Volume 698 Week 70 - Wednesday 16 April 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 698 Week 70 - Wednesday 16 April 2014[Sitting date: 16 April 2014. Volume:698;Page:17307. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 16 April 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersJustice Minister—Compliance withCabinet Manual1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Hon Judith Collins and her handling of her relationship with Oravida Ltd?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. However as I have stated in the past the Minister’s interactions with Oravida could have led to a perception of a conflict of interest. I am sure she will manage that situation more carefully in the future.Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that Judith Collins has disclosed to him all relevant information about Oravida that she knows?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Given his statement that he would “not want to be in her shoes” if there were any further embarrassing revelations or if she has withheld relevant information or has been “cute with the truth” will he rule out removing Judith Collins’ ministerial warrant if it emerges that she has withheld further relevant information?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is asking a hypothetical question but I am comfortable with the actions of the Minister.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “I think she had a responsibility to make clear all of the meetings that she held in Beijing even if one of them was a ‘private meeting’. And she certainly should have made me aware of that.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: How does he reconcile his answer to the last question with Judith Collins’ resiling from that position yesterday?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: She did not and if the member was here he would know that. But I guess that that is what it is like when life is in the slow lane. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question the Hon David Cunliffe.Hon David Cunliffe: At least I did not renege on a housing debate.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.Hon David Cunliffe: Why did the Prime Minister’s office advise Judith Collins not to divulge the name and position of a senior Chinese border control official?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it was not germane to the conversation. What I can confirm is that I made the name the individual’s agency and his seniority well known to the Cabinet Office on the advice that it provided to me.Hon David Cunliffe: Is Oravida being given favourable treatment above and beyond any other company or cooperative sending the message that if you make a sizable donation to the National Party and appoint a Minister’s husband to your board you get a better deal?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Hon David Cunliffe: Did a donation to the National Party result from the Prime Minister’s second game of golf with Oravida chairman Stone Shi?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no ministerial responsibility for that. [Interruption]Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.Grant Robertson: The question that the Leader of the Opposition asked was whether a donation had come from something that the Prime Minister had done. He is responsible for his actions as Prime Minister.Mr SPEAKER: No. There is no ministerial responsibility. I was about to rule the question out before the Prime Minister managed to get his answer out by saying that. That is an acceptable answer. There is no ministerial responsibility.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was wondering whether you could ask the Prime Minister to speak up when he answers the questions. He is not speaking very close to his microphone and we most definitely want to hear his answers.Mr SPEAKER: I think the issue is more the level of noise and interjection—and it is occurring now and I am on my feet. The level of interjection from all around the House is not only making it difficult for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to hear but making it difficult for me to hear as well.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to remind you of exactly what that last question was. It asked about an action of the Prime Minister which involved the Prime Minister in his prime ministerial capacity taking with him Diplomatic Protection Squad people using ministerial services—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I will have a careful look later. I have made a ruling with regard to that question for today.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard.Hon David Parker: I struggle to understand why you stood the Hon Trevor Mallard down through the middle of his point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Because I had heard enough. It was not strictly a relevant point of order. I have ruled on that question. I have given the member an assurance that I will look at the transcript. I always do.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In reviewing the tape as you have undertaken so kindly to do could I draw your attention to a possibility which is that if the Prime Minister had not played a second game of golf with Mr Shi in his prime ministerial capacity it would have been open to him to state that to the House. What he has said to the House is that he has no ministerial responsibility for the question at all and I would submit for your consideration that that is a different answer from the fact that he was not using his prime ministerial capacity.Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly relook at the transcript later on this afternoon.Cost of Living—Interest Rates and Affordable HousingJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks: what are likely to be the main pressures on interest rates and what steps—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That level of interjection from the Hon Trevor Mallard is unacceptable. I inviteJami-Lee Ross to start that question again.2.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to theMinister of Finance: What are likely to be the main pressures on interest rates and what steps is the Government taking to help prevent home mortgage rates from returning to levels seen in 2008?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): We know what the main pressures on interest rates will be because we know the lessons from the period up to 2008. At that time we learnt that runaway Government spending can push interest rates up further and faster. Up to 2008 Government spending jumped 50 percent in the previous 5 years. We also know that a runaway housing market can drive interest rates higher. The effect of both of those mistakes was that floating mortgage rates reached nearly 11 percent by 2008 and inflation exceeded 5 percent. That is why this Government is focusing onbeing careful with any increase in Government spending and is working closely with councils to improve housing supply.Jami-Lee Ross: What other steps is the Government taking to prevent house prices doubling as they did between 2001 and 2007 which created risks for households and pushed up interest rates?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course New Zealanders could not afford another doubling in house prices as occurred between 2001 and 2007. So the Government is focusing on a wide range of particular measures to take pressure off the housing market including reform of the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act reform of the rules around development contributions which have proven to be a significant obstacle in Christchurch and addressing these issues directly with councils through housing accords; for instance the housing accord with Auckland which is on track to reach its first year’s targets and earlier today the housing Minister announced a housing accord with the Christchurch City Council. We acknowledge the significant efforts of both of those councils to ensure that more people in those cities can have affordable housing.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The last two questions asked the Minister to talk about home mortgage interest rates and steps taken in respect of them but he has only talked about house prices and availability and has not addressed at all the question of steps taken in respect of home mortgage interest rates. Perhaps he could be asked to actually address the questions.Mr SPEAKER: I am actually unsure of the point that the member is making. In regard to the second supplementary question around what steps the Government is taking to increase housing supply etc. that was well and truly addressed by the Minister in his answer.Jami-Lee Ross: How have New Zealand families benefited from lower interest rates and smaller increases in the cost of living in recent years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Lower interest rates and smaller increases in the cost of living are pretty important to households. Floating mortgage rates fell from 11 percent in 2008 to around 6 percent today. For a family with a $200000 mortgage that is a reduction in their mortgage costs of around $200 a week or $10400 per year. It is no wonder that they do not want to go back to record high interest rates as they were paying in 2008. Statistics New Zealand reported this morning that annual inflation has dipped to 1.5 percent in the year to March just a 0.3 percent increase in the March quarter and household electricity prices rose by only 0.1 percent in the March quarter. On average household wage increases are greater than the increase in the cost of living.Phil Twyford: How can he claim that his Government’s record on housing is better when Real Estate Institute of New Zealand data shows that the growth of house prices in Auckland has been nearly 50 percent higher in real terms since 2009 than it was between 1999 and 2008 and that the median house price in Auckland has gone up by $156000 since his Government took office; or is $600 a week just to stand still an achievable savings goal under his regime?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has been dealing with the worst possible circumstances and that has been a doubling of house prices between 2001 and 2007 followed by sharp reductions in supply particularly in our biggest market Auckland and then uniquely in our second-biggest market Christchurch.Phil Twyford: Five long years.Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have been working for 5 years to persuade councils that the rules they make about new land supply and new house building affect house prices. In the last 12 months we have been starting to get somewhere but it has been a long slow process.Jami-Lee Ross: What economic policies would push up interest rates and send the cost of living soaring for New Zealand families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We know what sorts of policies would do that because we saw them in the years up to 2008: runaway Government spending which jumped 50 percent in the 5 years to 2008 and a doubling of house prices between 2001 and 2007 accompanied by for instance a 72 percent increase in electricity prices in the 9 years to 2008 and a doubling of the cost of the emissions trading system on households. These are all policies of the Labour-Green Opposition.Justice Minister—Compliance withCabinet Manual3.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to theMinister of Justice: Was the employer of the senior Chinese border control official who she had dinner with in Beijing in October 2013 on her Ministerial visit to China from the General Administration of Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine also known as the AQSIQ?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): It was a private dinner for which I do not have ministerial responsibility. But as I have previously acknowledged to the Prime Minister and to the media the cumulative effect of the events in China meant there was a risk of a perception of a conflict of interest. I have apologised widely for not seeing that risk earlier and providing more information.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In terms of the actual question that was asked I invite you to consider whether a response that says that a Minister who was on a ministerial visit to China and who met with an official of the Chinese Government can claim that she has no ministerial responsibility. It was quite clearly not a private dinner if there was a Chinese official present. She has ministerial responsibility to answer that question. It went through the normal processes. You accepted that she has ministerial responsibility.Mr SPEAKER: I did last week and I still do today. The Minister has now addressed that question. I fully accept that that is not to the satisfaction of the member. It is again as I said now the responsibility of this House and the public to judge. I will allow the member an additional supplementary question to move the matter forward.Grant Robertson: Did she meet a senior Chinese border official from the General Administration of Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine also known as the AQSIQ during her ministerial visit to China in October 2013?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I had no ministerial visits with any such person.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I asked was not about visits; it was about whether she met with any of those people. She did not address that question.Mr SPEAKER: The member is now looking for a direct yes or no answer which he cannot insist on. The member has had the ability to use a second supplementary question. Again that was not answered to the member’s satisfaction and I accept that. The answer now is to move forward with further supplementary questions.Grant Robertson: Was the senior Chinese border official at the dinner someone who could have influenced whether or notOravida’s products gained entry into China?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was a private dinner. There was no business discussed.Grant Robertson: How can it have been a private dinner when there was a senior Chinese border official present?