flexible when it comes to workers on work permits who are being laid off but I have not seen any evidence of that. I think members will find that the migrant action group has quite a lot to say in coming months about what we need to do regarding this issue. It is fine to bring migrant workers here when we need them: when we have a lack of skilled workers. It is fine to have in Part 10 of the bill provisions around exploitation. But it is not fine to send those workers back with nothing and to leave them sitting in a house for 4 weeks while they cannot feed themselves and cannot feed their families because we have nothing that looks after those workers. 
Obviously we support Part 10 of the bill. The exploitation provisions are very very important and immigrants deserve to have the minimum requirements that we have in New Zealand under the Holidays Act the minimum wage and the other things that we believe are absolutely fundamental. But as I said I think we really need to think seriously in this House and the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman needs to think—I would welcome his contribution on this—about the people that we have invited here to do jobs that we cannot find New Zealanders to do. We put those workers on the scrap heap and send them home with nothing. I think that is very bad not only for the workers and their families including their children who have been going to school here but also for New Zealand’s reputation. I would encourage the Minister to respond to that. Thank you. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 It really behoves me to comment on the offering of the previous member who spoke Darien Fenton. In fact it was a case of very nearly taking a point of order on whether that was relevant. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You’re so good at those! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well members know I am a bit new and fresh a bit wet behind the ears a shrinking violet and not very confident when it comes to these things. Despite that and I am sure the senior whip for the Opposition would be able to endorse this that speech was so far outside Standing Order 107 which is about relevancy that I was waiting for him to stand up and take a point of order on it. Every single one of the examples that the member talked about was of people who are legitimately entitled to be here under their work permits. How on earth people who were legitimately entitled to be here are somehow subject to the provisions of Part 10 absolutely defies logic. But Darien Fenton has defied logic before and I am sure she will do it again. We are getting pretty used to it. We get a tired mantra around workers’ rights and somehow the member continues to be able to spin absolutely anything that she has to say around that subject. 
Part 10 in particular clauses 314 and 315 talks specifically about the rights of workers even though they might not be legitimately entitled to work in New Zealand. I thought that if that member wanted to say anything about this issue it would have been around the fact that if workers are not legitimately entitled to work—even if employers have taken reasonable steps to ascertain whether the workers are entitled or if they have committed an offence under Part 10 of this bill—employers are still required to and responsible for treating their employees fairly and required to apply the provisions of the Holidays Act and the Minimum Wage Act. Really that speech was something of an irrelevant diatribe and I think we should stick to our knitting when it comes to Part 10. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to take a call in this debate on the Immigration Bill. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: For us! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: For all of the Committee. I say to Darien Fenton that I thought she made a worthy—not exactly statesmanlike but worthy—contribution to the debate. It did not have the touches of brilliance that Cam Calder’s earlier speech had I have to say. For that she would have needed to use a little more hand movement some alliteration and some onomatopoeia. But it was pretty good. 
I will come at the bill from first principles and say this. I enjoyed greatly taking immigration law at the Auckland University law school— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You went to polytech! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: We did not have a polytech where one could study law back then. If we had I probably would have done that. It was a great experience. I learnt that immigration law is a complex area of law. I want to say this bill does a very good job of simplifying the law making it stronger more flexible and giving us an enduring framework going forward. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 10 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 10 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 10 as amended agreed to. 
Part 11 Miscellaneous provisions 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Believe it or not I have a serious question to put to the Minister in the chair Jonathan Coleman and it is a real-life case. There is a child currently in Scotland—at least I think the child is currently in Scotland; I am not sure whether it has been resolved yet—and that child wants to return to New Zealand. When I say: “return to New Zealand” actually the child was born in Scotland. But the child was born in Scotland to two New Zealand citizens. Regrettably each of those citizens was themselves born offshore. Let me try and explain. The child’s four grandparents were all born and raised in New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Is this a riddle? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No it is not a riddle; it is a real-life problem. What I am trying to work out is whether we have it fixed and I simply cannot get it. All four of the child’s grandparents were born in New Zealand and the child’s two parents were both raised in New Zealand. All four grandparents were born in New Zealand and each pair of grandparents then travelled offshore for postgraduate study—one pair to Australia and one to Canada. In Australia and Canada each of the child’s parents was born. [ 
Interruption 
] Well it may end up on Mr Woodhouse’s desk; I will send over the details. As a result of that although the parents were born to New Zealand citizens they assumed Australian and Canadian citizenship respectively and their citizenship in New Zealand which was subsequently granted is of a different status to that which would be the case if they were born here. I appreciate that the member says this is not citizenship legislation but is immigration legislation but it is now an immigration problem because now that the two parents of the child have grown up and finished their first degree they are offshore too doing post-graduate study themselves—in this case in Scotland—and this child has come along. 
The New Zealand citizenship processes will not allow this child to be granted New Zealand citizenship. Attempts to give the child Canadian citizenship are possible—the child can be given Canadian citizenship because one of his parents was born in Canada even though the family lived there for only 3 years—and the Australian Government has apparently said that Australian citizenship for this child is not appropriate. The child cannot travel because he cannot be put on to a passport. This family is due to come back to New Zealand. It is not an urgent problem; these people are not due to come back for a time although they wonder what will happen if they have to rush back to New Zealand in a hurry for some reason. It is just an interesting issue that I think the very first part of Part 11 might help address but I do not know whether it addresses it. 
I am sorry that I have given the officials a bit of a pickle but I wonder whether they would be able to help if we have a few minutes. If they are not able to help then that is fair enough; the legislation can proceed anyway. But if the officials would be good enough to look at the first part of Part 11 and tell me whether I am right in my thinking that maybe a fix for circumstances of that sort is applicable with regard to the most favourable citizenship proposition—the idea that we would accord a person the citizenship most favourable to the person’s status. I wonder whether the clauses in the Immigration Bill even though it is not dealing primarily with citizenship would allow this child who is currently in Scotland to come to New Zealand which is where his natural home will be. I could just keep talking if officials would like to take the time to confer with the Minister in the chair. They are conferring now; that is slightly helpful. 
If the view of the officials is that I am on the wrong track then that is fine. I am very happy to be corrected. But I just wonder whether the very first part of Part 11 which is miscellaneous provisions has any relevance to the real-life problem that I am addressing. By the way this child was born after 1 January 2006. This child is not a New Zealand citizen because this child was born in Scotland to New Zealand parents who were themselves born overseas to New Zealanders. So that is me just trying to nut through a bit more time here. If the officials would like to shake their heads and indicate that I am on the wrong track then I will gladly resume my seat. But if they would like to offer advice to their Minister then that would be good too. If they would like me to go through the story again then they could indicate that and I will happily try to tell it without hesitation on the second time around. I am just not sure whether the officials want to rise to the occasion. I do not mean to put them on the spot. As I say if it will not work— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Can’t do it off-line I think. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is off-line and it will not work. Nevertheless it was worth a go. I thank the Committee for its indulgence. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 350 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 11 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 11 as amended agreed to. 
Part 12 Repeals transitional provisions saving provisions and related matters 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The debate on Part 12 includes schedules 3 4 and 5. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I do not know what my whip thinks but I am getting the sense that we might finish the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill at or a minute or two before 6 o’clock so I do not really want to spend a lot of time on this part. But I will say that one of the features of Part 12 is that it has been completely rewritten and most of Part 12 of the bill as introduced has been struck out. I suppose therefore it is a good time for me to say once more that this legislation which was reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 15 months ago was subject to the most extraordinary examination by the select committee members. I was not one of them. I was not doing select committee work back then— 
Paul Quinn 
: Higher elevation. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. But the chair the Hon Mark Gosche—a pretty experienced politician who is no longer with us unfortunately—and the members of the select committee put in the hours. I think it is time to reflect on the hours that were put in. The result is legislation that has bipartisan support despite the fact that the select committee members argued and grizzled about all sorts of things and despite the fact that the Minister of Immigration has subsequently come up with a particularly large Supplementary Order Paper. We have had the opportunity to go through that Supplementary Order Paper with the Minister’s officials whilst in Opposition and I again thank the Minister the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman for that courtesy. It has meant that this huge piece of legislation has been able to make its way through the Committee stage reasonably quickly. I say “huge” because it is more than 500 pages. 
I will sit down in 30 seconds but I record for the Committee once more that this Immigration Bill went through a fine select committee process and was chaired by a fine former member of this House. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 12 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 12 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 12 as amended agreed to. 
New Part 13 Amendments to Immigration Act 1987 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I am struggling to work out where new Part 13 begins and ends but I wonder whether the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman might take a very short call to speak on Supplementary Order Paper 68 as it affects the amendments that have been occasioned by the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. If he has got his head around it—I do not say that sarcastically—I ask him whether he would like to give us any comment on what has happened to the amendment to the District Courts Act 1947 which pertains to the number of District Court judges. I think that the bill acknowledged that the number of District Court judges was going to increase but this amendment takes that increase away. That does not seem quite right. 
The Minister may not wish to take a call. We cannot force the Minister. We could make a great hue and cry about it. In fact we could do so for some hours. I wonder whether we should take this legislation through until 10 o’clock. The Minister does not mind? The Minister has had a terrible day. We were trying to be easy on the gentleman. There is only a certain amount of abuse and hardship an individual piece of physiology can take. An ordinary piece of vaguely humanoid protoplasm does have its limits! I thought the Minister has had a tough day and he would be quite happy to finish at 6 o’clock. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He wasn’t allowed a question time. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is true. He had a late start. That is true. If the Minister is going to ignore me then we can always respond to that. In fact we can respond seriously. What do we think team? 
I am trying to work out what has happened to the number of District Court judges. I thought it had gone up. As I read Supplementary Order Paper 68 it takes the number down again and that does not seem right. The explanatory note states: “The amendment relating to the District Courts Act 1947 (which altered the maximum number of District Court Judges from 140 to 141) will be addressed in a separate Ministry of Justice bill amending that Act.” I think that the Minister is saying that we do not need the amendment now because the amendment will be made later. I can see the whips conferring. Maybe they are working out how many District Court judges we need in this country. The Minister is showing no signs of flexing his flaccid musculature. 
Hon Member 
: Offensive reference. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Is flaccid not the right word? I meant “flac-cid”. I mispronounced it. I apologise. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: We would like a response. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We would like a response from the Minister but we will not get one. I will resume my seat. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in his name to add new Part 13 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
New Part 13 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 32 and 68 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 4 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to schedule 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Schedule 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 5 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to schedule 5 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Schedule 5 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 The interesting thing about clause 1 is that it reads as follows: “This Act is the Immigration Act 2007.” “Hark” I say to myself “what year are we in now?”. I wonder what took us so long. I can further advise the House that no amendment to clause 1 is upon us. So we may be about to pass legislation that is wrongly labelled the Immigration Act 2007 when it is to be passed some time late in 2009. But perhaps help is at hand because the parliamentary counsel folk at the drafting office may have taken upon themselves certain extra parliamentary freedoms to make little changes here and there—their little bid for minor amounts of power. It may be that they are fully entitled by the weird and wonderful sorts of practices that we have around this House to make the Immigration Act 2007 become the Immigration Act 2009. I am not sure whether the Minister is worried about that. At that point I sort of give up and think “God I hope the system works” because we have had this legislation in front of us now for 2 years. Two years have clicked by and one hopes that when we print this thing we can get the year right. 
The more important question I would like to ask the Minister—I am not sure whether the Minister is in a talkative mood—is in respect of clause 430 which is the “what the hell happens next” clause. I want to ask the Minister what happens next. Clause 430 comes into effect immediately and it is the clause by which the Minister can get on and promulgate regulations put people on boards and do all of the things that may be said to be part of the implementation of the legislation. The Minister one assumes has a game plan for that. One assumes it will be driven somewhat by officials. I am not suggesting it should not be. But I want to know when this legislation will come into effect because we have waited long enough for it. Of course only clauses 1 and 430 will come into effect on the day after the royal assent. The others will come into effect precisely when the Government wants them to. So we could—and I am not being silly here—pass this legislation and have nothing happen. 
I wonder whether the Minister would like to tell us how he is positioned: whether he has the budget he needs to get the implementation of the legislation done and whether he has the officials doing the work plan. I am sure that he has so when does he think we will see the new authorities up and running? Will it be later this year? Might it be early next year? Will there be any problem around the development of such regulations as are needed under this legislation? Sometimes officials say that regulations take years to put in place. In other words having sweated this legislation through I ask the Minister to jump to his feet and tell us very briefly what he thinks the implementation plan looks like and when we might see this legislation fully fledged and in full force. That concludes my contribution. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I think clause 2 is a mighty fine clause. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in his name to clause 2(3) be agreed to. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is another step towards the fulfilment of another election commitment from the National-led Government. I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its consideration of the bill and note the continued fine chairmanship of the member Chester Borrows who has worked under considerable pressure for a lengthy period of time on matters arising from the National-led Government’s first 100 days in office. My thanks also go to the other members of that committee from all parties as I am conscious that a fair amount of work was referred to the committee during 2008-09. 
After receiving 13 submissions and hearing seven submissions in person I am advised the committee has recommended that the bill be passed with amendments to clarify its intent and improve its consistency with the broader legislative framework for reparation and fines. As we know the bill provides for a $50 levy to be imposed on all convicted offenders who are sentenced in a District Court or High Court for one or more criminal convictions. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that offenders in a general sense contribute towards addressing the harm that criminal behaviour causes victims. Revenue generated from the offender levy—an estimated $13.6 million over the first 4 years—will be used to fund additional entitlements and services for victims of serious crime. 
The offender levy establishment costs of approximately $2.3 million in 2009-10 have been appropriated as part of Budget 2009-10. Collection costs from 2010-11 onwards will I am pleased to advise the House be largely covered by funding that was previously allocated to the disestablished Sentencing Council. This additional funding will also allow for new entitlements and services for victims of serious crime to begin in 2009 before collection of the levy commences. In the very near future I will be announcing more detail regarding those new entitlements and services for victims of serious crime. 
One issue raised by submitters to the select committee was that of fairness. They pointed out that those who committed serious crimes would incur the same $50 levy as those who committed minor offences. I reiterate that the offender levy is not a sentence. The seriousness of an offence is reflected in the actual sentence imposed on the offender. The committee recommended a sensible amendment to the bill regarding the provision of services to victims. New section 105J inserted by clause 7 is amended to require organisations approved under the bill to provide “services” to victims rather than “support”. The word “services” more accurately reflects the intention that approved agencies provide specific entitlements and services for victims of crime rather than the more nebulous concept of support. I have read the concerns of Labour members that “the levy could detrimentally affect reparation payments”. They do not understand the bill. I reassure victims of crime that the offender levy will not affect the payment of reparation to victims because the levy is to be paid after any order of reparation is collected. 
In addition the bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002 so that the court when it considers the final circumstances of an offender when awarding reparation to victims or imposing fines must not take into account the payment of the levy. Therefore the legislation is clear that the payment of reparation and fines is not to be affected by the levy. 
The bill specifies that existing enforcement processes under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 be utilised to collect the levy when the offender also owes fines or reparations. Where only the levy is outstanding the bill provides for a modified enforcement process to be used to ensure cost-effectiveness. The committee has recommended amending the bill to allow for the sale proceeds of offenders’ confiscated vehicles to be used to pay outstanding levies in addition to fines and reparations. The bill also amends the definition of a fine in the Social Security Act 1964 to include the offender levy. This will allow Work and Income to disclose information—for example addresses and telephone numbers—to the courts to enable the location of any beneficiary who is in default of the payment of the offender levy. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee has also recommended amending the definition of a fine in the Tax Administration Act 1994 the Customs and Excise Act 1996 and the Immigration Act 1997. These amendments will allow those people who owe levies to be matched as part of the authorised information-matching programmes run by the Ministry of Justice and is a welcome addition to the bill. It will be a cost-effective way of finding a person who owes a levy and who is otherwise not in contact with the court. We support the amendments. 
Labour members have also expressed concern at the high administration costs of the offender levy. I consider that the cost of collecting the levy—approximately $1.3 million per annum—is a small figure compared with the estimated $13.6 million that the levy will generate after only 4 years. We must remember that this is money that victims of crime would never have otherwise received. As I said earlier the cost will also be offset by funding that had been set aside for the Sentencing Council. 
This Government has made the commitment to rebalance the criminal justice system—to shift the focus away from offenders and towards victims of crime. The offender levy which will provide ongoing funding to improve the welfare and well-being of victims of serious crime is an important first step in this process but I want to make it absolutely clear that it is by no means the end of our work in this area. I commend the bill to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to talk about Labour’s support for the bill. Labour is supporting the bill but doing so with some reservations. I know that Chester Borrows will be thinking that Lynne Pillay is going to bring up the Sentencing Council again—and yes I will. My colleague Charles Chauvel will also probably take a call and mention that. 
But I start by acknowledging the Law Commission. A year ago to the day it released a very comprehensive report on compensation for crime victims. The commission while acknowledging the role of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) considered a variety of ways to make compensation and made some comments on the remedy we are talking about today. Labour is not opposing this bill but we do believe that it does very little— 
Simon Bridges 
: You’re quibbling. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am not quibbling. 
Simon Bridges 
: You’re supporting it but also speaking against it. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is pretty rich coming from that side of the House but we will not go there. Labour is supporting this bill and I will tell members why. We had an open mind and supported the bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Submitters to that committee were in support of the bill and indeed many shared our view about it. I think it was the National Council of Women that agreed with the bill in principle—and I do not think that anyone in this House would oppose any form of compensation for victims—but the council raised a concern very similar to ours about the cost of administering the levy and the bureaucracy associated with its collection. That issue was very much a concern of the National Council of Women and a number of other submitters also raised that but we could not oppose the principle about enhanced support for victims of crime. We intend to monitor very closely how this legislation will work in effect. We are confident that the bill will be passed not because it is the best remedy—we know that that is not the case—but because it provides support for victims of crime. 
I acknowledge that Simon Power talked about the advantages of this bill but what I and Labour do not want to happen is to have unrealistic expectations raised. We note that the levy will be further down the pecking order if I can use that term after reparation. But the concern we raised—and we talked quite a bit about it in the select committee with submitters—is whether the levy will still have some effect if we are dealing with an offender and there is limited resource and even whilst reparation will be taken into account first. The levy will be non-negotiable and will be applied to all offenders. If we look at it quite realistically and considering that the more serious the crime the longer the sentence we know therefore that it will be longer before the levy is required to be paid. Ironically the worse the criminals’ records are for making payments the less likely it is that they will have to pay them. I think those concerns were raised by the Law Commission in its review. I note that the commission did not see that this levy was the best way forward mainly because of the cost. 
I will just talk a little bit about the cost. The claim was that the scheme would raise about $5 million a year for victims and then the Government was forced to scale back that prediction to $13.6 million over the first 4 years. That is a substantial scale back. Then other things are subtracted and that is the area of concern that we had. It is to do with subtracting the costs to set up the levy and to run the scheme which almost halves that amount for victims. We believe that probably if we were more realistic then it would have been more effective rather than having all this bureaucracy to give the money directly to that wonderful organisation Victim Support which has led the way in terms of support for victims of crime. But that was not to be. The purpose of the levy is enveloped in bureaucracy. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Watch this space Lynne! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: We will see. We will be looking at how much of the $50 levy actually goes towards support for victims of crime. 
It would be remiss of me if I did not talk about ACC. In this House during question time earlier this afternoon we voiced our considerable concerns about ACC. One would have to say that it seems completely— 
Paul Quinn 
: Lynne! Lynne! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I tell that member to stop that; this is quite relevant to this bill thank you very much. It seems completely contradictory for the Government to pretend that this levy is about victims of crime whereas on the other side we have victims of very serious crime being dealt with under ACC. We have seen that through the sensitive claims unit of ACC. Probably the most compelling and heart-wrenching stories we could ever hear whether in this House or in our communities are about victims of crime and of sexual assault from their childhood yet we see those people being forced to jump through more hoops. There are much higher criteria and the goalposts are being raised for them to receive the support they so much deserve. It seems very very sad that this levy is being imposed with a very high cost of administration yet effective counselling through ACC really does help people and it is something they contribute to themselves when they are going through counselling. They receive a part payment from ACC but that payment is at risk. People’s rights to that are being cut and I see that as being very much at odds with what this bill is about. As I said we will be watching this scheme very carefully as it goes through. 
As I said before this scheme was at the cost of the Sentencing Council. That council would have done a lot to give some real— 
David Garrett 
: Shorter sentences—that’s what would have happened. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Yes certainly from the peanut gallery we always have that chant about shorter sentences do we not? Those people think we will solve all the problems in our country if we put people away longer but we know that is not the case. The Sentencing Council would have brought about consistency of sentencing and a common sense approach to sentencing. The council was something that the Law Commission had put a lot of time energy and sensible advice into and it is very sad that it did not go ahead. I think that that consistency of sentencing would have delivered a lot to victims. Indeed when we had our inquiry into victims’ rights many submitters—and I can see Chester Borrows nodding his head in agreement—came and spoke to us about fairness and consistency in and understanding of the system. So that is a loss. 
In terms of this levy I hope that it will build on a number of progressions that happened under the Labour Government such as the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 the Sentencing Act 2002 and the campaign we launched in 2003 to trace those who owed money and to deal with the money raised by that—a considerable amount of money. 
I can see that the Assistant Speaker is saying it is time to let others have a say. We are very inclusive in this Chamber so I am happy to finish my speech now. Thank you. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand here as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and acknowledge the work of the other committee members and their good faith especially Lynne Pillay with her frequent use of terms such as Sentencing Council during the course of the debate around the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the goodwill with which members from across the House debated this bill and it is also good to be part of a Government that is delivering on the promises we all made on that campaign trail. Of course law and order was a very big factor in the last campaign. There was an expectation on behalf of the public that the new Government would deliver and what do you know we have. 
The thrust of this bill is assisting victims and it is certainly moving towards that at a great rate of knots. People before the select committee roundly endorsed the purpose of the bill. They had some reservations and those reservations have been articulated by previous speakers. But it is also interesting to note two different approaches in relation to this bill between National and Labour. There has been a lot of mention of the Sentencing Council but we have to remember that that council was in effect a district health board introduced by the Labour Government to be put into the criminal justice system to put the responsibility of court outcomes at arm’s length from the Government. The fact is that when we get elected to this House we are charged with the job in respect of law and order and in respect of justice to set penalties and to give the courts a clear indication of where we want them to go. If they do not do that then there are mechanisms to be able to do that and there was no need for a Sentencing Council which was going to take $5 million of hard-earned taxpayers’ money just as some sort of posterior-covering manoeuvre on behalf of a Government that was not prepared to take responsibility for court outcomes. 
Another sad fact to note from listening to one speaker who spoke before me and to others who will follow is that it must be a long time since they have sat in a District Court and listened to the process of sentencing and imposing fines and court costs on people who appear before the court for fairly low-level offending—those who will be paying the vast majority of offender levies under this scheme. The fact is that most people who appear before the District Court receive a fine or an order for reparation of some kind and the vast majority of them pay it. There is an administration cost in recovering that. There is an administration cost in recovering just about anything that we impose on society at large and we have to expect that. The fact is that this legislation will generate a vast amount of money that was not in the system and was not available to victims currently and it will be as a result only of this piece of legislation. 
I will finish off by remarking on the cost of being a victim in this country. In relation to crimes against property for instance theft and damage people can get their heads around it very quickly; it is the cost of recovery or reinstating that property that was damaged or stolen. But when it is a crime against a person it is a totally different kettle of fish. There are so many costs that go hand in hand with being a victim of a crime against a person that are not currently covered within our accident compensation system our victim support system or our justice system. This legislation will allow those costs to be met. 