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Even officials are allowed to have private dinners.Grant Robertson: Did she discuss with any ofOravida’s three directors before she left New Zealand on her ministerial visit any of the issues that Oravida was having with testing requirements for its products to enter China? Answer truthfully.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Hon Judith Collins—and without the last part thank you.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Would he like to ask that again?Mr SPEAKER: Sorry—is the Minister saying she did not quite hear the question?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I could not hear him over the interjections from—Mr SPEAKER: OK we will have the question again please.Grant Robertson: Did she discuss with any ofOravida’s three directors before she left New Zealand on her ministerial visit any of the issues that Oravida was having with testing requirements for its products to enter China?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously not because I did not think it had any problems.Grant Robertson: That is a good answer. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting for some assistance from your colleague.Grant Robertson: Was she aware ofOravida’s request to her fellow Ministers Tim Groser and Nathan Guy for ministerial intervention to gain access forOravida’s products into China before she went on her ministerial trip in October 2013?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Certainly not.Grant Robertson: Does the Minister understand that by refusing to rule out that she met with an official from the General Administration of Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine she leaves open the perception that she went to China to make sure that her husband’s company’s products got entry; and will she now rule out that she met someone from the General Administration of Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine while she was in China?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Answering the first part of that rather long question—well of course the member knows fully well I was invited in July 2013 by the Ministry of Justice in China to attend.Oil and Gas Exploration—2014 Block Offer and Conservation Land4.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his statement that it is “emotional claptrap” to stand up for the New Zealandfernbird—the threatenedfernbird—to try to protect it from drilling rigs?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Yes because I think what the member was doing was presenting the worst conceivable scenarios as if they were fact. The member was totally ignoring the extensive consultation process with the Department of Conservation iwi and local government. He was ignoring the extensive legal processes—which we are really just at the start of here—that involve again the Department of Conservation access arrangements Resource Management Act processes and the like which very much safeguard environmental factors. Fundamentally he was also ignoring the fact that the area he talks about has been mined for 100 years.Dr Russel Norman: Is he aware that the Victoria Forest Park which he unknowingly opened to petroleum drilling is home to thekākā and the rock wren—two birds ranked last week in the scientific journalCurrent Biology as being in the top 100 most evolutionary—[Interruption] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister’s shouting is making it very difficult for us to hear over here.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! It would certainly assist the order of the House if the member could ask a substantially shorter question and without injecting his own opinion as to whether the Minister knowingly or unknowingly approved a particular site. I invite the member to reword his question.Dr Russel Norman: Is he aware that the Victoria Forest Park which he unknowingly opened to petroleum drilling is home to thekākā and the rock wren two birds ranked last week in the scientific journalCurrent Biologyas being in the top 100 most evolutionarily distinct birds under threat from extinction?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I always knew there was a conservation park here that I was deliberately opening up. I also know that fundamentally the Green Party is anti-development. That is OK—that is a perspective. But it also means no taxes and royalties and no jobs including the hundreds in this park in gold mining and other activities.Dr Russel Norman: In the extensive consultation that he described earlier did he realise that the Victoria Forest Park is home to thekākā and the rock wren two birds that were ranked last week in the scientific journalCurrent Biology as being in the top 100 most evolutionarily distinct birds under threat of extinction in the world?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: At the end of the consultation process I received extensive documentation. I studied it conscientiously and it made very clear that there are a number of areas of sensitivity that were excluded and indeed others that I excluded as well. But I come back to it: this particular area of conservation park which the Labour members laugh about includes hundreds of jobs that frankly Damien O’Connor should be standing up for. I appreciate the member’s position of no development; that is not the Government’s position.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a journal article that is not readily available “Global Distribution and Conservation of Evolutionary Distinctness in Birds” fromCurrent Biology No. 24 May 2014.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it is not—I will take the member’s word that it is not—readily available to members I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table that particular journal. Is there any objection? There is objection.Rt Hon John Key: Can the Minister tell us how many previous mining permits were on the Victoria Forest Park and does he have any idea what view other parties in Parliament took on that?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The first part of the question can be answered.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well there are 58 mining permits in that area. Some 12 at least were granted by the last Labour Government when the Green Party did absolutely nothing.Dr Russel Norman: Are New Zealanders wrong to love the unique and threatened rock wren with its rounded olive brown wings and to want to protect it from the bulldozers and gigantic drilling rigs that this Minister is proposing to send in to wreck the habitat of this globally threatened bird?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was very hard to hear what Dr Norman was asking there—Hon Annette King: Because you were yelling.Hon Gerry Brownlee: No Mrs King I was not laughing although every time you speak the House does come to a certain standstill.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the member please get to his point of order otherwise—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well I would if I was not interrupted. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Could I ask you to consider whether in fact the material that Dr Norman is putting into his question is reasonable under the Standing Orders. He is making all sorts of assertions casting aspersions etc. and then asking a question that is always couched in a catch-22 nature. Everyone knows that the Greens support this sort of thing when Labour is in Government but not when National is.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That last part is unnecessary. [Interruption] Order! Would the member asking the question please have a look at Speaker’s ruling 171/1: “Questions are meant to be succinct not speeches or long statements.” If the member was prepared to adhere to that Speaker’s ruling he would greatly assist the order of this House. The member does many times ask very long questions that do invite a lot of disorder and a lot of interjection and the answer he then gets is probably one that is unhelpful to the member anyway. But I am not going to rule that question out of order. I am relatively generous in allowing fairly extensive questions to be asked but extensive questions are very unlikely to deliver an answer satisfactory to the person asking them.Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that the member is not in any way disputing a ruling I have just made?Gareth Hughes: No I am not disputing; but it is related.Mr SPEAKER: Good.Gareth Hughes: I would just like to point out to the House in terms of the Standing Order around disorderly conduct that we have twice seen questions interrupted by interjections from the Government side and twice you have chastised the Opposition side of the House for the questions when in fact all the disorder was coming from the Government side of the House.Mr SPEAKER: I would really appreciate it if the member would listen to the point that I have just made. When we get lengthy questions—almost speeches—that inject a lot of opinion from a particular member it does create disorder. So it would be helpful if we could get away from these lengthy questions that are full of a particular member’s opinions. Are there further supplementary questions?Dr Russel Norman: How can the Minister justify his attempt to destroy the habitat of thekāka which many New Zealanders—if not the Minister—love and want to protect when this is a treasure for all of New Zealand and he is letting it be destroyed?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well I repeat what I said last week. The member is scaremongering because he is simply not taking account of the extensive consultations and legal processes that protect our environment in this area and will be ongoing. The fact is that actually New Zealand is one-third conservation estate and 40 percent of that is in schedule 4 and we should be proud of that. But I repeat: where was the member when the Labour Government in this very area that he talks about opened up open-cast coalmining which he is all of a sudden upset about?Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to answer the Minister’s question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now trifling with the Chair. Question No. 5—[Interruption] No. Question No. 5. The Hon Kate Wilkinson.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked for a supplementary question as is my right. You may not like my questions but none the less they are questions within the Standing Orders of this House. It is my right to ask questions.Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have already explained to the member that I find his questions very difficult to chair because of the length of them. He has done nothing to rectify that. He then trifled with the Chair with his point of order. I have moved to question No. 5. The Hon Kate Wilkinson.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister invited Dr Norman to answer a question. I have heard many times in this House people doing exactly what Dr Norman did and seeking leave to answer a question. Clearly you did not feel that that was in order. The next step is then to ask whether there are any more supplementary questions. Dr Norman had one. I think it would help the order of the House if he were able to ask another supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I hope that members will listen to the rulings that I have given today. Question No. 5. The Hon Kate Wilkinson.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will know that the House is the master of its own destiny. If the member seeks leave in the way that Dr Norman did that leave should have been put to the House. We run this in the end not just you.Mr SPEAKER: No no no. The leave was sought to answer the question on behalf of the member. That is not appropriate leave. If the member sought leave to ask an additional supplementary question that he is asking that is leave that I would have to put.Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Greens have more allocated questions as of right by proportionality in this House. So I think the member Dr Russel Norman should be able to ask a supplementary question if he wishes.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now questioning a decision I have made. I have moved to question No. 5. The Greens—[Interruption] Order! If the Greens wish to use their supplementary questions they have another opportunity later in the day. Question No. 5—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I want to be fair to all members. I have made a decision—[Interruption] Order! I have made a decision that we are moving to question No. 5. If any member is now relitigating that decision I will be inclined to ask that member to leave the Chamber.Hon David Parker: It is a new point of order. The Minister in his answer was out of order. I would ask why you did not call him to order in that he is meant to answer questions not ask questions. I am surprised that he was not stood down in the way that Mr Norman was for breaching the Standing Orders.Mr SPEAKER: It is a reasonable point the member has made. I can assist the member. If you go back and look at the context of the question that was asked—how the Minister can justify destroying habitats etc.—it was a question that some might say was emotive. It was certainly full of opinion. On that basis as I have said to this House on many occasions it gives wide licence to the Minister when he answers the question.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was a ruling made by Speaker Hunt in the term of the last Labour Government that political parties would be able to determine how they allocated their supplementary questions. Previously there were set numbers of supplementary questions per primary question and the responsibility was then given to parties as to how they allocate them. You have now indicated that it is no longer up to a party to indicate how it allocates its supplementary questions and that you will determine when you have had enough supplementaries on a particular primary question. I wonder whether you could give us some further clarity around that ruling.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now in danger of leaving this Chamber. He is relitigating a decision I have made. I was very unhappy with the point of order raised by Dr Russel Norman. I have put up now with lengthy questions despite asking him to ask them consistent with the Standing Orders and being completely ignored. We are moving to question No. 5.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I just want to be absolutely fair to the Hon Trevor Mallard—if in any way this is a point of order that relitigates my decision to—Hon Trevor Mallard: No not all.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am talking. If it—[Interruption] Order! If it in any way relitigates the decision I have made to move to question No. 5 I will then be asking the member to leave the Chamber.Hon Trevor Mallard: I am not relitigating the question. I am making it absolutely clear—I am not asking you to reverse your position now but to consider an alternative method going forward and that is to allow members if you believe their questions are out of order and inappropriate to ask their questions and then rule them out of order the way that previous Speakers have.Mr SPEAKER: I will consider that.Christchurch Recovery—Housing Initiatives5.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) to theMinister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What new initiatives is the Government supporting to assist housing affordability in Christchurch?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): This morning on behalf of the Government the Hon Dr Nick Smith signed a housing accord with the Mayor of Christchurch to increase the number of affordable houses in the city. The accord includes a $75 million Government commitment to develop temporary and affordable housing and a $50 million Christchurch City Council investment in a new housing entity. This adds to theLand Use Recovery Plan which will make as many as 40000 greenfield sections available for development as well as private sector development. TheLand Use Recovery Plan will facilitate Housing New Zealand’s programme to build 700 new homes in Christchurch and repair 5000 of its homes over the next short while.Hon Kate Wilkinson: How is the Government reducing regulatory barriers to housing development in Christchurch?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Under the new housing accord the Government and the council will be working closely together to minimise the barriers to development to make consenting processes more flexible and to explore a one-stop shop for consenting. The Land Use Recovery Plan has already removed the need for a resource consent to build two homes on earthquake cleared sites where once only one was allowed or to convert a single home into two dwellings and it enables higher-density developments in certain areas under certain criteria. These new rules are expected to result in 10000 to 12000 new homes in addition to the new greenfield sections. I hope that the housing accord announced today by the Government will see the Christchurch City Council able to consent land for affordable homes as quickly as Waimakariri and Selwyn have done.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What housing projects will be funded through the Government’s $75 million commitment?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government fund will be used for a number of housing initiatives. This includes the potential sites atWelles Street and Colombo Street which will total up to 180 homes. These will expand the number of homes available for temporary accommodation for families while their homes are rebuilt or repaired and they will be sold as affordable homes on the open market when that demand subsides. The Government fund will also be used to facilitate the construction of other affordable homes like the 270 proposed on the Awatea block nearCarrs Road.Justice Minister—Visit to China6.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to theMinister of Justice: Why will she not identify the senior Chinese border official with whom she met on 20October 2013 and disclose the business that was discussed at the dinner with him that evening?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): It was a private dinner with friends the Chinese guest is entitled to privacy and no business was discussed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When she spoke to the Prime Minister’s office and the Prime Minister did she provide it and him with all the facts and details so that he could make a prime ministerial decision on her behaviour?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has she repeated denials in this House when she knows that she was enlisted specifically to address issue 2 page 2 of the 6 August Oravida letter to the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Nathan Guy about border testing?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is quite incorrect and he knows it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did she try to tell this House and the media and the country that she merely stopped off at Oravida on the way to the airport for a cup of tea or later that she merely went to a private dinner when she knew at the time the name and the status of the senior Chinese official and more particularly why she and he were at that meeting?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I actually had difficulty following what the member was saying. Perhaps you would like to try it again.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’ll repeat it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is the best way forward. Would the right honourable gentleman repeat the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much. Why did she try to tell this House and the media and the country that she merely stopped off at Oravida on the way to the airport for a cup of tea or later that she merely went to a private dinner when she knew at the time the name and the status of the senior Chinese official and more particularly why she and he were at that meeting?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well I count at least three questions in that so I will deal with just one of them and the one that I will say is this: I do not try to say anything. Whatever I have said I have said.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to how does it work that she and her colleagues give Oravida $40000 of taxpayers’ money and then Oravida gives the National Party $56000—was that for services rendered by her to that company?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think that the member is confusing me with himself.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That cannot be a satisfactory answer to a serious question.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty was that it was not a very satisfactory question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Who says so?Mr SPEAKER: I did.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that is the case you should have said so before I gave the Minister a chance to speak.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I did not say that the question was out of order; I said that it was a question that was full of opinion and was alleging money-swapping from one to another. [Interruption] Order! If I am on my feet the Hon Ruth Dyson will remain quiet. So the question got an answer that addressed the question. It was not to the satisfaction of the member I accept but the question was addressed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. These documents categorically set out that Oravida got $40000 from the taxpayer. Other publicity disclosed by Oravida says that it gave $56000 to the National Party—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member has documents he wants to table he should seek leave to do so.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am surprised that you made the comments about the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ question. A question might be about something distasteful but it does not make the question out of order in terms of the Standing Orders. Your comments implied that it did.Mr SPEAKER: No I was quite clear. I will relook at theHansard and I invite the member to do so. I did not rule the question out of order. I was quite clear about that when I spoke earlier.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just understand what the fresh point of order is?Hon David Parker: Your response to the Rt Hon Winston Peters was that he could not expect an answer because it was a distasteful question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member now is just trifling with the Chair. I said that the answer the Minister gave addressed the question within the frame it was asked. Question No. 7—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You do not mind if we have our quota of supplementary questions too do you?Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to take a supplementary question well he rises—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of course I do.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! The member has been here a long time. If the member wants to ask a supplementary question he rises to his feet and says “Supplementary question.”Rt Hon Winston Peters: You were in such a rush to move on. Now we know why. Is she telling the House that she has disclosed everything to the Prime Minister’s office and the Prime Minister because if that is the case both she and he are involved first in a deep conflict of interest and second in committing in her case and abetting in his case a corrupt action by the Minister?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well that question is so loaded with allegations that are false I cannot be bothered answering it.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to reflect on what is clearly concerning you which is a level of disorder in the House and from where that generates. It generates from a Minister who has simply over the last 2 weeks not been prepared to answer straight questions about her actions as a Minister on a ministerial trip to China. I ask you Mr Speaker what the remedy is for the Opposition when a Minister will not answer questions about the business she does on a ministerial trip.Mr SPEAKER: I would have thought that the remedy available to Opposition members is the one that they are using. My duty is to listen very carefully to the question and then to judge whether I think the Minister has addressed that question. Many times the answer that is given will not be of satisfaction to the questioner in this case the Opposition and then the tactic that is used is for the Opposition to continue to ask supplementary questions.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have previously ruled in this House that a Minister is entitled to use the defence that answering a question is “not in the public interest”. I seek your clarification of whether the phrase “I cannot be bothered.” is the same thing as “not in the public interest”.Mr SPEAKER: No. In my opinion it would not be.Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to hear a point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a speech about clean and open Government given by Judith Collins in Beijing.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that that speech has not been made freely available I will put the leave and it will be over to the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that particular speech. Is there—[Interruption] The Minister is saying that it is already a published speech.Accident Compensation Corporation—ACC167 Form and Operational Policy7.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to theMinister for ACC: Does she stand by her answers to Oral Question No. 10 yesterday?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): Yes. I especially stand by my answer when I said that the policy was first agreed to by the Hon Ruth Dyson when she was Minister for ACC.Iain Lees-Galloway: When she answered the primary question saying: “The policy in respect of stopping paying weekly compensation to clients who refused to provide a signed unaltered copy of the ACC167 form was first agreed to by the Hon Ruth Dyson in March 2006 in a briefing paper signed by her as Minister for ACC after discussions with officials.” was she aware that the briefing paper she referred to contained no reference whatsoever to stopping payments to ACC clients?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No; the report makes it very clear that that is exactly what is going to happen. If people cannot fill out a form and the form is required for the application clearly that is exactly what is going to happen.Iain Lees-Galloway: Where in that briefing paper does it reference stopping payments to claimants?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: How can anybody get a claim through if they cannot fill out the form? It is pretty obvious.Simon O’Connor: What was the Minister’s reaction on being briefed by ACC about the decision of the High Court as to the legitimacy of stopping weekly compensation for clients who refused to sign an unamended form ACC167?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My advice to ACC was that I believed that it should comply with the ruling. I agreed with the decision that it advised me that it had taken—that is not to appeal the decision. I also asked ACC to attend to the form forthwith so that people could not have their claims disallowed or not even received for not having completed the form in an altered form.Iain Lees-Galloway: When she answered the first supplementary question to question No. 10 yesterday saying: “The question is in relation to the ACC167 form and the policy’s adoption. It was adopted by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I do not have details on any other details he has asked for.” was she aware that paragraphs 2.6 and 3.2 of the briefing paper she tabled in the House yesterday did provide the details I was asking for in that supplementary question and indicated that claimants were able to place conditions on ACC’s authority to collect data in 2006 without fear of losing their weekly compensation?