I ask members to consider for instance the example of the mother of Michael Choy the man killed by six young people about 8 years ago. From about 2005 those six young people were coming up for parole every year and the family of that victim had to keep going out of a sense of duty a sense of need and a sense of worth back and back and back to six parole hearings a year. The cost of attending was not necessarily covered by the taxpayer but the vast majority of taxpayers believe that it should be. Under this legislation there is the ability to cover some of those costs. It could maybe cover increased counselling or supervision costs the costs of travel and the cost of assistance. I believe wholeheartedly that the vast majority of the New Zealand population and thankfully the vast majority of this House agree with National on this point no matter what little quibbling points they may have. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill and to follow on from my colleague Chester Borrows. He was a very good chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee through the process of considering this bill although I would counter the assertion that what we on this side of the House are raising today is mere quibbling. I disagree with that point and hope to do so by expanding on a few points in my speech. 
But first I go back to the Sentencing Council but only very briefly because there are more substantive matters that this bill raises. It was the funding from the Sentencing Council that was used to set up the administrative arm of this bill because it will have a hefty cost to administer. I disagree with the select committee chair’s view that the Sentencing Council was in any way trying to circumvent or take away what is ultimately a power of Parliament in guiding or at least in setting the bounds of sentencing. We have already seen some of the areas in which the Sentencing Council could have had a useful role. More recently that was through the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill which was considered by the same select committee. 
All of the committee members heard from organisations in particular from organisations like Women’s Refuge and their concerns that the removal of provocation would impact on some of the people they deal with on a day-to-day basis. There was a view expressed that relying on self-defence did not take into account some of the intricacies or some of the details around battered woman’s syndrome and that self-defence sometimes implies an immediacy that is not often the case when a battered wife is responding to a violent situation in her own home. They themselves acknowledged that it was something that needed greater thought. It was an area that perhaps even a Sentencing Council could have assisted with in giving guidance around those mitigating factors when laying charges and when responding with sentences. 
Paul Quinn 
: Whose submission was that? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I think that is a worthy point to raise in the context of this bill. I would be happy to pull out the transcripts for my colleague Mr Quinn who seems unable to recall that. It was the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges I believe that raised that particular point. 
But in going back to the bill itself I wish to restate for the benefit of members on the other side of the House as I did in the first reading that no one disagrees that it would be hugely beneficial to give greater support to victims in our justice system. That is not a premise with which we would disagree. The question then comes down to the policy mechanisms we use to do that. Although we are supporting this bill because we support the principle we have grave reservations over whether it is the most effective way to achieve that goal. The Justice and Electoral Committee did its best to deal with what it was given but at the very core of this bill there are some large flaws that were just not within the scope of the select committee to change. I will cover some of those. 
Under the current sentencing regime the Sentencing Act 2002 there is a requirement already under the court to impose a sentence of reparation unless the court is satisfied that such a sentence would result in undue hardship. There is a really important reason why that has been made explicit within the legislation. There are two factors. The first is that it does not unnecessarily raise expectations for a victim as would a judge awarding large reparations that would obviously be unable to be paid by that particular person. The other important point about reparation is that it is direct. It is a direct payment to the victim involved in that crime from the perpetrator of that crime. But that is something this offender levy does not achieve; it is in no way direct. So I dispute with anyone who tries to claim that this is somehow creating greater accountability from an offender to a victim. 
One point I would like to raise is that I see reparation as what our primary focus should be yet the offender levy in many ways could overtake reparation. I will refer to the Law Commission’s point on this because I think the commission articulates it best when it states: “Whatever the range of offences to which it is applied the financial circumstances of many offenders already impact on the making amount and payment of sentences of reparation as well as fine collection and introducing a levy would exacerbate this. It would be possible to set the amount of the levy at such a low rate that it would not make any or would only make a small discernible difference to the offender’s financial situation. However that could clearly reduce the amount of revenue that could be raised.” 
The report goes on to state: “There would also be issues about whether the levy should have priority over reparation and fines or vice versa.” The Government has made the decision that reparation will come first. But judges are taking into account the ability to pay reparation; on the levy they are not. On the levy there is no discretion for a judge to make a decision as to whether someone is able to pay. So where does that leave us? In a sense if the judge did want to take into account the ability to pay has already told offenders they must pay $50 he or she could feasibly start discounting that from the amount he or she will award in reparation; or there might not be any reparation at all awarded because in some offenders’ circumstances the judge will think it unlikely they would pay in any case. So I think we have not prioritised accurately between reparation and levies particularly given that reparation is much more direct for the victim and is much more accountable. I think that it should take priority over any of those other payments. The evidence bears this out and the direction of the select committee discussion bears all of these points out as well. 
The select committee spent a lot of time talking about the administration cost of this scheme and for good reason. If the ultimate aim is to put more money into the coffers of victim support I think it is important that we try to reduce the amount of money we spend chasing the $50 from individual offenders. I have read reports that state it would take 30000 offenders to pay the levy in order to break even in this scheme which to me is quite significant. We have also seen calculations that say that half of the amount collected will go to administration costs. Going back to the Sentencing Act one of the reasons a judge currently takes into account an offender’s ability to pay is to try to mitigate against that fact—to try to reduce the number of times someone is being chased who absolutely does not demonstrate the ability to pay that particular fee. 
Let us reflect back. I am sure my colleagues will spend a lot more time talking about the administration cost side of things. I want to spend a little bit of time reflecting on the changes that the select committee made because I have not heard them discussed in any great length. One of the issues the select committee discussed was whether the levy should be imposed for each offence—because some offenders will be coming forward with a whole range of offences—or whether it should be just for a single sentencing event. The select committee’s decision was that in order to reduce the chances of non-payment which would then undermine the scheme it would be best to award the levy only per sentencing event. Again there is an acknowledgment here in that decision that chasing around fees that will not be paid would undermine the scheme. That is one of the points we have made clearly the whole way through. 
The second issue we looked at was whether young offenders should be picked up by the scheme. The young offenders are those who originally would go through the Youth Court but who may due to the nature of their crime or their offending be referred to the District Court. That amounts to about 270 young people per annum. Again the decision was made that that would only increase an already exceptionally high administration cost for the scheme and therefore the decision was made not to exclude those young people. I would be very interested to see whether we can get a breakdown of the success of payment across that group of people as well. 
The third issue we discussed in select committee was the size of the levy. As the Law Commission has already pointed out shifting the size of the levy again might have impacted on whether it was paid at all so we left it at the charge of $50. Finally we looked at the sale of confiscated vehicles and made the decision that if a confiscated vehicle was sold then the proceeds could go to pay off fines reparation and the levy. All of that discussion at select committee from both sides of the House demonstrates where all the concern in this debate lies: the heavy amount of emphasis on the cost of administration and the fact that accountability is removed from what I think is a well-functioning reparation scheme for victims. We need to do more but I seriously question whether this bill is the answer. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on the worthy Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill which is a plank in the Government’s justice programme. I start by agreeing with something that one of the Labour members said: we have to be careful not to raise unrealistic expectations around this bill. I quite agree; we should not say and I do not think anyone would say that this bill is going to save the world. But in my view it is certainly a good practical step towards rebalancing the justice system putting victims back closer to the centre of that system and helping in real and practical ways with the financial and emotional costs of crime. 
Crime is very expensive for victims; I will me give members a real example. The Tauranga District Court is the jury court for the Western and much of the Eastern Bay of Plenty. People have to come from as far afield as Whakatane Opotiki and Te Kaha for sentencing and the like following a conviction at a jury trial. They are coming a long way. People from Te Kaha are coming a good 2½ hours maybe slightly more so that is a 5 to 6-hour round trip. And they are not coming in a Lexus or a European car as some might who travel that distance; as victims of crime they are unfortunately more often than not from the bottom rather than the top of society. On top of having to worry about the effects of the crime the sentencing coming up perhaps a disputed facts hearing and the issues that they will have to confront at that hearing they are also worrying about the petrol costs and how they will pay to get there. This bill as I say is a practical step that gets around that. It will make sure that although victims will still have to worry about some things—human things that we will never be able to do away with—they will have help with their petrol costs and perhaps after sentencing with their counselling costs and so on. That is a very good thing indeed. 
Finally to put a human face on this I refer to one submission. I will not name the submitter but it was someone who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee and gave a heartfelt submission in relation to a family member who had been killed by the act of a career criminal a P addict on parole and on the witness protection programme. As I say her submission was heartfelt. She had experienced a system she said that favoured the offender and one that in her view had little regard for victims’ rights. Nothing could compensate for the death of her family member. Her loss was indescribable and although the wounds might heal eventually she said that the scars would run deep and would always be felt. She was in favour of this bill. In her conclusion she said she had a vision that one day victims of crime would be truly recognised and that regardless of their assets or income they would not be left financially disadvantaged by a crime that was forced upon them. She saw the $50 offender levy as a positive first step in achieving that vision. I respectfully agree entirely with her; I think this bill is a practical step to rebalancing the justice system and giving victims a better place in our society. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise to speak to the second reading of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. Labour is supporting this bill but it is not wholehearted support because we think the bill will make a real difference. We support it because it is not really worth our while opposing. Members have already heard from my colleagues that if we felt this bill would make a real difference there would be full wholehearted support from members on this side of the House. But clearly there is not a lot in this bill that will support victims unlike what Labour did when it was in Government and I will come back to that point. In fact I will spend much of my 10 minutes talking about the number and range of very real things that Labour did when in Government to support in a very practical sense victims and their rights. 
Before I spend most of my speech reminding people about Labour’s very fine record I say again that this bill is all for show but has no useful effect. It is like the car-crusher legislation that Parliament is also considering at the moment. That legislation will affect 10 cars a year. The offender levy of $50 will in many instances cost more than $50 to gather. I think that Simon Bridges is right unfortunately that we should not raise unrealistic expectations about the impact of this bill. He is quite right: his Government has put a bill before this House that will not have a huge impact on victims and their involvement with the justice system but it does have a feel-good factor about it. That is what the National Government is all about after all. 
The Government will be judged on this issue. In about 2 years’ time National will be judged on whether it has fulfilled its commitment and the impression that it gave the electorate before the last election that it would fix crime. I sincerely hope that this makes a difference to the victims of crime because National certainly gave the impression that it would do that while in Government. National will be judged in 2 years’ time on whether it has made things better for the victims of crime and the electorate will be quite right to judge it on that factor. 
The bill is all for show and will have no useful effect but it is not worth opposing so we will support it. I am sure that victims of crime would rather— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Ha ha! 
SUE MORONEY 
: —Simon Power might agree with this— 
Hon Simon Power 
: It’s not worth opposing so you’ll support it. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well there is nothing in the bill. Nothing will happen as a result of it but it is really not worth our while opposing it. 
I am sure that the victims of crime would prefer to have a better response time to the crimes that they are facing while the crimes are occurring. We have heard just this week that those statistics are getting worse under this Government. Victims of crime are not having their serious crimes responded to on the same priority basis as they were responded to when Labour was in Government. Those are the factors that victims of crime will judge this Government on and so they should. Crimes are being carried out but the response time has gone down already under this Government. [ 
Interruption 
] Phil Heatley may think that is something to be excited about but if one is a victim of a crime and the offender is still on the premises the victim wants a very urgent response from the police. In fact what has been happening I say to Mr Heatley is that that response time has been increasing under the National Government. Mr Heatley will be judged in Whangarei on those sorts of statistics come the next election and so he should be. 
Mr Heatley and his colleagues made a promise to the electorate at the last election that they would fix this. They promised to get better at this but they are getting worse. Those are the sorts of things that victims of crime want fixed up. They do not want this charade of a $50 levy that is to be collected or not and will cost perhaps more to be collected from people who have been successfully prosecuted and then may or may not end up alleviating the situation for victims of crime. Those are not the charades that people were asking for. What they wanted was better response times. 
People wanted the police to be well resourced. At the moment the police are being completely distracted by having to find cost-cutting measures that they can offer to the Minister of Police just so that the National Government can pay for the tax cuts that it gave to the top 3 percent of wage earners in this country. That is what our police are distracted by. I am sure that is one of the reasons why the response times to serious crimes are increasing. The police are completely distracted by looking for these cost savings. 