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: He is going to have to do that again. It was such a long question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the Minister is saying that she could not clearly hear the question we have no choice but to hear it again.Iain Lees-Galloway: When she answered the first supplementary question to oral question No. 10 yesterday saying: “The question is in relation to the ACC167 form and the policy’s adoption. It was adopted by the Hon Ruth Dyson. I do not have details onany other details he has asked for.” was she aware that paragraphs 2.6 and 3.2 of the briefing paper she tabled in the House yesterday did provide the details I was asking for in that supplementary question and indicated that claimants were able to place conditions on ACC’s authority to collect their data in 2006 without fear of losing their weekly compensation?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It was such a long briefing paper and I had just tabled it so I did not actually have it with me.Iain Lees-Galloway: Why did she make any claims about what that briefing paper actually said if she had not read the thing?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is asking about a particular point within in it. Since I did not have it with me having just tabled it I presumed that he had it.Iain Lees-Galloway: You lied. You lied and you know it.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. Mr Speaker I ask for that member to be asked to withdraw and apologise for that comment he has just made.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the member withdraw and apologise for that interjection?Iain Lees-Galloway: I withdraw and apologise. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! That sort of interjection leads to disorder. We have just had it withdrawn by one member. It will cease.Student Loans—Debt Recovery from Overseas-based Borrowers8.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What progress has the Government made in ensuring overseas-based student loan borrowers meet their obligations to New Zealand taxpayers?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): We are making very good progress in what is a big project. There are around 110000 student loan borrowers overseas and repayment of their loans by them has historically been very low. The previous Government put it in the too-hard basket. In 2010 we launched a comprehensive programme of work to improve repayment rates and borrowers do need to know that when they go overseas their loan does not disappear; their obligation to repay it continues. Today I was able to announce with the Minister of Revenue that the Inland Revenue Department has now received over $100 million extra from overseas borrowers as a result of this initiative. As I say it is a good start on tackling a large problem. For every dollar the Government has invested in this initiative taxpayers have received about $11 in additional repayments so it has been a very worthwhile investment.Tim Macindoe: What tools has the Inland Revenue Department been using to increase repayments from borrowers who are based overseas?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well it is a multi-agency initiative and the first thing we did was make it easier for overseas borrowers to actually repay their loans. The Inland Revenue Department set up toll-free phone numbers for borrowers in Australia and the UK and they can choose from four online money transfer companies offering fee-free services and they waive the convenience fee for credit or debit cards as well. The Inland Revenue Department has also been advertising on social media directly contacting borrowers working with private debt collection companies to assist in tracking and collecting from borrowers in default and taking legal action against those who continue to ignore their obligations. It is important that they do meet their obligations to the people who have supported their tertiary study wherever they are in the world.Tim Macindoe: How has the Inland Revenue Department been working with other Government agencies to increase repayment rates?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well recently we had an information-sharing agreement signed between the Inland Revenue Department and the Department of Internal Affairs so that passport applications to the Department of Internal Affairs are matched with the Inland Revenue Department’s database of overseas-based loan defaulters. Since October last year as at earlier this year over 500 contacts have been made and repayment arrangements totalling $1.2 million have been set up from that initiative alone. Thirteen borrowers actually immediately paid their loans in full. The Inland Revenue Department is also notified by the Customs Service now when overseas-based borrowers in serious default return to the country. Over $2 million has been received as a result of contacts through that approach. Finally the Inland Revenue Department now has the ability to seek an arrest warrant to deal with the most serious cases when all other efforts to persuade the borrower to make repayments have failed. It has received over 3000 calls from overseas borrowers since this power was introduced through the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Act 2014.Housing Affordable—Government Policies Mortgages and Overseas Buyers9.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū) to theMinister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement that it will take “a period of a decade or two” to get housing affordability to his long-term target?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I have set a long-term target of house price to income ratio of 4. Nationally it is currently 5.5. In Auckland it is over 7. I note that independent housing commentator Bernard Hickey has noted it would take 19 years of wage growth over 3 percent over house prices to reduce the house price ratio back down to 4 in places like Auckland. I also note that if house prices had not doubled between 2000 and 2008 this target could be achieved in a small number of years.Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the country’s largest real estate group which says that loan-to-value ratios have been a failed experiment that have had little effect in the heated Christchurch and Auckland markets and why has he chosen to force a generation of aspirational hard-working Kiwis to abandon their homeownership dreams when the obvious solution is to abandon his failed housing polices and build 100000 affordable homes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I find the first question about loan-to-value ratios ironic from that member in that only a year ago he was advocating for us to have loan-to-value ratios as an alternative policy for the Reserve Bank. Secondly in respect of how successful they have been I note that over the last 3 months house price inflation nationally has been just 0.1 percent the lowest in many years. In respect of the Government’s housing policies I know that the number of houses being built per year has increased from 13000 per year to 23000 per year and I rate that as a success.Phil Twyford: Does he stand by his statement that “I’m satisfied the number of overseas buyers is tiny and not having any substantive effect on prices.”; if so has he spoken to the Prime Minister who used to agree with him but now thinks that something needs to be done about it to cover up for the Government’s preference for offshore speculators?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the independent Productivity Commission spent 18 months looking into the issue of house prices after the disaster of the last Labour Government. It received over 150 submissions. It produced a comprehensive report of over 200 pages. It made absolutely no mention of foreign buyers having any impact and that is the view that is supported by the advice of Treasury and my own ministry.Accident Compensation Corporation—ACC167 Form and Privacy and Security of Information10.KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to theMinister for ACC: Have all of the recommendations of the 2012 Independent Review of ACC’s Privacy and Security of Information been implemented; if not why not?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): ACC advised that it has implemented 37 of the 44 recommendations. A number have ongoing activity associated with them. Of the remaining seven two are under active management which relate to information governance and the implementation of data loss protection software. The other five involve a fundamental review of ACC’s end-to-end claims process activity. Accordingly ACC advised that it has taken a deliberate decision to complete the end-to-end process review of claims management as part of its work around improving trust and confidence. This is to ensure all processes and information technology changes required under these five recommendations comprehensively meet the intent of the report.Kevin Hague: Is she confident that the recommendations to ensure that consent forms follow the law and are best practice have been properly implemented given that the court has just found that the way that ACC was using its ACC167 form was actually illegal?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not want to argue with the member but strictly speaking the form was not held to be illegal but the way in which it was used was outside of the statutory requirements. I agree with the member that the form must be changed to comply with the latest decision. I have also been advised by ACC that this form has in the past been approved by the Privacy Commissioner by the Human Rights Commission and I have been told by six different District Court decisions. So the fact that this latest decision has said that it has been wrongly used is something that ACC is taking very seriously as am I.Kevin Hague: How does she reconcile ACC’s illegal use of this form with the privacy review’s findings that stakeholders’ single-biggest concern was the attitude and culture of the organisation in dealing with their personal information and the report’s finding that a consistent theme was that information not relevant to the claim was held on file?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I also recall that the review said that the form itself was able to be used. So I think the problem is that the past decisions of the courts and of other agencies like the Human Rights Commission the Privacy Commissioner and also the review have not actually said that the form has been misused. But I believe that the member is right that the form should be changed. ACC told me on Monday this week that it was not going to appeal the decision and that it would abide by it. I think that is the right outcome.Kevin Hague: How do revelations today that ACC has been handing people’s full ACC files—including information on sensitive claims—over to prospective employers stack up against the recommendations of the privacy review?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sorry I have not heard that claim but if the member would like to provide me with the information I will be happy to take some action. I seek leave to assist the member with the summary—Mr SPEAKER: You are seeking leave to table a document?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is a document that is the independent review recommendations and summary of actions as at 24 January this year and I think that might help the member.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that summary of actions. Is there any objection to that being tabled? It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Kevin Hague: How does the Minister reconcile the responsibility she took as Minister in 2012 and her comment that “I’m not going to sit back and let one of the most important Government entities we have let people down time and time again around things such as privacy. They have to act in the way that I expect them to act.” with her comments over the past several days that the implications of the court decision are an operational matter?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well strictly speaking forms are an operational matter but if the member is going to come to see the progress that has been made and what actions I have taken I think that I have been very strong on this issue relating to ACC. I can look at the proof of just how successful that has been. In August 2012 there were 80 privacy breaches from ACC. A year later in August 2013 that was down to 28. In March 2014—the month just past—it was down to 19. There are significant improvements in the ability of ACC to protect people’s privacy and at the same time to comply with its obligations under its own Act.Wage Rates—Growth Inequality and Employment Relations Legislation11.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement “we still have much more to do to improve New Zealand’s economic growth and to support higher incomes across the board”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes I do because the first stage of Government action was to undo the damage done by the previous Government including home mortgage interest rates at nearly 11 percent a current account deficit of 8 percent and houses prices that had more than doubled in 9 years. Having undone a fair bit of that damage there is much to do to build our future capacity to deliver higher incomes to households.Andrew Little: In light of the fact that two-thirds of wage and salary earners earn less than the average wage that the average wage has increased in real terms over the last 5 years at less than half the rate it increased under the Labour-led Government and that incomes for the bottom half of all earners have either stayed the same or gone backwards what exactly will his Government do to lift incomes higher across the board?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place the facts do not back up the member’s assertion that the incomes at the lower end have fallen further behind. That is simply not the case. The process set up by the previous Government to measure income inequality shows that despite a recession over recent years incomes have been flat not declining. In respect of the Government’s plans we intend to persist with a comprehensive strategy to raise educational achievement so that every young New Zealander gets a decent start in the workforce; continue to fine-tune the skills system which was very wasteful under the previous Government but is now starting to produce some real benefits for young New Zealanders; continue to negotiate free-trade agreements with more of the world’s faster-growing economies so we can sell more to the rest of the world at higher prices; and continue to reform the Government itself so we deliver more benefits and more value to those who are very dependent on the Government for their standard of living.Andrew Little: What specifically will he do to ensure that the nearly 50 percent productivity improvement achieved by New Zealand workers since 1992 will be fully shared with them rather than the 14 percent to date that has gone to wages?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm whether the member’s figures are actually correct. There is a bit of a challenge in that there is a worldwide phenomenon where theproportion of where the benefits of productivity lie has changed particularly since the global financial crisis. We do not know all the answers to that puzzle actually. In the first place in New Zealand we need to raise our productivity levels so that we will be working out how to divide a larger cake. In fact that is the Government’s top priority because whatever the proportions are between wages and capital the larger the pie is the more the workers are going to get.Andrew Little: In light of his Government’s employment legislation currently before the House allowing employers to peremptorily walk away from collective bargaining and to abolish the application of collective agreements to new employees and his claim in 2011 that low wages are an advantage for New Zealand does he now accept that his claim of an increase in incomes of $7500 over the next 4 years is just deceitful and cynical?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly do not agree with that. I mean I made a similar claim about increases in the average wage over the last few years and that was actually the basis on which this Parliament decided that New Zealanders over the age of 65 should get their superannuation. I do not think that Parliament was being deceitful when it used the average wage as a measure of incomes in New Zealand appropriate to apply to every single New Zealander over the age of 65. Where I think we differ is that the member believes that collective bargaining is the only way workers can get wage increases. In fact collective bargaining applies only to quite a small proportion of the workforce and the rest of them are getting significant wage increases in any case. We would like to see them get more.Paramedics—Funding for New Technology12.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to theMinister of Health: What investments has the Government made to support new technology for paramedics?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): New technology partially funded by the Government is being introduced by St John Ambulance. Using a new hand-held device while on the road ambulance crews will be able to send photos of injuries and accident scenes direct to hospital specialists for advice. This will also mean that emergency departments can be better prepared to receive a patient. The Government has allocated $2.5 million towards the cost of the development and roll-out of these devices.Dr Paul Hutchison: How will this technology improve patient care?Hon TONY RYALL: For the first time ambulance officers will now be able to notify GPs that their patients have called upon the services of St John Ambulance. This is a world-leading move. Previously some GPs never knew that their patients were calling an ambulance. In one case a patient called an ambulance eight times about their medication before their GP was finally notified and made a minor change which stopped the calls. This is very significant—as the member knows—when you consider that nearly 20 percent of ambulance call outs are for high users with four or more call outs a year.General DebateHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. Life is full of irony. I quote: “The third pillar of clean Government is transparency.” That was Judith Collins lecturing the Chinese about corruption on the same taxpayer-funded trip where she had dinner with the chairman of her husband’s company and the senior Chinese border control official that that company wanted to get its products through. That is corruption. That is what—to quote her—corruption looks like.John Key is no better. He is donkey deep in the Oravida scandal. He is so compromised because he took $55000 for playing his first game of golf with the same chairman and lied to cover it up. That is a strong word. He said it was a charity; he was the charity. The National Party was the charity. No wonder he cannot sack Judith Collins—he is just as guilty as she is. She has got the numbers in that sorry caucus and he knows it which is why he will not lift a finger—Hon Steven Joyce: Ha ha!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That is the laugh of the damned. Imagine being an also-ran to the “Minister for Corruption”—imagine being the also-ran to the “Minister of Corruption”.Let us summarise why she is toast. She is toast because she has a deep abiding and pecuniary conflict of interest. Her husband was appointed to the board of Oravida. She has a financial gain from that appointment. That company gave $56500 to the National Party. She shares in that benefit. She went to China on a taxpayer-funded trip. She posed for the company to promote its products. She lobbied Chinese Government officials to get those products into China. She did not declare the meeting in her ministerial report. She did not declare the details to the Prime Minister. She did not declare the details to the House. She has repeatedly made a mockery of your rulings Mr Speaker by saying that she has no ministerial responsibility as a Minister on an anti-corruption trip for sitting with the chairman of her husband’s company and the border control official.That is a joke. It is worse than a joke. It is the same kind of corruption that she is lecturing about. Here is what she told the Chinese academy of young executives: “Fighting corruption is not easy. It is a complex offence that is difficult to detect.”Rt Hon Winston Peters: That’s true!Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Just ask Grant Robertson. Just ask Winston Peters. Just ask my colleagues who have day by day been fighting to get the truth from that Minister—the whole truth and nothing but the truth not the scampi equivalent that she thinks she can get away with.What did Mr Key say a month or two ago? He said: “Gee I wouldn’t want to be in her shoes if she does this again.” Well guess what? She has just been caught out because not only did she prepare in advance for those Oravida dinners and not only did she not just pop in for a cuppa on the way to an airport that was in the opposite direction by 30 kilometres but she has lobbied for the interests of her husband’s company. That is a conflict of interest.She expects the New Zealand people to believe the lie that they never discussed Oravida business—yeah right! But I say this to you. Even if they sat around that table eating scampi and did not say a single word of any kind the whole night in Chinese culture the fact that she was there a Minister of the Crown with the very border control official who could influence that company’s outcomes even if he was dumb blind and mute and she said nothing it is still—Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Well if I were the Leader of the Opposition I would not be discussing the numbers in caucus in any situation. I would not be talking if I were David Cunliffe about toast—the guy who will not even tell New Zealanders who donated for his leadership bid. That is how straight that person is in this Parliament.But there is actually a more important issue for the Opposition and that is: what is going on with the Labour Party?Hon Annette King: Nothing!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Exactly—nothing. That is my point. Why is it struggling along at 30 percent in the polls—or 27 percent according to one prominent commentator yesterday? It is not like its leader is not out there rushing around doing stuff. He is too busy to come to Wellington some days because he is so busy out there giving speeches. He is too busy to go on the television for prearranged interviews because he is busy rushing around the place. He is working away but nothing is happening. He sort of tries to look like a leader. He puts on his nerd face and says: “Oh yes I’m a very serious leader. This is what leaders look like.” But actually it is not going anywhere.Why is that? Well it is a tricky conundrum. It is a tricky conundrum and there are a number of possible reasons. One is possibly that Labour members focus on beltway issues all the time—far be it from me to tell them about that but perhaps that is what they do. But possibly a more telling issue is that they spend their lives constantly making stuff up so that when they open their mouths the public go: “Ah I don’t think so.” before Labour members hardly say a word.Here are just a few examples from recent days. Yesterday their leader was out saying: “Labour ran a surplus every year in Government.” Well it did not. In Labour’s last year in Government it was proposing a $3.9 billion deficit—wrong Mr Cunliffe. The claim yesterday that our economic recovery is due only to Canterbury and high dairy prices—wrong. That recovery is a broad-based recovery. The claim that New Zealand was nowhere to be seen on the whaling issue in the last couple of weeks—wrong. The Attorney-General was actually in the court. The claim that there is a manufacturing crisis—also wrong. The sector has been in expansion for 19 months. Of course there is the claim that costs are rising faster than wages.Hon Trevor Mallard: Stand up for Judith!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually since September 2008 average after-tax wages have increased more than inflation. Trevor go home. You are getting on Trevor. Let it go. But there is another example of making stuff up and exaggeration.Here is Labour’s new policy. The new policy says Labour will require trucks not to be driven in the fast lane. Yes it is apparently a new policy of the Labour Party which is sort of OK fair enough except you have to read the fine print. At least on this one the fine print is here which we could not say for the baby bonus policy. The fine print says it is only for three and four-lane motorways. So they will stop trucks being driven in the fast lane but only on three and four-lane motorways. How many three and four-lane motorways do you think there are in New Zealand? How many of these motorways exist? I will give you a clue. Of 11000 kilometres of State highways in New Zealand how many of them are three or four-lane motorways that this wonderful policy affects? The answer is about 50 or 60 kilometres. Of 11000 kilometres about 50 or 60 kilometres will be affected by this. But you do not hear that from the Labour Party. “Mr Nerd Face Labour Party Leader” David Cunliffe—very serious very serious—says: “We’re going to stop these trucks passing but only for 60 kilometres. The other 11000 kilometres won’t be changing.” That is their problem: they make up stuff and they exaggerate. But at least it is the issues that matter—at least it is the issues that matter!Actually I have been thinking of some more policies for them to think about for the next few days. I have got a few more. I have beencrowdsourcing some policies—not just trucks but how about pedestrians who walk slowly? That is annoying. Let us have a rule against that. That could be a new Labour Party transport policy—pedestrians who walk too slowly. Let us have that one because that is an issue that matters.What about another one? What about people who constantly change lanes in the security queues at airports? That is annoying. Let us have a policy for that. Let us sort that one out. And what about people who have too loud TV commercials? They used tohave that one. Let us bring that one back. The reason the Labour Party is struggling for relevance is that its members have no idea what is important to Kiwis. They make stuff up and they exaggerate. In short they are tricky.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Not one word from that Minister to defend Judith Collins. Not one single word from Steven Joyce to defend Judith Collins because he is enjoying every single minute of this. The so-called “Crusher” Collins the powerful person who backs down to nobody sneaks out the back door of this House. She did not face the media on the way in and she did not face the media on the way out. That is because she has something to hide. She does not want to front up to New Zealanders about what she did. The great “Crusher” Collins has been crushed. She has been crushed because she has refused to front up to New Zealanders.Do not mistake it for a minute. There is a reason why John Key has not got rid of Judith Collins. It is because he is donkey deep in this Oravida saga. He is the recipient of $56000 worth of donations that we know about and there could well be more. He is playing golf with the chairman. But he has also managed to appear in advertisements for Oravida Ltd. I did not know that John Key was a fan of Monty Python until yesterday when this advertisement appeared. It is a large advertisement—that is what I would call it—for Oravida Ltd which appeared in a Chinese airline magazine. Down at the bottom of this picture of MrGoodfellow’s scampi that is here we have a picture of John Key. That would be John Key at the bottom of this. The Chinese translation here says that John Key hosted a banquet for important Chinese people—presumably a banquet with this scampi in it. But it is OK—it is OK—because John Key’s office said that this is not an advertisement. As they say I know a dead parrot when I see one and this is a dead parrot. This is an advertisement. John Key is right in the middle of this Oravida saga and that is why he is refusing to sack Judith Collins.Let us make sure that everybody is absolutely clear here. On a $30000 ministerial visit to China for the Minister of Justice she pre-arranged two meetings with the Oravida directors one in Shanghai and one in Beijing. Let us be clear. Stone Shi and JuliaXu travelled with Judith Collins on this trip. They were in Beijing for the dinner and then they were in Shanghai 2 days later for her to visit their offices. This was not the Minister of Justice on her own on a ministerial trip; this was the Minister of Justice pre-arranging visits with the fellow directors of Oravida who were there along with her husband. Again her husband is a director of five companies associated with Oravida Ltd associated with Stone Shi and JuliaXu. These were pre-arranged meetings that she has sought to cover up from the beginning claiming that she popped in on the way to the airport when she had to drive 30 kilometres in the wrong direction to actually get toOravida’s headquarters.She then sought to cover up a dinner—a dinner with an official from a border control agency. I am sure that that person was from the General Administration of Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine the agency responsible for whether or notOravida’s products get into China. We know because JuliaXu went on Television One’sQ+A programme and said it that Oravida was having trouble getting products into China. JuliaXu then wrote to Tim Groser and Nathan Guy and said: “We are having trouble getting our products into China. Please intervene.” And then Judith Collins ended up at a dinner with a senior official from the agency responsible for getting those products in.She was there working on behalf of her husband’s company. She was there in a clear conflict of interest situation. If John Key had any standards whatsoever for his Ministers she would be gone. Pansy Wong went. Richard Worth went. Judith Collins should be gone. The taxpayers of New Zealand deserve far better than the cronyism and corruption of John Key’s Government. Judith Collins does not deserve to be a Minister.She should go. John Key should know that New Zealanders expect a fair go for all companies and all people. That is not what they are getting at the moment. What they are getting is Oravida a company that Judith Collins is closely associated with being preferred over other companies. That is called cronyism. That is called corruption. That is the National Government.