Before I go too much further on as I promised at the beginning of my speech I will remind the people who are listening of what it looks like when very serious attempts are being made to address victims’ rights. These are some of the things Labour did when in Government. Labour introduced and passed the Sentencing Act in 2002 which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in that sentence being used more frequently. I say to Mr Bridges that that is a practical result for victims. It is not the idea that victims might somehow get the results of a $50 levy which may or may not be collected and may or may not end up being something that is a useful resource for victims but sentencing in favour of reparations being made. That Act was passed in 2002 under Labour. 
In 2002 that same Sentencing Act also recognised the potential of restorative justice processes to make offenders more accountable to victims. Very real progress has been made. This is good practical stuff. It has enabled the courts to take into account both financial and non-financial offers of amends made by an offender. 
Labour also introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act in 2002—in that very same year—which extended a number of rights to victims such as the right to information and the ability to have input into sentencing decisions through victim impact statements. We have seen the impact that has had in some very recent high-profile court cases in this country. A law that was passed in 2002 continues to be put to good use and so it should be. These are some of the actual real practical impacts on victims. 
The problem with the bill we are presently addressing is that this $50 levy is a feel-good factor that may never ever get near the victims who really need that support. I agree with Simon Bridges on one fact though. Well-researched evidence suggests that low-income people suffer more frequently as victims of crime than people at the higher end of our social spectrum. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that women are more frequently victims of crime as well. Of course we take these issues very seriously. 
Again under Labour in 2003 the Ministry of Justice launched a campaign to trace those who owed money. It spent $385000 on advertising an 0800 number for people to call and the establishment of new collection centres further bolstered the collection and disbursement of reparations which had been put in place by the Sentencing Act 2002. An amount of $9 million was allocated in the 2003 Budget for this purpose. Labour also passed the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act in 2005 which ensured that the victims of inmates who had been awarded compensation could claim against that compensation. 
These are very real examples of things that made a difference. The list goes on and on and I am about only one-third of the way through it but members can get the sense of the very real and practical things that Labour did when in Government that made a difference. Those things continue to make a very real difference. 
I will be interested to see in 2 years’ time when the electorate gets to make its decision and cast its judgment on whether National has reduced crime whether National has made life better for victims and whether these $50 levies come anywhere near any of the victims of crime who need this so much. It is a very important issue. I do not think that this bill goes anywhere near addressing the seriousness of it. It is an interesting attempt at window dressing but it will not resolve the issue. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I was somewhat underwhelmed by the previous speaker and sort of flabbergasted at the words that came out of her mouth. Clearly during the deliberations on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee she was obviously completely asleep. I will read to members— 
Sue Moroney 
: Open your eyes at the select committee Paul. Look at the other side. 
PAUL QUINN 
: I cannot refer to the fact that the member was not on the select committee but now that she has raised that I will do so. So how does the member know what she was talking about? That is the very point I was trying to make and you have just made it for me. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is bringing the Speaker into the debate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I think the member is correct. I ask the member— 
PAUL QUINN 
: I offer my deepest apologies. Let me read something for the benefit of the member because she said this whole bill is derisory. I challenge her to come with me to visit Judy Ashton in Richmond. Judy Ashton fronted up to the select committee and in a heartfelt gut-wrenching submission she gave her full support to the bill. Here is a woman who on 6 December 2006 lost her only daughter in a car accident and the member is making a joke of it. I do not know where the previous speaker was coming from. 
I will now comment briefly on Jacinda Ardern’s contribution to the debate. Although she did share with us some of the issues that were canvassed typically she put her own colourful twist on things. I look forward to debating those and other issues during the Committee stage. Of course one of the other things I look forward to debating is the Sentencing Council. 
With those few words to which I just add that the present net value of the levy means the funding for victims will be self-sustaining I have much pleasure in supporting the second reading of this bill. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 My colleagues on this side of the House have already set out Labour’s position on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. I think each one of them has also noted that the establishment of the apparatus to create the sentencing offender levy will come at the expense of the proposal to establish the Sentencing Council. I will devote some time to that issue. 
I think it is a tragedy that we are losing the Sentencing Council. If lawyers in the House thought seriously about this issue they would admit to themselves that one of the things that the common law cannot deliver is certainty of outcome. The reason is that the common law is a judge-made system. It is a system where judges decide cases before them on the basis of the facts and the facts are never the same so perfect consistency cannot be achieved across the system in the way that for example the European magistracy strives to achieve. In that system judges essentially follow a set of rules. In our system we preserve a judicial discretion. I am all for the judicial discretion. It is the way in which judges manage to differentiate between different cases and hopefully try to deliver justice on each individual occasion. 
But it is worth remembering that most jurisdictions that we like to stack ourselves up against—the United Kingdom Victoria and New South Wales spring to mind—have brought into being councils to help standardise the practice of sentencing across their jurisdictions. I could never understand the opposition to the idea of a body that issued guidelines to judges to allow them to do just that in New Zealand. There is no danger to judicial independence in the proposal that was passed into law in the last Parliament. There would be a majority of judges on our Sentencing Council and they would not be appointed by the executive. They would be appointed effectively on the nomination of the heads of bench so we were preserving the principle of judicial independence. 
We were trying to create the opportunity for some sort of central research body that the judges do not have at the moment and that they could draw on so that they could deliver a bit of consistency in the important work that they do rather than relying on the ad hoc guidance that they have to rely on at the moment—some sort of arcane sentencing guideline handed down by the Court of Criminal Appeal in a case that might or might not be relevant to all the facts before them and that might not be readily accessible to the District Court judge or the JP sitting in the court at Invercargill Waitakere or elsewhere. That was the aim of the Sentencing Council. It was a really good idea. 
I listened to Chester Borrows and it was obvious that he had never read the Law Commission’s report on the Sentencing Council. If someone steals a car in Hamilton that person is more likely to go to jail than someone who steals a car in any other part of New Zealand. Members opposite in particular need to ask themselves how as parliamentarians we can expect our fellow citizens to have respect for the rule of law if we do not take steps to deliver equality before the law and uniform justice in this country. Why on earth should it depend on where citizens live in New Zealand as to what their fate should be when they suffer a penalty from our criminal justice system? That is what we abandon by walking away from the Sentencing Council and that is one of the major reasons why a future Labour Government will bring it right back. 
My colleague Jacinda Ardern pointed out another practical deficiency with the abolition of the Sentencing Council and it is one demonstrated by a proposal from the Minister of Justice who is currently in the House—that is his very wise proposal to abolish the partial defence of provocation prompted by the first reading of a member’s bill to that effect from my friend and colleague Lianne Dalziel. The Law Commission recommended doing exactly that—abolishing the partial defence—but it also said that it is undeniable that in many people’s minds there is a difference between a cold-blooded calculated act of mass murder on the one hand and a crime of passion in the moment on the other hand. The fact is that without a Sentencing Council as many of the submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee pointed out there is no easy way to differentiate between those two scenarios. A sentencing guideline issued by the Sentencing Council for clarity in such cases would have done the trick. That is now not a facility that we can offer to the judiciary or more important to citizens who find themselves before our criminal justice system. Short of some sort of clumsy amendment to sentencing law that would in itself create all sorts of uncertainties that is now beyond this Parliament and that cannot be a good thing. 
The final point I will make on the issue of the Sentencing Council is that I heard an unfortunate interjection from a member opposite to the effect that the Sentencing Council was simply a proposal by the previous Labour Government to give some sort of superannuation scheme to the president of the Law Commission. I do not think anyone ever hears that sort of invective from members on this side of the House about figures such as Jim Bolger or Jenny Shipley. The fact is that the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer did more to restore respect for the rule of law in this country than any other Attorney-General or any other person holding comparable office. More than that after he left this place he pursued a very lucrative career in the private sector and he could have kept doing that quite happily but instead he agreed to a much less lucrative offer from the Government to return to public service. He deserves better than the sort of heckling that we heard during one of the speeches from a member opposite who clearly has never been appointed to any position on merit in his life. 
In summary as Sue Moroney said this bill is not in the league of the Sentencing Act 2002 the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 the Victims Charter or the Pay or Stay initiative all of which were initiatives of the previous Labour-led Government that were designed to make a difference to victims of crime. This bill is window dressing and that is proved by the fact that the Minister of Justice has made conflicting claims about the amount of money it will gather in. There was one claim that it would bring in $5 million in the first year and there was another claim that it would bring in something like $12 million over 4 years. 
It would be much better to see the Government making reparation automatic so that when an order was made by the court a victim did not have to go through the process of suing of taking his or her own legal action to try to get the sort of compensation that the court ordered for the victim. It would be much better to see members opposite not running down the accident compensation system so that the vital services provided to victims by that programme were not at risk. If this Government were serious about victims’ rights we would see more of those sorts of measures rather than this sort of pathetic gesture politics. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. This Government has been in power for the past 11 months and law and order has been one of its top priorities. This bill is part of the response to the law and order priority of this Government. Victims have been suffering from the anguish of crime. Those sufferings include emotional and financial torment. Victims and also families suffer from the trauma of serious crimes such as murder sexual violence and grievous assault. 
This bill will amend the Sentencing Act 2002. It provides that all offenders who have been convicted of an offence must pay an offender levy of $50 which will be imposed at the point of sentencing. It is intended to help victims with expenses such as travel to and from the court which are not covered by the accident compensation scheme or by any alternative State assistance. This levy will be in addition to any other penalty imposed by the court. 
I remember that during the submission period a submitter Judy Ashton from Nelson was very emotional because she had lost her daughter. The offender a drug addict was on parole and did not have a driver’s licence but he was still driving. In her words that mother said: “I can see there is something being done for the victims.” People understand that this bill may be a small step but it is a step in the right direction. 
It should be noted that the Government will also introduce measures to improve the services that victims receive and that enhance victims’ rights. In other words this bill is part of a bigger package. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This legislation forms part of the range of promises and undertakings made by National prior to the last election. I want to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its consideration of the bill. Its hard-working members who have been working on many pieces of legislation since November 2008 no doubt consider themselves to have set the standard for carrying a large legislative workload. Their chairman who when it comes to these matters is ever-patient and bipartisan Chester Burrows is to be congratulated for his work in this area as well. I am advised that the Justice and Electoral Committee received 20 submissions from interested groups and individuals in respect of this bill and heard from six submitters. The amendments recommended by the committee clarify the intent of the bill and I acknowledge that they improve its consistency with the broader legislative framework such as the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. I thank the committee for its work in that regard. 
The Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill was introduced by the Government in its first 100 days in office. Its purpose is to expand the collection and use of DNA samples to assist the police in solving more crime. The bill will allow the police to collect DNA from a person whom they intend to charge with an offence and then match that person’s DNA profile against DNA samples from other unsolved crime scenes. As I mentioned in this bill’s first reading some time ago a DNA profile is the modern fingerprint. Forensic crime scene investigation has progressed to the point where even small amounts of trace evidence can now produce a usable DNA profile. The current DNA databank of 100000 profiles was the second to be established in the world and New Zealand scientists have been at the forefront of advances in extracting DNA profiles from crime scene trace evidence. 
During the Justice and Electoral Committee’s consideration of the bill the issue of judicial oversight prior to taking a sample was raised by submitters. That reflected the concerns raised by the Attorney-General in his report to this House under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. In response to those concerns I note that there are a number of measures that will minimise the intrusiveness of the powers contained in the bill and will safeguard individuals’ rights including existing remedies under the Evidence Act 2006 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Individuals can seek exclusion of evidence where the new power is used unreasonably. If the powers are used arbitrarily and breach an individual’s civil liberties he or she can always seek compensation. In addition operational guidelines have been developed by the police and the Ministry of Justice to assist the police in exercising their discretion to take a sample and to avoid the arbitrary application of this power. I am advised that the guidelines are designed to target the taking of samples. This means that those offenders who meet the criteria set out in the guidelines will be those who have a significantly higher chance of being responsible for unsolved crimes on the DNA profile database. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of useful amendments to the bill particularly around improving the process for taking a DNA sample from a young person and I am grateful for that work. One of the changes is to limit the range of offences for which a sample can be taken from a young person to the more serious relevant offences specified in the Act. That will ensure that only the most serious young offenders are subject to this law. In addition the criteria for taking a DNA sample from a young person have been significantly simplified. The committee concluded that the criteria for taking samples from young people repeated the protections that already exist in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act specifically in section 208. As such the bill has been amended to provide that section 208 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act will apply and provide adequate protection for young people in custody. 