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): This Government knows what is actually important to New Zealanders. This Government knows that what is important to New Zealanders is delivering safer communities. I have to say that I am proud to be part of a justice sector that is led by Minister Judith Collins as the Minister of Justice who is leading the justice sector Ministers and delivering safer communities to New Zealand.It has to be said that since David Cunliffe has become the leader of the Labour Party—albeit an invisible one—one thing I have noticed is that Labour has become far more critical of the justice sector. Despite the magnificent results that have been delivered by our justice sector by police by corrections and by the courts what we have had under DavidCunliffe’s watch is a questioning of the crime statistics a questioning of corrections methodologies and in fact a questioning of the fantastic results that the justice sector has delivered.Opposition members are actually all about facts and figures. They are all about dollars and they are all about numbers of people. Those sorts of things are important to them rather than what exactly is happening on the ground for ordinary New Zealanders. So what this Government has done is focus its resources on being as effective as it possibly can—Sue Moroney: Out of touch—being out of touch.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: —and delivering results for New Zealanders. Yes the member over there talks about being out of touch. If it is out of touch to see crime dropping and fewer victims in our community then I would much rather be on the National side of the House delivering those sorts of results than on the Labour side of the House which had the record of seeing crime going up and predictions of 11000 people languishing in our prisons with no education very little drug and alcohol treatment and certainly no qualifications or job skills.So what have we done? Well I will tell the member because she might like to listen and learn something. With police we have changed the focus in police from just reacting to crime to getting out there and preventing crime. We have encouraged and worked with the police to work smarter so that they stop crime happening. How have we done that? Well we have done that through things like introducing technology. We have given themsmartphones andiPads to use so that they can be out there on the job and not have to go back into the office to carry out paperwork which is what grew into enormous proportions under Labour.And what did Labour do in response to that—what was Labour’s response? Labour members played the man. They actually went out and attacked the deputy commissioner who led that roll-out of technology. That is how it reacted to that amazing—amazing—transformation of our police which is delivering great results.We have seen much more visible policing under this Government. There is a 155 percent increase in foot patrols which means that all over New Zealand people are saying to me: “Gosh the police are out there on the streets. This is fantastic. We’re seeing our local cops out here on a Saturday night walking up and down the streets.” It did not happen under the Labour Government. It did not happen. So what did Labour members say in response to that increase in foot patrols? I will tell you what they have done. They have complained about the police kiosks. They want to see uniformed police sitting behind the counter waiting for the victims to turn up and complain. That is whatthey did. Instead of saying: “This is great police. You are out there preventing crime being visible on the streets.” they want them stuck back in the police stations sitting behind counters filling in paperwork and waiting for the victims to turn up.Well this Government is backing the—Hon Annette King: This is rubbish and dishonest—rubbish and dishonest.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We are backing the victims in this Government. When that member was the Minister of Police Labour did not have the focus on victims that we have.So what has the result been? Well in 2013 there was another 4.1 percent drop in crime—the fourth year in a row that we have seen recorded crime drop. We are down to—Sue Moroney: It’s been dropping for decades.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No it went up under Labour.Sue Moroney: It’s been dropping for decades.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It went up under Labour. You do not know your statistics. That is another thing. This Government has seen crime drop to the lowest in 29 years. That is a National Government delivering what it knows New Zealanders care about—safer communities.Mr SPEAKER: Eugenie Sage—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Could the Hon Annette King stop yelling across the House. Eugenie Sage.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): The Green Party knows what New Zealanders care about. We know that as well as clean Government they want clean rivers and that is because thousands of Kiwis wrote submissions on the Minister for the Environment’s draft proposed changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management asking for standards in it that would deliver rivers that you can swim in—not just rivers that you wade in but ones that you can swim in without having to ring the regional council or check a website to check that you are not going to get sick.That is why the report and the decision that the board of inquiry delivered yesterday on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal is very interesting because potentially that decision could stymie theRuataniwha Dam and the massive expansion of irrigation and dairying in the Hawke’s Bay which this Government is so keen on. Although it was disappointing that the board granted consents for the scheme and for a dam that would be only 16 metres lower than the Clyde Dam in its decision it is imposing much tougher limits on nutrient pollution than the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and its dam company wanted and it is imposing much tougher limits in terms of water quality and nitrogen than the Government is proposing in its National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.That creates a real conundrum for the Government because the board has effectively said that you cannot have irrigation without actually safeguarding water quality and the health of the Tukituki Catchment. Yet this Government in all its policies is about sacrificing the environment in order to promote short-term economic growth. Here under this Government you have the Government tightening the criteria for small communities like the Tokomaru village to get access to the Ministry of Health’s Drinking-water Assistance Programme to help upgrade its drinking water supplies. On the one hand those criteria have got much tighter so that they are available only to the most deprived communities. Yet on the other we have the Government playing fast and loose giving major handouts through its Crown Irrigation company to agribusiness and irrigators.We saw $6.5 million given recently to Central Plains Water and we have the Crown Irrigation company lining up to give another big subsidy to theRuataniwha Water Storage Scheme in Hawke’s Bay. Given that this Government set up the board ofinquiry and hand-picked the members of that board it has got to read the board’s decision—look at what the board is saying about the nutrient limits—and it has got to get its hands off any further involvement in decisions around the flooding of the forest park. Even though the scheme potentially has got quite major costs for the region the board did not decline the dam and it did not look in enough detail at the ecological impacts on the river from the flooding in our view.Yet when we have the Minister of Conservation suppressing the submission of the Department of Conservation suppressing its ability to get in front of the board of inquiry to present information on ecological values and to present information about the forest park we do not trust the Government when it comes to the other decision that could frustrate this dam which is whether 200 hectares of the forest park would be flooded. Nick Smith’s paws were all over the decision to suppress the Department of Conservation’s submission and we suspect that he will be all over the decision around whether that land should be flooded. So the Government needs to take stock. It needs to read the decision carefully and actually wind back its aggressive promotion of more dairying and more irrigation because this dairy juggernaut is not sustainable. It is simplifying the economy and it is sacrificing the environment.A Green Party in Government would make sure that we made our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand real. We would not be giving big handouts through the Crown Irrigation company to irrigation. We would put in place strong national standards and bottom lines to ensure that our rivers were clean enough for swimming. We would strengthen our major environmental laws like the Resource Management Act not gut them as National is doing not reduce the opportunities for the public to have a say. We would ensure that regional councils focus on their critical role of independently managing water not promote irrigation as the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is doing. That council now has to look really seriously at the changes to the plan that the board of inquiry is making.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): What a ridiculous set of contributions we have had from the Opposition this afternoon. It started with David Cunliffe going on about Judith Collins’ numbers in our caucus. Well he was I think purple with envy because he has never had the numbers in his own caucus. Of course the only party that David Cunliffe has the numbers in to remain Leader of the Opposition is the New Zealand National Party. We are absolutely desperate for him to stay as Leader of the Opposition for just as long as he can. Then of course we had Grant Robertson from the Opposition. He started off OK actually I thought. He was all right. About halfway through he got hungry and started talking about Chinese banquets. I could see him sort of mentally visualising dumplings in his head or something.Actually in all seriousness we have had speeches from the other side of the House that have not focused on a single issue of importance to New Zealanders around this country. Nothing in those speeches—Sue Moroney: Ah he won’t defend Judith.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Actually for the people of Hamilton where Sue Moroney comes from despite never having won the seat she has stood in there was nothing in the speeches for them. There was nothing for the people of Napier New Plymouth Tauranga and so on. On this side of the House is a party that is focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders. We are resolutely focused on a Budget coming up very soon that is on targeted spending—not the kind of spend-up we would get from the Opposition parties—on the areas that matter most to families and New Zealanders: health care education and safer communities. We will be sticking to the $1 billion Budget allowance because we know that that is the responsible thing to do. We know that that is what keeps mortgage rates lower for longer. We know that that is how wewill achieve average annual wages increasing by $7500 to around $62000 a year in 2018. Over the past 2 years we have seen a $3000 lift in the average wage to $54700 a year. We have got great results here in this part of the Government. We know we cannot have a spend-up.Of course we then heard from Eugenie Sage. It is true that unlike the Labour Party she did focus on a real issue and she made clear the Green Party position on these things. We have seen today in the House from Russel Norman that the Greens are absolutely anti-development. That is their position on these things. They are anti-irrigation for farms and anti - intensive farming and the jobs they bring. They are anti-manufacturing and we know that they are anti-resources. We saw that from Russel Norman getting in a lather today about the Victoria Forest Park despite the fact that that party—and it hates to hear this—whilst it was propping up the Labour Government did nothing as the Labour Government oversaw mining in this area. Of course we have got Damien O’Connor on the other side and Labour Party members who have been as quiet as church mice on this issue—not even a squeak from them—because they are confused. They have got on the one side the university types—the Maryan Streets and so on—the bookish types who are probably with the Greens on these things. Then they have the manly chest-beating Tarzan types like Shane Jones who actually are probably more gung ho—certainly actually—on these issues than we are.On this side of the House we are absolutely focused on the things that matter to New Zealanders. We are focused on a Budget that is going to be sensible that is going to be responsible and that is going to deliver for New Zealanders. We know that we can live in a country where we explore all our opportunities. In my portfolio we do pursue resources. That does not mean that we do not care about the environment. We absolutely do. We know that the legal processes and so on safeguard what is happening.So while the other side of the House focus on the trivial—Sue Moroney: Don’t call Judith trivial.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and focus on Chinese banquets and things that the people in Napier New Plymouth Nelson Christchurch and Hamilton Sue Moroney could not care less about this side will focus on the things that matter to New Zealanders and on that basis be re-elected later this year.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Kia oraanōtātou. In this short contribution of mine I am going to focus on accountability. I am going to focus on accountability in three areas. No. 1 is the absence of any accountability from Judith Collins in terms of giving a truthful account of what happened while she was on her oriental express. Next I am going to turn my attention to the Māori Party. Then in my trans-Tasman fashion I am going to come back to making a few observations about Lotto and the Countdown supermarkets.If Judith Collins—as is correct and as stated by Grant Robertson and soon to be stated I am sure by Winston Peters—is toast then the Māori Party is as they say down on the marae “brown bread”. But when the Māori Party went to the Northern Club it did not get brown bread. It leaves Māori bread forRātana Pa and fried bread for Waitangi but it feasts on bagels baguettes and other kinds of flash types of bakery items that you get at the Northern Club that I have never heard of.Why I am raising this issue is that this is an example of how far that party has lost its way. I actually did a bit of research on what Tariana Turia has said in the past. This is what she has said: “The majority of our kids don’t get to go through the door unless we can go and convince the employer to give them a go.” So is that why they went to the Northern Club—to actually address the unemployment in Kaikohe andKaitāia? Tariana Turia is afraid to go to Tai Tokerau. She hates the place because that is where Hone Harawira comes from. Did she go there to advance the interests of the young Māori jobseekers in South Auckland? No. Well perhaps she went for this reason: “There is only one party you can trust with absolute certainty”—according to Tariana Turia—“to protect and look out for Māori interests and that is the Māori Party.” Is that the Māori Party that is now whistling: “He who pays the piper calls the tune”?When you embrace your funder when you cuddle up to the Prime Minister and his funders from the other end of town they tell you what to do. There is no independence left with that particular party. There is no independent analysis. Now that it has received the gold and silver as a consequence of the Prime Minister you can rest assured it will show no accountability to the voters in Waiariki. It is more than likely thatRawiri Waititi our candidate will beat both Te Ururoa and Annette Sykes because he will come through the middle but the real problem is that the Ministers in that particular tawdry outfit show no accountability to the people who put them there. That is why they will go.Let me come back to Countdown. I want this House to know that since my democratic contributions to do with the behaviour of this Australian-owned supermarket hit the press matters have improved between them and suppliers. But what Countdown does not know is that there is an avalanche of information being sent to the Commerce Commission and an additional email I am going to make available to the Commerce Commission.During this episode people have pointed out to me that Countdown has a cosy relationship with Lotto which is why I have asked Ruth Dyson and why I have asked Mr Mallard to ensure that they use their good services on the various select committees that they are on to call Lotto into Parliament to account for the following: “Hi. I’d like to let you know that even Lotto New Zealand have had intimidation methods used by both Countdown and Woolworths on numerous occasions and with all the Lotto executive team keeping this very quiet”—which is why it must be forced to come to Parliament. “Hundreds and thousands of dollars have been paid to both of these entities in project payments. This is so that Lotto can sell tickets through the checkouts”—worsening gambling spread at a time when Lotto bases itself on the myth of being the family concerned. “This also is because Countdown threatened to close Lotto counters in their stores. They have dictated they will sell and when refusing to sell Instant Kiwi tickets”—it is rather bizarre that an Aussie-owned company is able to do that—“in the past which they did not like. No other Lotto retailer can or has been allowed to do this only Countdown. Everyone is under strict threats not to say anything from the chief executive officer to the chief operational officer.”Drag those people to the highest court in the land and bring them before the select committees of this Parliament to account for their dealings which are possibly dodgy.MELISSA LEE (National): I have a lot of respect for Shane Jones the member who just sat down but I would give him just one piece of advice: people who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.I feel that I have to start my contribution by saying how grateful I am to my parents who in a way forced me to move to New Zealand. They forced me to migrate to New Zealand when I was much younger. When I first got to New Zealand my feelings towards my new country were not how I feel about it now. I am a very proud Kiwi or a “Kowi” actually—a Korean Kiwi which is what we Koreans actually call each other; “Kowi”—and I cannot think of living anywhere else but this gorgeous country of ours Aotearoa.I would like to think that I am pretty ordinary in that I am a mother—a single mother—with a teenaged son and my mother lives with me. Although privileged to be a member of Parliament and lucky to have had the successful career that I have had my life is like everybody else’s. I wish that my family have good health and that my sonwill get a good education and according to him he attends the best State school in New Zealand. I want my family to be safe and protected from crime and I hope that we do not ever become welfare dependent. These are the things that matter most to our New Zealand families which is why this National-led Government is investing heavily in these areas.Like all Kiwi families who live within a budget and most of us do this National-led Government is careful and fiscally responsible. We are carefully targeting our spending in the areas that matter and sticking to a $1 billion Budget allowance for the 2014-15 financial year. Growing our economy so that more people can have jobs more people can have better pay and more people can have economic freedom is the paramount concern for this Government. As a small country at the bottom of the world New Zealand’s economic future lies in the strength of our connections to our international markets and to our neighbours to sell our goods and services. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s objective is to help New Zealand companies achieve international success. China South America the Middle East and the ASEAN region provide strong opportunities for New Zealand’s economic future.I went to Indonesia not long ago and that is one of the areas that we are actually focusing on. Just to give you an idea of how big that country is it has a population of close to 250 million people. Yes it is a lot poorer than us in terms of its economy and how well its economy is actually doing but its population is growing at the rate of our total population in New Zealand a year—growth of 4.5 million people a year—and the economic growth in that country is phenomenal.I was told when I was there that New Zealand companies are going into Indonesia to trade with it and are actually doing fantastically well. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is there and our embassy is there to assist our New Zealand companies to do so and I think it is fantastic. Lifting our trade with these regions will help create higher-paying jobs for Kiwi families. The additional $69 million will allow New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to connect more Kiwi companies with growing markets delivering stronger long-term economic growth for New Zealand.Another one that I am personally waiting for is the free-trade agreement with my birth country. They are currently negotiating and I hope that they will actually come to a conclusion very very soon. That will boost trade between our two nations my birth country and my country—New Zealand and Korea—and it will actually make a huge contribution to the growth of our economy which is doing fantastically well.New Zealand is in a good place. We are growing. Every day our economy is looking bright and our future is looking much better because of what National is doing—Dr David Clark: Where are the jobs?MELISSA LEE: —and it is doing better than Labour did in the previous 9 years of Government.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This House has witnessed a disgraceful state of affairs. The Prime Minister allows a Cabinet Minister to abuse her position and then helps her cover it up. The Minister of Justice used her office to help her husband’s company during the Fonterra botulism scare. Along the way she has sucked in two other Cabinet Ministers plus the Prime Minister.It is obvious from the official papers that the Minister used her position to work for Oravida from the start. Oravida asked the Government for urgent help. The help arrived in 2 days flat. The Cabinet Minister did everything Oravida asked. This included providing taxpayers’ funds issuing statements and then of course a public relations trip to China—paid for by the taxpayer—by the Minister of Justice herself. Was it a coincidence that her husband is a director of the company? Was it a coincidence that a senior Chinese border official was at a dinner she attended? We know where the officialwas from and there was only one reason he was there. The reason was Oravida. Was it a coincidence thatOravida’s problems suddenly went away?Many other companies were in the same position as Oravida but they did not get the same high level of help from the Government. Other companies are still fighting through a bureaucratic nightmare to get goods into China—not only dairy companies but meat companies. We know that one New Zealand firm last week received approval from the Ministry for Primary Industries to export primary products to China. It now faces a delay of 3 to 9 months to get past over 455 pages of documentation to get goods into China. China has required all New Zealand plants and goods and brands to re-register following the Fonterra incident. As these companies struggle through the waves of a bureaucratic sea Oravida goes past on a jet ski with Minister Collins at the helm. This issue cannot be explained away by a series of coincidences. The Prime Minister is over a barrel. Do not forget that he is also the milk poster boy for a number of companies.It is time to get everything out in the open so that New Zealanders can see the extent of cronyism and naked corruption in this Government. New Zealand is being run like some kind of international trading company for the benefit of the National Party and its mates and to think that Minister Collins was in China boasting about our glorious corruption-free transparent Government! This is the same Minister who has been trying to block all of our Official Information Act requests. This is the same Minister who appeared on the APEC Women Leadership Forum. The forum of course was sponsored by whom? Oravida.We have written evidence that shows that 2 days before Minister of Justice Collins had dinner with her Oravida friends and connections and a senior Chinese border official Oravida attended a briefing run by the Government on China’s new guidelines following the botulism scare that was bringing Oravida to its knees. The focus of the briefing was China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine known as AQSIQ—the very organisation that the senior Chinese border official who went to a dinner with Judith Collins and the Oravida people belongs to.This is not a coincidence; this is a cover-up. It is a shameful scandalouscronyistic serious conflict of interest and worse still corruption. She said today that she told the Prime Minister everything. Well now the Prime Minister is in with her and he has been found out following double standards. He knows full well that the more we dig the more we will find and there is more information coming. We will release soon the fact that just 3 days out the department advised Oravida about the briefing. They attended it and just 3 days later there she is with the very same official from the very same organisation giving the briefing. It stinks and this Minister—this so-called Minister of Justice—must now go.