The committee also amended the bill to prevent a DNA sample from being retained if a youth is discharged without conviction. This aligns with the process for the retention of DNA samples for adults. Another very important amendment was to protect a young person’s entitlement to have an adult present when a DNA sample is taken. This amendment aligns the process with the regime currently in place for young people being interviewed by the police. 
The first priority of this Government in the justice portfolio has been to improve public safety. This bill contributes to that goal by giving the police the tools to resolve more crime and catch more offenders. It accompanies other important law enforcement initiatives such as the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill the Search and Surveillance Bill the recently passed Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the hopefully soon-to-be-passed Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill. This is one of the many steps this Government has swiftly taken following the election to fulfil its promises to the public of New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. The Minister of Justice Simon Power is right to point out that the Justice and Electoral Committee has been busy. The bill was quite technical when it came to its consideration by the select committee. I thank the officials who serviced the committee during its consideration of the bill. We required some guidance on some of the technical aspects and we also received some very useful initial briefings from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research which will be implicated directly with a heavy increase in its workload as a consequence of the changes this bill will make. 
This bill makes considerable changes. I will reflect though on something that was discussed in the first reading debate of the bill and to a certain extent during the select committee consideration. That issue is whether DNA is comparable to a fingerprint. Is it fair and right to call DNA the modern fingerprint? I think it is right that we insert a little bit of scientific reality into this discussion. The DNA collection that we are talking about as opposed to fingerprint collection is a much more intrusive and invasive procedure. Historically it has been; the modernising of the process has reduced that somewhat. But because DNA links far beyond an individual fingerprint and even has the ability to link into family and relatives it is a broadening in a sense. I know that my colleague Moana Mackey will have much to say on this particular matter from her scientific background. 
I will go on to the substantive parts of the bill. For the Labour members of the committee the most significant issue in the bill was the broadening of the definition of when DNA collection can be made. As it stands the criteria for DNA collection depend on the severity of the offence and collection applies at the point that a charge has been laid against a potential offender. This bill changes that considerably. It will allow DNA collection by the police without judicial approval at the point that they intend to charge and it broadens the range of offences for which DNA collection can take place. 
In the commentary on the bill the Government has given the reason for judicial oversight not being included and it is a matter of convenience. That is something that ultimately has to be weighed against the other consideration in this House and that is the balance of someone’s individual freedoms and rights. Of course DNA collection is a crime-fighting tool. Taken to the extreme on one end of the scale we could take everyone’s DNA sample at birth. It could be recorded and documented and then at any point when someone committed a crime we could cross-check against that database. That is the extreme. 
Simon Bridges 
: I like that. I like that. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Simon Bridges seems quite intrigued and seems to like that. Perhaps only a limitation of resources is stopping the Government from going down that track. But I think—I would hope—that we accept in this House that doing that would counter the personal freedoms that individuals have. At the other extreme of the scale people have the right to protect themselves from any kind of invasive search or seizure or any intrusion of that kind from the State. We need to find the balance between those two extremes. 
At the moment I am concerned that the bill as it currently stands does not have the checks and balances that could improve it considerably. I point out that as is stated in the commentary on the bill: “New Zealand Labour members of the committee having carefully considered the Attorney-General’s report to the House on the inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 felt strongly”—and continue to feel strongly—“that there should be an amendment. The amendment should provide for some form of judicial oversight when Police take a DNA sample. We do not think that there would be problems with the availability of Justices of the Peace after hours as predicted by officials. For example there does not appear to be a problem in gaining after-hours search warrants. [Therefore] Labour members intend to table an amendment to this effect in the committee stage of the bill.” I do not think this will come as a surprise to Government members particularly given that when this bill was introduced the Attorney-General pointed out that this was also an issue from his perspective. We intend to table that Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Charles Chauvel. 
I will reflect on some of the other issues that the select committee discussed at great length. The Minister quite rightly pointed out that the committee gave great consideration to the taking of bodily samples from young offenders. Again I acknowledge the role that the chair played in navigating us through that discussion so well. There was discussion over what kinds of checks and balances should be in place for young people from whom bodily samples are required—and when I say “young” that includes people under the age of 17—because they will be captured by the intention-to-charge extension that I discussed earlier. The select committee decided that the most robust way to ensure not only that a sample taken from a young person falls within the criteria but also that protections would be provided for that young person would be to mirror the provisions contained under the care and protection legislation that we already have. That sets out the criteria for a young person to choose an advocate to sit in while a sample is taken. The committee did not want young people to be unnecessarily incarcerated for longer than was required if for instance they named a person who was unable to be contacted by the police with the explicit intention of evading a sample being taken. In the end I think the select committee collectively came up with a solution to ensure that that balance was struck and there is consistency—which I am a big fan of—with the existing legislation. 
Another point that I will quickly reflect on is the issue of holding samples. In the version of the bill that we were first presented with there was a staggered range of time periods for which a sample could be kept in a databank for cross-checking at the time that another crime is committed. Ultimately the aim of this bill is to ensure not only that a current crime is cleared but also that crimes committed in the past that still stay on the police books can have a chance of clearance as well. One concern that I raised in the first reading of the bill and that I continue to have is about the staggering of various years that have been apportioned to when samples can be kept and when samples can be disposed of. It will be quite a technical and potentially bureaucratic process. I think it is important though that we continue to maintain oversight to ensure that the time at which a sample is meant to be disposed of—and it ranges under different criteria from 7 to 10 years—is abided by particularly because these samples are cross-checked again. If people have not offended within a particular period of time and have not come back through the criminal justice system then a clean slate provision applies to their sample. We must ensure despite the fact that it will be quite a technical and difficult thing for the Institute of Environmental and Scientific Research to manage that that continues to happen and we should keep oversight of that. 
There is much more in this bill that I am very interested in debating later on. I look forward to having a greater opportunity to delve into the detail of many more technical provisions—in particular those that refer to young people—as this bill proceeds through the House. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I say that this Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is about nothing more than the modern-day fingerprint. It drags our identification systems into the 21st century so that we can go forward with confidence. I look forward to debating vigorously with my colleagues from the other side of the House who I must say contributed strongly during the Justice and Electoral Committee’s deliberations under the superb chairmanship of my friend and colleague Chester Borrows and with outstanding contributions from Mr Bakshi and Simon Bridges. We look forward to having a vigorous debate during the Committee stage. With those few comments I recommend this bill back to the House. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I say from the outset that Labour will be supporting the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Bill but this support does not come without a number of concerns. I guess that at this stage our approach towards much of the National Government’s legislation is: “Oh well it doesn’t help but it doesn’t seem to harm too much either. So I guess we can support it.” 
Our No. 1 concern at this stage would be that all of this Government’s justice and law and order legislation shows a very narrow-minded approach towards law and order. This Government chooses to put the focus entirely on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than on an attempt in any way to build a gate at the top of the cliff. That is our concern and it is the concern that many members of the public and the many people working in justice and law and order areas have as well. They are concerned that all we are going to do is deal with the people who are committing crime rather than do anything about preventing those crimes from occurring. That is probably the No. 1 concern of members on this side of the House. 
Before discussing the contents of the bill before us it is important that it is put into context with regard to the legislative amendments made by the previous Labour Government to significantly extend DNA testing. All too often in matters pertaining to law and order this Government has attempted to create the perception that it is starting from scratch when this is simply not the case. Labour has undertaken the groundwork. Therefore to contextualise the proposed amendments we need to look at the base that this Government is starting from. 
In 2003 Labour passed legislation to amend the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act which significantly increased the scope for the DNA testing of suspects. Under that Act burglary suspects can be compelled to provide a DNA sample including in circumstances where a crime scene sample is matched with a known offender’s DNA profile held on the police databank. Prior to that legislation crime scene samples could not be used in evidence unless a fresh DNA sample was taken and an alleged offender could refuse to give that sample. Under the 2003 legislation which was I say again passed by the previous Labour Government the offences for which someone may be compelled to give a sample have been significantly extended to cover crimes punishable by at least 7 years’ jail—such as motor vehicle conversion and some offences of receiving stolen goods or any attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime. 
Under that same legislation DNA samples can be obtained by compulsion from prison inmates who were convicted of serious offences prior to the commencement of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The police no longer need a court order to obtain a sample from a convicted person. However a judicial hearing can be requested by people who believe that they are not liable to provide such a sample. Buccal or mouth swabs which are cheaper less invasive and just as accurate as blood samples can now be given as an alternative. 
Another significant part of Labour’s Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act of 2003 is the ability to obtain DNA samples from inmates currently in prison who were convicted prior to 12 August 1996 when DNA testing was first introduced. Adding those inmates’ DNA profiles to the databank was intended to help police solve some historic cases. Prior to these amendments the legislation gave authorisation to seek a compulsion order only to obtain DNA samples for the police database from a person already convicted of burglary. This led to the ridiculous situation that when police found DNA material at the burglary scene and matched it to a profile on the databank they were prohibited from using that match in criminal proceedings against the suspect. Now that we have contextualised the legislation that is before us let us move on to the stated purpose of this bill. 
The bill before us the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill will generally allow DNA to be collected by police without prior judicial approval at the point when they intend to charge a person for a wider range of offences and to allow the DNA profile to be matched against other unsolved crime scene samples prior to the person’s conviction or acquittal. The bill aims to recognise DNA as the modern-day fingerprint to assist the police to solve more crime by having more identified DNA profiles to match against the increasing number of DNA samples obtained from unsolved crime scenes. The stated purpose might seem reasonable but a number of concerns have been raised by submitters by us and by members of the public. 
Labour agrees that DNA profiling is an essential investigative tool in mainstream policing. That is why Labour has already amended legislation to significantly extend DNA testing. Labour is not opposed to a further extension of DNA testing but is unclear whether this legislation will have a significant impact on serious crime considering the changes Labour already made when in Government. Labour members are concerned that National is proposing to test all those arrested not just those charged with the reality being that a large proportion of the people who are arrested are not charged. This means that under National’s proposed system many tests would be thrown out resulting in a poor use of money and police resources. Considering the rigmaroles this country has been put through by this National Government in respect of cuts to what Labour deems essential services projects programmes initiatives and incentives we find it difficult to comprehend that the Government would be willing to waste money on something such as this. When I talk about cuts I am talking about things like cuts to adult and community education the Gifted Kids Programme the training incentive allowance police vehicles and resourcing overseas development assistance Maori and Pacific scholarships—the list goes on and on. Yet National will implement this legislation in the knowledge that a number of the samples taken will be a waste of time and will be thrown away which results in a poor use of policing resources and funding. 
The Attorney-General has reported inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Christopher Finlayson said the DNA plan appears to be inconsistent with the rights against unreasonable search and seizure under the Bill of Rights because it would give police the power to take DNA from those whom they intend to charge with an imprisonable offence without the safeguard of judicial or other independent approval. Mr Finlayson said such safeguards were required in jurisdictions that used a comparable DNA scheme including New South Wales Victoria Canada the United States Germany Japan and the Netherlands. He said he could not see any special circumstances in New Zealand to justify not having statutory safeguards. 
The Human Rights Commission has expressed concerns that the proposed changes go too far. The criminal bill allows police to take DNA from anyone charged with an imprisonable offence whereas the current law has a much higher threshold for serious offences punishable by more than 7 years in prison. The Human Rights Commission says that the bill infringes the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It also increases the possibility of discrimination on the grounds of race and family status and impacts disproportionately on youth. 
That was from the Human Rights Commission and we have heard from the Attorney-General. The Privacy Commissioner has now expressed concerns that the changes proposed jeopardise the value of the existing criminal DNA databank in detective and preventive crime by undermining public trust in the police and the Government. The commissioner says that if police were able to take DNA from a wider range of people there should be oversights through an independent committee of additional audit powers and she wants the bill’s recommendation for samples for all imprisonable offences dropped as well as the bid to retain samples for longer than 2 years after a suspect has been cleared. 
Treasury has stated that it views the regulatory impact statement for this legislation as being inadequate for a number of reasons including a lack of clarity around the nature of the problems with the current DNA testing regime along with anecdotal and empirical evidence to support these reasons. The next reason Treasury gives for the legislation being inadequate is the limited analysis of the impacts of the option. The analysis of costs is partial; for example only aggregate first-year costs are estimated and capital costs are excluded. There is no assessment of risk such as risks related to implementation and how these might be mitigated. We do not know the costs involved or the risks. 
It seems very negligent that a Government that has spoken so often on the fact that we are in the middle of a recession or that we need some fiscal restraint would go into something that it has not fully costed out. But that is exactly what this Government has done. I have expressed Labour members’ concerns. We will support this bill but we will be making recommendations in respect of the submissions made and the advice received from various people across the different advisory groups including the Human Rights Commission. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 DNA is potentially a very powerful tool in the toolbox for police and the justice sector. To pick up on something that some of the other members speaking on this have said DNA is an extraordinarily powerful fact of life and piece of technology that has developed hugely over the years. In going back not so long ago it would take a large blob of blood semen spit or some other bodily fluid—at least a good 50c piece—before DNA could be traceable. Today with the advances in technology trace DNA can be picked up invisible to the human eye and so small that it cannot be detected in any form. From that human DNA can be used in court. The power of this technology is amazing. 
At a broad-brush level the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill is very simple. I accept that there is detail about the point at which people’s DNA may be taken kicks in. A morass of detail is needed in legislation like this but at its base we have here an expansion of a database to suitable persons’ DNA so that more crime will be solved and that is a very good thing. 
In reference to the last bill dealt with in this House where victims’ rights were put more centre stage in the criminal justice system here we have a bill that will result in more crime being solved which means more victims vindicated able to move on with their lives and ultimately in fact fewer victims as more crime is solved. 
But I take seriously the point that Jacinda Ardern has made in that there is a balance here to be struck. There is a spectrum. At one end we could simply test every newborn child; no one would reasonably advocate that. There needs to be a way to whittle it down to suitable persons and we have done that in this bill. Have we struck the right balance in this bill? I think we absolutely have. Philosophically and practically what could the concerns possibly be? Theoretically I suppose there is a privacy concern. There is a certain intrusiveness. But the means by which DNA can be taken are much less intrusive than they have been. It is a mere minor inconvenience with a swab. I think that is very light indeed. It is a minor inconvenience. I accept of course there is then the keeping of the DNA profile. But let us be very clear about that. It is only in the cases where people have been convicted ultimately for long-term use. There are strict specific provisions in the bill in relation to the use and storage of the DNA. 
Another concern that could be thrown up is a slight—and I say this is a theoretical concern because I think it simply is that—increase in wrongful convictions which is theoretically possible. In fact I think that is quite far-fetched. More accused who would otherwise have been in the frame for crime will in fact be excluded through this technology. They will be excluded and there will be more rightful convictions. We have high-profile examples of the ultimate exclusion following wrongful convictions of people through the powerful use of DNA. One example is David Dougherty in New Zealand. I was young even younger than I am today at the time but if my memory serves me correctly he was convicted for serious crimes and served time in jail. It was only through advances in DNA that he was freed. Every member of this House will be aware of the very large number of cases of basically only men—I think a small number of women but a lot of men—on death row in the United States who have had convictions overturned through the use of technology and DNA as we have caught up. 
So it may sound a bit glib but I do think there is a sense with this bill that if one is innocent one has nothing to fear. There may be some minor inconvenience but this is a very strong tool in the toolbox that we are giving police and our justice system for all the right reasons. I commend this bill to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to take a call on the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. I do this from the perspective of someone who has done DNA analysis. With the greatest of respect to the speaker who has just resumed his seat Simon Bridges some of the concerns that I have and that I hope can be sorted out were ones he highlighted absolutely for me. 
Simon Bridges 
: So you’re not voting for it? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No we are voting for the bill but in this Parliament we are allowed to talk about the bits we are concerned about. We do have a Committee stage where theoretically we can make changes and where a democratic vote is taken. 
Simon Bridges 
: But on balance you think it’s pretty good? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: If Mr Bridges would listen I will tell him what my concerns are as someone who has done DNA analysis and knows the shortcomings. 
The fact is that we need to remember that DNA profiling should never ever be confused with full genome sequencing. A lot of people have talked about the genetic fingerprint and that is absolutely accurate. But the fact is we test about 0.001 percent of the DNA profile when we do this. We do that for many reasons. One reason is that it would be impractical and expensive to test the whole genome and also we can get very very good and accurate results from the testing we do. But it is not foolproof and we need to understand that. When members talk about a genetic fingerprint they need to understand that when we take a fingerprint we take the whole fingerprint. When we do a DNA profile we test a very small number of loci; we do not test the entire genome. 
This concerns me because there is a scientific aura that exists around DNA that it is foolproof and incontrovertible and jurors hold that perception. I think that it needs to be explained to jurors that it is not foolproof and that there is error. We would not find a single DNA scientist who would say that it is 100 percent accurate. The problem is when we have a technology that has such a powerful reputation the possibility of miscarriages of justice is introduced. We have had them with this technology. They are small but we have had them. I think there are things we can do to make sure that that does not become a huge problem but they do need to be done. We are supporting this bill but that needs to be absolutely understood if this bill is not to create problems that could be avoided. 
The member also said that it is not intrusive. Well the intrusiveness comes not just from having a finger prick or a mouth swab but also from the fact that our DNA can say an awful lot about us. It is very private information that can reveal things about our potential health in the future and some people might consider that intrusive. I think we need to look at it in that light as well. It may be being used for only identification purposes but it has a potential to be used for a lot more particularly as the technology improves. 
There is a potential for abuse. It is interesting to note that in the United States because criminals know that the technology is so powerful and that DNA technology is likely to convict them if it is found at a crime scene they are planting other people’s DNA. This is very easy to do. If I were to shake hands with the member who has just taken his seat and then touch a glass his DNA would end up on that glass. Criminals are not unaware of this. They will go to whatever length they can to frame someone else. In America there are actual cases where they have found criminals planting DNA and not just that. There was a very famous case of a doctor who accused of raping a patient under sedation put a false vein in his arm so that he gave a blood sample that was not his. 
The other issue that concerns me is that DNA can be fabricated now. Any person with a basic biology degree can do this. It is not difficult. DNA can be fabricated and when it is put into a body one cannot tell it from the host DNA. These technologies are out there. 
These are not reasons to vote against this bill but they are things we need to be aware of if we are to make sure that we can control the powers that are being given here. They are substantial. This is an enormous extension of what already exists in the DNA databank. If we are to make sure that we can cut off every area of abuse we need to be aware that there are a lot of people out there who are finding ways to get around these DNA databanks and to get around DNA analysis. It is for that reason that I raise it. 
We have only to look at the history of DNA analysis itself to see how fast the technology is moving. We need to ensure that this legislation remains relevant regardless of where that technology goes. We have moved from what would be considered very time-consuming restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis which then did Southern blots which took a lot of time to having polymerase chain reaction and short tandem repeat processes now which are very very quick. We can take very very small samples of DNA and use the DNA’s ability to replicate itself to create much larger amounts of it which means that we are able to take smaller and smaller samples and get better and better results. Work is being done on Y chromosome analysis which will go in a completely different direction and there is mitochondrial DNA. 
We need to make sure that this legislation is relevant to all those types of DNA analyses and anything in the future that may come of it. In fact it has already been used in New Zealand. It is not admissible in court but work has been done where a DNA sample taken from a relative such as a woman’s Pap smear samples is used to identify criminals within her family. It is not admissible in court but I doubt it will be very long before technologies like that are able to be used. They are very powerful technologies but again technologies that are not foolproof. We need to acknowledge that in this House today. 
I quote from Professor Ian Shaw who runs the forensic science unit at the University of Central Lancashire who pointed out that the more samples we get the greater the chance that we will find two samples that look the same but are not actually from the same person. That is a risk. The more samples we are taking the more we are testing. It is a very very small chance but it does increase the likelihood that we will get a sample that could inaccurately finger someone for a crime that he or she did not commit. Again that is something that we need to be aware of if we want to make sure that this bill does not end up with serious unintended consequences. 
Then I come to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and my real big concern is that the funding has to go with this piece of legislation. We are talking about an enormous increase in work for the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. It will be an enormous increase in DNA analyses which is why the bill is being staggered to allow that to happen. The funding has to go in to make sure that the process is rigorous. It has to be more than just funding for extra DNA tests. It has to be more than just saying what the cost of doing a DNA test is and then paying X thousand dollars more for that. There has to be extra money in particular for chain of custody control. If anything goes wrong in the chain of custody—the sample going from the police to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research where it will be logged then going to an analyst on the bench the results being logged against that sample ID and then that going back to the courts or the police for the conviction—the whole thing falls apart. I have worked in laboratories that have underfunded the administrative side of the process and the chain of custody. A laboratory might as well not be run if we cannot put every single sample accurately through the process and have confidence that there is no chance of a mix-up or contamination. Although I understand that money will be put into extra DNA analysis my plea to the Minister of Justice is not to forget the very very important administrative side which is the chain of custody. 
That brings me to the issue of judicial oversight. This is incredibly incredibly important because if we are going to use this technology more extensively we need to ensure that the process of taking the sample and putting it through the laboratory can be tested in court. People who are facing a lifetime in prison for crimes they say they did not commit—they may believe that there was foul play which is unlikely or a stuff-up which is more likely—must be able to challenge not just the results but the process of the storage and testing of samples. I quote the Hon Justice Michael Kirby who in a speech he gave in Australia said it is crucial “That effective procedures are afforded to guarantee against contamination of DNA samples. The planting of evidence … has been a distinct problem for the criminal justice system in the past.”—and we are fooling ourselves if we think that it has not been—“Given the likely devastating power of DNA evidence it becomes doubly important to ensure the integrity of collection of samples and their transmission storage testing reportage and preservation for the scrutiny of independent experts and ultimately if need be by the courts.” I could not agree more. 
I implore the Government to consider seriously the Supplementary Order Paper we will be putting up in the Committee stage. We cannot consider this kind of legislation if the people who are likely to be impacted by it are not given the right to challenge the process. As I said before we are fooling ourselves if we think that miscarriages of justice do not happen. This is an incredibly powerful technology but its powerfulness in the minds of the people—and in particular the minds of jurors—is far more than its actual power. We have to get this right otherwise we will see miscarriages of justice. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. Improving law and order in New Zealand is a critical priority for the National-led Government. Our actions over the past 11 months have reflected that priority. We share New Zealanders’ concerns about the growing levels of violent crime. We are determined to make our communities safer to promote the security of law-abiding New Zealanders to improve public safety and to ensure that there are appropriate consequences for offenders. 
In its first 100 days the National-led Government introduced legislation to expand DNA sampling of suspects and to match samples taken at crime scenes against profiles in order to help resolve hundreds of cases that might otherwise have gone cold. DNA is a 21st century fingerprint. DNA profiling is an invaluable tool for identifying and catching criminals. The Government believes that DNA samples should be taken in a wider range of circumstances. Our rationale for this is simple: if we use DNA profiling to catch and punish criminals earlier we will prevent them from creating more victims. This bill is a key component of the Government’s law and order package. We are firmly focused on creating safer homes streets and neighbourhoods for all New Zealanders. 
DNA carries a unique genetic code for individuals. Current technology allows bodily samples like blood saliva and semen to be processed and reassembled in the form of a barcode that can be matched with other samples taken from crime scenes. This procedure is an important investigative tool resulting in virtually conclusive proof of identity. It may be used to pinpoint an offender as well as to clear an innocent suspect. The bill allows police to collect DNA from a person they intend to charge with an offence and prior to that person’s conviction or acquittal match the person’s DNA against profile samples from the scenes of other unsolved crimes. 
In conclusion the measures proposed in this bill will subsequently increase the size of the DNA profile databank. The increased size of the databank will aid criminal investigation by linking offenders in the databank both to the scenes of unsolved crimes and potentially to scenes of future crimes. DNA’s role in solving more crimes and identifying more offenders will in turn contribute to increased public safety and public confidence in the justice system. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I will make a couple of brief comments in respect of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill and correct something that Mr Bridges said. Any time members of the Opposition raise points of conjecture or points in this bill that we believe need to be examined someone from the Government—and I do not include Mr Borrows in this as I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee as he chaired it through consideration of the bill and I think he did an admirable job—always pops his or her head up and says that we are not supporting the bill. Well as my colleague Moana Mackey has said we are supporting it but we have an obligation as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to raise issues of concern. This is the debating chamber in which this legislation should be rigorously examined and hopefully with the contribution of many members improved. It is our job as a Parliament to control the quality of this sort of legislation. 
I for one have had the privilege of seeing the police use this technology on a number of occasions and I support its use. Members who have said that this modern technology is another tool in the police’s tool box are right. It provides huge advantages. Before I rose to speak I was speaking with my colleague Moana Mackey about the David Dougherty case. As I understand it that is in essence an example of technology freeing an innocent person. Had it not been for that technology who knows what the consequences would have been in respect of Mr Dougherty’s life? Equally looking at historical technologies we can recall the case of Arthur Allan Thomas where evidence was planted using shall we say different technology from the contemporary one we are discussing now. 
Although Labour members support the bill and think it is essential—it will aid policing and the uncovering of crime—my colleague and others have raised some concerns in respect of for instance judicial oversight. It is a basic principle that there need to be some substantial safeguards. My colleague has already referred to criminal elements that are technologically literate; we fool ourselves today if we do not believe they exist. With respect it is a little bit like the accountancy profession which is charged with finding new loopholes and likewise the legal profession in legislation. They do that legally of course. The criminal profession is adequately resourced to discover loopholes in legislation designed to prevent criminal activity—and by loophole in this context I mean illegality. 
My colleague and others have said that there is some evidence to suggest that criminal elements are using and planting DNA evidence. That is a concern and a worry and it raises the spectre that this technology has to be used with a high degree of quality and quality assurance. For that reason we are proposing that there be substantial judicial oversight. I heard some arguments against that in terms of ability to obtain access and warrants—officials said that police could lack access to justices of the peace when trying to gain authorisation to do certain tasks permitted within this legislation. As one who had an oversight with justices of the peace and who administered their appointments I know that we are flooded with them. I do not think I received complaints from the police or others that they could not access justices of the peace in the execution of after-hours search warrants. We simply put the case up that although we support this legislation we feel that there need to be a couple of safeguards and those safeguards need to be tightened up. People like Mr Bridges make glib comments every time this side raises some concerns in a genuine way; he tries to perpetuate some myth that we are not supporting it because we have the audacity to raise some concerns. But far from that we raise our concerns in a legitimate way and we will be putting forward proposals that we believe will strengthen the legislation. 
I must say that when listening to some of the submitters the counterfactual prevailed and a number of conspiracy theories were put forward to the committee. From a personal point of view I was less than impressed with the Human Rights Commissioner’s submission. I was more impressed with the Privacy Commissioner’s submission. I think those of us who heard the Human Rights Commissioner’s submission on what potentially could happen and what had allegedly happened around the world found that to put it bluntly very little substantiated evidence was put to the committee about some of the conspiracy theories in those submissions. My colleague Moana Mackey made some very good points based on scientific knowledge and evidence rather than simply conjecture. I hope—if there is anyone from the Human Rights Commission listening—they might clean up their act a little bit in respect of that— 
Hon David Carter 
: Listening? They’ve turned off by now 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Possibly. They certainly will if that member rises to his feet and makes some sort of utterance. 
We support this bill. I note Treasury’s input in terms of the regulatory impact statement. It said it was inadequate for a number of reasons including “a lack of clarity around the nature of problems with the current DNA testing regime along with evidence (anecdotal and empirical) to support these;”. I also note that Treasury gave other reasons for the legislation being inadequate. There was “limited analysis of the impacts of the options. The analysis of costs is partial e.g. only aggregate first year costs are estimated and capital costs are excluded; and there is no assessment of risks such as risks related to implementation and how these will be mitigated;”. We do not know the costs involved and in this legislation we do not have a real and viable assessment and analysis of the risks. I think that falls short of Mr Hide’s role as the regulatory slayer who would cut all the red tape as the regulatory tsar of this Parliament who said he would examine with a fine-tooth comb and microscope every piece of legislation to ensure that it was up to scratch. Again a bill is going through this House where Mr Hide has been asleep at the wheel—he collects the Queen’s shilling but does not do the job—and another regulatory impact statement that is not up to the mark is sliding on through. 
With those comments and reinforcing the comments that Moana Mackey and others made from a technical and scientific point of view I say that we will support this bill. I congratulate the chair of the select committee on his conduct and members of the committee on putting this bill through. Certainly the debate and submissions that I listened to were generally very forthright and informative. I think that if amendments are accepted and looked at in a bipartisan way we can tighten up this bill. We could provide some safety and alleviate some of the concerns that a number in our community have. They are not just people whom some Government members may characterise as hand-wringers or do-gooders; they have genuine heartfelt concerns and want to see the bad guys apprehended. Where there is a miscarriage of justice like with Mr Dougherty this technology can be used to free people who are innocent. They are not hand-wringing do-gooders who are simply obsessed with the civil liberties argument; they have heartfelt concerns and want to see appropriate safeguards in this legislation so that it can be even more effective than the technology is today. With those thoughts I commend the bill to the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in support of the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill. I commend the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the goodwill that was exchanged across the table. We all learnt a heck of a lot more about DNA than we realised there was for us to learn in such a short space of time. I also commend the way the matter was debated around the table. I think it is important to note that what lies behind this is safety. The reason why the National Party introduced into its policy that we would remove a sample of DNA from everybody arrested for an imprisonable offence was safety. Those offenders who go on to commit crimes especially heinous crimes—the rapes murders home invasions and the serious assaults—against the person generally started off their offending at low-level Summary Offences Act offences. If we were in a position to identify their DNA very early in the piece by the time they got down the track to committing those more serious crimes for instance we would have them on DNA left at the scene of the crime. 
I think we have to say not to anyone in particular that generally it is about the victims stupid. So often these days we can get carried along on a wave that is looking at rights and freedoms without ever caring about or paying any cognisance at all of the responsibilities of living in a civilised society. Although we enjoy rights and freedoms in this society we have to acknowledge that they come with a responsibility. The first responsibility of a Government is to protect the public. There has been strong stringent judicial oversight of the DNA-securing process in the past. That is because the technology used in the past always required a blood sample to be taken. That is why it was seen as such an intrusion into somebody’s person and there needed to be a judicial warrant to do that. 
Under this legislation the DNA swab is taken by the alleged offender by taking a Q-tips cotton swab and putting it inside his or her cheek taking it out and handing it to the waiting police officer. No one has the sample taken by somebody else and no one is held down to have the sample taken by force. In actual fact it is taken by the alleged offenders themselves with their own cheek swab—it is as intrusive as that. So there is no need for judicial oversight in respect of DNA swabs taken in that way as there has been before. 
Another thing we need to bear in mind is that DNA exculpates as well as implicates. The previous speaker the Hon Clayton Cosgrove mentioned David Dougherty and how he was exculpated for a rape he had been convicted for. There are numerous other suspects who are removed from an inquiry with the use of DNA. We have to bear that in mind and that is a very strong point. 
I want to pick up on some of the points made by some of the other speakers. A previous speaker Carmel Sepuloni said that a large number of those arrested are not charged but that is not true. I suggest that probably less than 1 percent of those who are arrested are never charged. They go in front of a court charges may be withdrawn at a later time and in that situation if all the charges are withdrawn the DNA sample would also be disposed of. That is true but it would be disposed of before the identifying stage. It would not be taken and sent away then identified profiled logged on a database and then there is not a conviction or the charges are withdrawn. There is very little administrative cost in holding that sample until the conviction is entered. 
Another point contained within the legislation is that the DNA sample is activated by charging. That means that the DNA sample of somebody who was arrested and taken before the court and later diverted after a guilty plea for instance would be retained. The sample is kept on charging and that is a significant thing to remember. There is not a lot of administrative cost in doing what we are doing up until the point of conviction in any event because it is only after that that the DNA is profiled. 
The previous speaker Jacinda Ardern said that DNA was not the modern fingerprint because it has the ability to give a lot more information than for instance a fingerprint can; it does more than just identify the person and that is correct. But I also pick up on the point that Moana Mackey made: although there are several hundred identifiers with any sample of DNA under this profiling only about 16 points are identified and they are not points that go to hereditary identifiers and those sorts of identifiers. 
Moana Mackey 
: How do you know? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Because that was the evidence that we heard before the select committee. 
It is also important to note that yes as Moana Mackey said DNA can be manufactured. However in all likelihood and I am sure she would agree although it is something that could be done—and it is always something that we cannot discount because a scientist would never discount anything—the chances of that happening are very unlikely. If DNA is going to be placed within a crime scene it is probably going to be somebody else’s bodily sample; semen blood saliva or some other DNA-carrying substance would be left at the scene rather than manufactured DNA. 
It is a cliché to go on talking about tools and tool boxes. DNA and recovering DNA at this level means that there will be fewer victims created in the future. Offenders who would go on to commit serious offences in the future will be identified a lot earlier because DNA will be held from the Summary Offences Act offences they commit at a very very early stage in their criminal offending. Over this year the Government has very proudly brought before this Parliament a number of measures that impact severely on victims for the better. This legislation is one of them. It is going to save more victims than probably any other single piece of legislation that we have seen before this Parliament in a very long time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
Insolvency Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Insolvency Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Insolvency Amendment Bill aims to maintain the integrity of the personal insolvency processes to maximise returns to creditors. The bill amends the Insolvency Act 2006 in three major areas: firstly in respect of the no-asset procedure or NAP; secondly in respect of the insolvent gift provisions; and thirdly in respect of the public register provisions in the Insolvency Act. 
The no-asset procedure was introduced as an alternative to bankruptcy in December 2007 as part of the Insolvency Act 2006. Debtors have to meet stringent criteria before entry is granted to that process. The bill explicitly provides that all debts that have been obtained as a result of a fraudulent act or behaviour are not discharged under the no-asset procedure process. This mirrors the bankruptcy provisions in the Act and ensures that debtors are granted relief from pecuniary liabilities arising contractually not from liabilities that have their origin in fraud. 
The bill also contains further provisions to strengthen the official assignee’s ability to investigate possible concealment of assets in relation to a no-asset procedure debtor. For example the official assignee will be able to extend the period of discharge from the no-asset procedure by a maximum of 25 working days to undertake a thorough investigation of any late information or objections that are received regarding a debtor’s entry to the no-asset procedure process. 
With regard to the insolvent gift provisions the bill restores the longstanding presumption that a debtor is technically insolvent for a period of time before he or she files an application for formal bankruptcy. Therefore any gifts made in the 2-year period leading up to a person’s formal bankruptcy may be cancelled. The experience of the official assignee has shown that it is within this period that most debtors shift their assets to trusts family members and friends to avoid paying the debts they are responsible for. 
The bill provides a so-called brightline rule regarding the treatment of insolvent gifts which will be easily understood administered and enforced by the official assignee for the benefit of the creditors of the bankrupt. For example contingent liabilities such as guarantees will now be included in the assessment of the solvency status of a debtor at the time the debtor makes a gift to a third party such as family members and friends. Any asset or money recovered will be added to the general pool of assets and funds for distribution to all creditors according to their pre-insolvency entitlements. 
Finally the bill makes changes to the length of time that information on no-asset procedure debtors is retained on the public register. The public registers are administered by the official assignee and are searchable online for a limited time—currently 1 year for a no-asset procedure and 7 years for bankruptcy. The bill proposes that information on no-asset procedure debtors will remain on the public register for 4 more years—a total of 5 years. Also the details of debtors who have been through multiple insolvency processes—for example a no-asset procedure followed by one or more bankruptcies—will be permanently retained on the public register. 
There will of course always be debate over whether extending the no-asset procedure time period from 1 year to 5 years strikes the right balance and in particular whether it undermines the rehabilitative objectives of that process. There is no international consensus in terms of how long information about a personal insolvency proceeding should be kept on the public register. Australia for example keeps a record of all personal insolvency proceedings on the public register indefinitely and it is searchable for a fee. The State grants individuals who are discharged from a no-asset procedure the privilege of becoming debt free after only 1 year. Creditors are entitled to get something valuable in return which is reliable information about a debtor’s previous insolvencies over a reasonable period of time as a means of ascertaining creditworthiness. This is not achieved by deleting the no-asset procedure details after 1 year particularly in the current economic climate where the flow of credit has been negatively impacted. 
Further excessive limitations on the information on the public register create a cost to the economy because they impede prudent lending practices and increase business risks. From a public interest perspective it is appropriate that the information is made available on the no-asset procedure and bankruptcy public registers for a longer period of time. The need to assist creditors and financiers in making high-quality business decisions is particularly important in the current economic environment where on the one hand the number of personal insolvencies is increasing and on the other hand the credit market is contracting. 
I thank the Commerce Committee for its valuable contribution to the development of this bill and the Opposition for its constructive discussions of particular aspects of it. In addition and in particular I thank officials for the work that has gone into drafting this legislation and for overseeing its passage through its stages up until today. I commend the Insolvency Amendment Bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the Insolvency Amendment Bill. I do so with a sense of disappointment because as usual the Minister of Justice made statements in the House that he did not quite back up by working with Opposition members even when the suggestion was made to him that it would be a good idea to work more collaboratively on some of these matters as we did with the then Opposition when we were in Government. In the area of commerce where there is a need to rely on rules that are appropriate to the particular circumstances I think it is better to work together to get the rules right rather than to work in a less constructive way. So I express some disappointment in the Minister for adopting a somewhat arrogant approach which was not really the way he behaved when he was the Opposition spokesperson. 
The Opposition will support the bill because we agree with the primary provisions within it which are to amend the no-asset procedure to prevent the discharge of fraudulent debts under the no-asset procedure and to allow the official assignee to extend the time a person is under the no-asset procedure when late information in relation to a debtor’s entry including valid objections is received just prior to a debtor’s expected date of discharge. The Opposition also agrees with the provision that better protects the interests of creditors by strengthening the ability of the official assignee to cancel gifts in appropriate circumstances. I agree very much with the Government that there is a risk of people shifting their assets before moving into a no-asset procedure. That is a risk that is identified in the law in respect of bankruptcy and it is sensible that we amend the law in this way to resolve the same issue for the no-asset procedure. 
What concerned the Opposition with regard to this bill was the proposal to change the period of time that people on the no-asset procedure would remain on the public register. The House needs to understand that a very deliberate decision was made to have a very different time frame for being on the public register for a no-asset procedure because it is much more rehabilitative in its nature than bankruptcy. So it was really important for people to be on the public register for the no-asset procedure for a much shorter period than the period to be on the bankruptcy register. This bill changing the no-asset procedure from 1 year to 5 years actually brings that time period far too close to the bankruptcy provision of 7 years. That is the point of difference between the Opposition and the Government on that particular matter. 
It is really important for the House to understand that members of the Commerce Committee quite rightly asked submitters whether they could think of particular circumstances where people had got themselves into financial circumstances where they had up to $40000 worth of debt where they would be applying for the no-asset procedure and where there was not a sense of fault applying to the individual. We were all quite taken aback with the submissions we received from the citizens advice bureaus because they really did provide to us real-life examples of people who had done everything to protect themselves against the potential for harm financial loss and financial ruin—certainly in the case of one of the women who was provided as an example. We were all touched by those examples because they were not people who needed to be punished for doing the wrong thing. They had tried to protect themselves by taking out insurance which was challenged. The individual ended up with significant financial problems and on a benefit at a time when she had to meet the costs of an operation as well. People do get themselves into those circumstances and this no-asset procedure is designed to give them a helping hand to get over those circumstances and to then get on with their lives. That is why Labour when in Government designed the no-asset procedure—to give people this one-off chance to get their life back on track. 
I do not think it is ruined by extending it to 5 years but I would have preferred to see the Privacy Commissioner’s compromise position of 3 years. As she said that would be more consistent with the purposes of the procedure and more proportionate to the period for which individuals are publicly listed following bankruptcy. I think a compelling argument was put to us. 
The problem was that this bill was not before us for very long and we did not get a lot of time to look at it. In fact I think it is ironic that we are dealing with the bill now in October when we had to rush it through the select committee process in order to have it reported back to the House so it could be dealt with very quickly. It is probably a little unfortunate that we did not have time to carve off the no-asset procedure issue. I think we could have come to a better result if we had been able to carve it off and deal with it separately and I expressed that view in the second reading. 
I am not sure whether I was here for the Committee stage but certainly I now re-emphasise the view that sometimes it is better to look at the motive behind the different amendments and to see whether it is essential to deal with them in one moment. I can understand why the Minister included the no-asset procedure part in the bill. When one is a busy Minister and one has a passing train one tends to throw on an extra carriage if possible. But that particular part of the bill did not come from the same place that the other parts came from. The other parts came from detailed recommendations that had come from officials and that had been raised as serious issues that had arisen as a result of some unintended consequences of the no-asset procedure when it was brought in. We are happy to support those recommendations. 
The change to the no-asset provision came from somebody reading an article in the newspaper and deciding that it probably was not right that people were not on the public register for very long because the credit-rating agencies were not very happy about it. Well I do not think that is a very good basis for policy change. I think we need a far more considered approach. It would have been quite easy to carve off this part of the bill and report it back separately from the select committee. That to me would have had a much better outcome and would have been a much better process as well. We would have had the time to deal with that particular issue. I accept that it would have had to be dealt with separately because the Minister did make it very clear when he introduced the bill that the fraudulent debt write-off provisions would apply from the date that the bill was introduced not from the date that it was passed. In effect the passage of this bill will mean that those provisions are backdated anyway. 
There was not a need to be so quick on the no-asset procedure from a point of process nor from the point of recognising that there are people who get themselves into financial trouble through no fault of their own. I think of all of the people at the moment who have lost their money through Blue Chip and through financial investments in finance companies that they thought were secure investments. We are going to insist on this change to the no-asset procedure when basically they have to face up to the fact that they have got to that stage in their lives where they thought everything was secure only to find that it is not. 
With that expression of disappointment in the Government the Labour Opposition will support the passage of the bill and will hope that in future the Government will look to a better process for provisions like the one I have mentioned tonight. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I also rise to support the Insolvency Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the work that the Minister and the officials have put into formulating the bill. I also acknowledge my colleague the chair of the Commerce Committee Lianne Dalziel and the point that she made regarding the length of time spent on public insolvency registers. There was some debate in that area and in the end I think the balance between the interests of debtors and creditors was weighed up. 
I rise to support the bill because basically the procedure provides a one-off opportunity for those who are financially distressed to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy and rebuild their financial lives over time. As has already been stated in the first two readings of the bill but which I will reiterate quickly the key amendments are that it prevents fraudulent debts under the no-asset procedure from being cancelled when a person is discharged from that procedure. It is a pretty basic fundamental principle of law which has been established over centuries that one should not profit from one’s fraudulent activities. 
I am also happy to refer to the provisions of the Insolvency Act around the gifts made in the 5 years prior to a person becoming bankrupt. Again the balance was to place the onus on creditors to prove that the debtor was solvent at the time the gift was made rather than on the official assignee so it is a very sound amendment to the Act. 
As the previous speaker stated the most controversial point was around extending the period of time that a debtor’s name would remain on the no-asset procedure and the bankruptcy public registry. In the end it really came down to balancing the interests of debtors who understandably seek to move on with their lives and those of creditors who require reliable accurate information about a debtor’s history as the basis on which to make informed business decisions. It was not easy to come to the decision regarding the 5-year period but in the end I think it was the appropriate decision. 
This bill which amends an Act passed 3 years ago is consistent with the overriding policy objectives of the personal insolvency legislation. It removes the potential for people to be rewarded for their dishonesty and it implements amendments that reduce the workload of the official assignee. It is required to maintain the integrity of the personal insolvency processes. Hence I support this bill. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 The Insolvency Amendment Bill is generally a good bill. It aims to address four key issues that have arisen since the Insolvency Act 2006 was enacted. Firstly the bill aims to close a potential legal loophole and prevent fraudulent debts from being written off. Secondly it amends the public insolvency register to lengthen the time that information about a debtor remains on the public registers from 1 year to 5 years in the case of a no-asset procedure and from 7 years to indefinitely in the case of multiple insolvencies—that is to say in the case of two or more bankruptcies or of a no-asset procedure plus a bankruptcy. Thirdly the bill will also restore the official assignee’s ability to recover gifts made prior to bankruptcy in order to avoid making payments to creditors and will extend the period available to the official assignee in which to decide whether to terminate a no-asset procedure process. Therefore the amendment should make it easier for creditors to make better-informed lending decisions particularly in tough economic times. That all sounds valid and generally this bill is good but I do have some concerns and observations and wish to spend some time elaborating on them in this debate on the third reading of the bill. 
Making laws in all areas whether civil or criminal is a central part of the work of Parliament and the laws that are so made often have a catch-all effect. A statute is the express will of Parliament which reflects the views and the will of our constituency across the board. So to put my contribution in that context my first concern is that the difference between bankruptcy and the no-asset procedure may become diluted. 
The no-asset procedure was first introduced by the Insolvency Act 2006 as a less punitive option than bankruptcy. There are two main purposes: to give individuals a fresh start and to allow individuals to avoid the stigma of bankruptcy. To satisfy the Insolvency Act criteria for entering into the no-asset procedure a debtor must have no realisable assets must have a total debt of not less than $1000 and no more than $40000 and must have no means of being able to repay the debts. A no-asset procedure is currently discharged after 12 months whereas a bankruptcy is discharged after 3 years. Bankruptcies are currently held on a person’s credit file for 7 years making it difficult or virtually impossible to gain access to credit. Therefore entering into the no-asset procedure is meant to provide a fresh start for such people and to help them become contributing members of the community again without the stigma of bankruptcy. 
I appreciate there may be two possible scenarios. One scenario is bona fide debtors who need help and whom we should help to become contributing members of the community. The other scenario on the other hand which has been cited in the media is people who may think a no-asset procedure is a quick way to sort out a debt that they cannot pay. They may regard it in the same way as what the media has described as the view of Generation X: it views credit as being something like free money or as being a sort of substitute for parental generosity. At the Commerce Committee officials did a thorough analysis of that issue. 
To some extent I understand the underlying reasons for us to tighten up on those debtors’ credit files. However let us look at the two case studies put together by the Association of Citizens’ Advice Bureaux in its submission. Case study 1 was that of a single professional woman with an income of over $50000 who had to go on an invalids benefit because an illness that had been controlled for 10 years flared up. She was in debt to her bank and to a finance company but had insurance on both loans to cover that specific illness. The bank paid out on the insurance but the finance company did not. Within 3 months of the change in her circumstances her only solution was to apply for the no-asset procedure with a $29000 debt. The only creditor was the finance company. Just imagine through no fault of her own she had no choice but to resort to the less punitive no-asset procedure but her name will stay on her credit file if this bill becomes law not for 12 months but for 5 years. I say that will have a huge impact on her ability to rehabilitate her financial life. 
Case study 2 involves a young couple with three kids under 8 years old. They had credit contracts on cars a TV etc. and they rented their home. They were encouraged by the bank to consolidate their finances which they did with a personal loan. They got into further debt and the bank refinanced them by putting all of their debts on to a credit card. The couple separated subsequently. The credit card was in the male’s name only. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.