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): What we have just seen is classic Winston Peters at his almost old best. He had his birthday last week. Many happy belated returns for your 69th birthday the honourable member Winston Peters. You are looking nearly as good as you did when you first came into this House back in Muldoon’s time.Ladies and gentlemen of the House we have seen a very sorry state from the Opposition this afternoon. That was a once-proud principled party that Labour Party over there but now it is bereft of policy it is bereft of principle and it is bereft of leadership. Indeed this afternoon in the general debate their sometime lost leader actually just about lost his voice. I am not sure how he is going to make it through the election campaign. Certainly a 20-minute speech will seem to be an absolute mountain of a challenge for him. He has not actually got long to show a glimmer of leadership and he is yet to try to shine not only in this House but for his party and for the peoplewho do support him not that they are many because at the conclusion of today’s sitting of the House there will be but 28 sitting days left in this 50th Parliament.So that does not give the Opposition members very much time to get their act together from the woeful position that they find themselves in. But it is a very good time to reflect on the wonderful and very good achievements of this John Key - led National Government in its 5½ years. It is a good opportunity not only to reflect on the achievements of the Government but also to concentrate a little on what work has yet to be done because there is still a lot we have to do. We have come an awful long way since inheriting the economic mess of the Labour Party and the Labour-Green Government that preceded us. It has been very difficult but we have managed the economy with prudence and with care so that all New Zealanders have benefited during what has been the worst economic situation in living memory.This weekend is Easter weekend and tens of thousands of New Zealanders will arrive on the Coromandel peninsula. They will be very fortunate to travel across the wonderful newKōpū Bridge a bridge that was delayed and stymied and stifled by the Labour-Green Government for 9 long years but was fast tracked by John Key and this National Government. So on the 6 o’clock news on Thursday evening instead of the lead story being about how traffic is building up on theKōpū Bridge with delays of hours and hours taking place for thousands of tourists and spenders and people who are coming to invest a bit of money in the local Coromandel economy they will make a seamless approach across that bridge and they will do so without having to combat both the physical and psychological barrier that the old bridge put in place. That is very good for the business people and for all the people of the Coromandel electorate.So we have had not only a very good new bridge this summer but a very good summer in every other respect as well. Yes it is true that our hard-working farmers on the Hauraki Plains and in other parts of the Coromandel could well do with a few days’ rain because they have had a very long dry hot summer. But they are in good heart and they are doing very well under a Government that understands fully and completely that the rural economy is and always has been the backbone of our economy. It is the hard work of our rural brothers and sisters the hard-working farmers on the Coromandel and across the Hauraki Plains that we acknowledge and their contribution to the total success of our economy now.Commentators around the world are praising and giving credit to this John Key Government and our coalition partners for the good work and the prudence that they have shown over these 5½ years. They are saying that our economy is growing almost faster than any other developed economy in the world and that can be attributed to the very good work of Bill English and his finance team.So the good people of the Coromandel are in good heart. They are looking forward to a prosperous Easter weekend and they are looking forward to using the newKōpū Bridge giving them access to the peninsula in a way they were never able to use under the Labour-Green Government. They will also be out in numbers. They will be using the Hauraki Rail Trail cycleway in ever-increasing numbers. In January of this year we had 14500 people use the cycleway in just one month. To put that into a context on the Otago Central Rail Trail cycleway—Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I have to say that the last speaker who has just resumed his seat Scott Simpson is a very nice bloke—but was that not the speech he gave to this House just 3 weeks ago? It was almost identical—talking about theKōpū Bridge etc. etc. He needs to get some new speech notes.It is time. The time has come; in fact it is overdue. Judith Collins has to go. She must stand down as a Minister. She is an embarrassment to the National Party. She is a blot on Cabinet collective responsibility she is an insult to this Parliament and she haslost her way in an overdose of self-importance blatherskite and bravado. I think she needs some time out—some time out for detoxifying her considerable self-confidence and ego.I have sat opposite Judith Collins for week after week as she has been grilled on her behaviour as a Minister. She has blustered. She has thrown out insults. She tried contrition—very very briefly. She made false accusations against other members of this House. She has flouted requests from the Speaker to answer questions. She has laughed hysterically at times. She has bullied and finally she has stomped out of the Chamber and scampered down the back alleys and back corridors—anything to avoid the media.As the weeks have gone by the political noose has been tightening round her neck. As her answers have become more obtuse and more evasive her colleagues’ behaviour has changed. They have gone from the usual laughing and clapping like well-trained circus seals to now having their heads down busily reading whatever is in front of them—Woman’s Day or whatever is of importance to them. They talk to each other—anything but look at her. They duck behind the bench if they can—if they are fit enough to do it—and all the while they are not wanting to look at Judith Collins. She has been left with the departing Minister of Health as her only cheerleader. Even he has gone from looking adoringly at her as he does every day to now staring straight ahead.She is just not believable. In an attempt to divert attention from her highly inappropriate behaviour as a Minister she has tried to turn it into a personal attack on her and her family and her friends. Therein lies the problem. She is incapable of separating her role as a Minister from her personal life. Because of her self-belief that she can do whatever she likes as long as it is in the name of private and personal she has now made the Prime Minister—the Government’s greatest treasure—look like a weakling. He likes to be seen as a reasonable and nice bloke but now he looks indecisive he looks inconsistent and he looks like he is not in control. He is too scared to act—too scared to act. If he does not act now and remove her from office then he deserves to be labelled “nice but weak”.Perhaps there is something much deeper here that we do not know about. What is it that she has over the Prime Minister? What is it that makes him hold back from giving her the same marching orders that he gave to Pansy Wong and Richard Worth? Did he actually approve of her activities? Did he approve of those activities in return for some big cheques from Oravida? It seems that perhaps that is the case because the Prime Minister appears to have got his private life and public life mixed up as well. He plays golf with big business for dollars—not for charity as he said but for the National Party. He has cheques for endorsements and photographs for the National Party. It appears to me that the Prime Minister has lost his moral compass. His moral compass has gone because he cannot see that what the Minister of Justice is doing is wrong. He cannot see it and he needs to get his moral compass back or he will be seen as a weak leader and only a nice bloke.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I stand in this House today to make a statement. Late last year my family had been at a property in my electorate where my stepson had been testing his rally car in preparation for competing in his father’s memorial rally. Later that evening my wife Peggy and I attended a barbecue at the same property. While there I was confronted by Mr Kim Dotcom who was also a guest. I can only describe the conversation as chilling. Direct threats were made by Mr Dotcom towards our Prime Minister. He stated that he could and would destroy the Prime Minister and that he already had members of our Parliament working with him to achieve this. We left immediately.Because I had had many years of dealing with and being exposed to violent and intimidatory people I did not immediately recognise the seriousness of the situation.But sadly in our vehicle with my wife it was obvious that she was shaken and that the nature of the threats had frightened her. I did not believe Mr Dotcom’s claims that members of our New Zealand Parliament were actively collaborating with him. A good Opposition’s job is to challenge the Government to ensure that the Ministers remain laser-focused on their portfolios to challenge policy ideas and to present an alternative Government. I watched in amazement as it became apparent that members of Parliament were collaborating with Mr Dotcom at his mansion in Coatesville. I felt that a sinister corner had been turned for the first time in our country’s history when Opposition parties appear to have given up on challenging our Prime Minister through debate and policy ideas and have instead turned to assisting Mr Dotcom in his mission to destroy the Prime Minister.Every time one of the Opposition MPs drove into that Dotcom mansion they were driving past people and being served by people who were scared who had not been paid who were struggling to support their own families. Imagine what they were thinking when they saw our country’s political leaders bowing down to that same person. Where could they turn to for help when the country’s political leaders appeared to be in the back pocket of Mr Dotcom? Is it true that Mr Dotcom tasked Labour with the further development of an IT policy he had been working on? Come to this House and tell us. Is it true that Mr Norman co-leader of the Green Party was tasked with challenging his extradition to the United States? Come to this House and tell us. Is it true that Mr Peters was given questions by Mr Dotcom to bring to this House to attack our Prime Minister? Come to this House and tell us.I have now had time to reflect on the abusive behaviour of Mr Dotcom at the function I attended in my electorate last year. The violence of the threats towards our Prime Minister has not left me. Today I felt that it was important to place these matters on the record in this House. I believe that the people of this country are beginning to question the real motives of Mr Dotcom. From my own experience he is a man who uses threats and intimidation on people to get what he wants. I wait to see the next instruction or order given from the Dotcom mansion to members of this House. Thank you.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to remind you because I thought you might have got to your feet that it is out of order to suggest that any member is directed by an outside party. That is exactly what that member just did and normally the Speaker is very protective of the rights of members of the House in that area.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is right actually. That is not in order. I note Speakers’ ruling 50/4. It is not in order to say that a member is dictated to dominated by or has received instructions from an outside body. That was Speaker Barnard. It is a long one. So you are quite right. You are quite right Mr Mallard.Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s an old one—nearly as old as I am.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): He is as old as you are is he? The member is quite right so I would just say to the member that it is not in order to indicate that members of the House are involved in that.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): You are absolutely right about the Speakers’ ruling. However if you closely examine the text of what the member said he did not attribute that; he asked questions. He asked questions. I believe that in Parliament any member is entitled to ask a question.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Of course members are entitled to ask questions but I think the point has been made that as members of Parliament we need to be careful about any accusations we make because we are heldaccountable. All members in this House are honourable and their word is their bond. So I would just caution the House about that.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)First ReadingHon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a first time. I rise to speak in the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). I nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. The bill allows amendments to be made that would not normally receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually. It amends 33 Acts administered by 12 different Government agencies. Many of the amendments are designed to correct drafting errors and incorrect references such as the amendment in clause 61 to the definition of drug-dealing offences in section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 which removes an incorrect reference to the now repealed section 46 of the Act and the amendment in clause 100 to section 88AE of the Summary Proceedings Act to add the words “88(2)(b) or 88AD(2)(c)” in the heading and in section 88AE(1) to correct the drafting error.Some make unobjectionable refinements to machinery provisions including an amendment in clause 19 to the Copyright Act 1994 to allow the Copyright Tribunal to consist of a chair and between two and five members under the current wording. The provision has been interpreted to mean that the tribunal must consist of only six members. It is desirable for the tribunal to consist of different numbers from time to time where appropriate. Other clauses make technical amendments to facilitate functions of governance such as the amendment in clause 47 to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to give Auckland Transport the functions and powers of an enforcement authority in relation to fare evasion offences on public transport in Auckland. Although Auckland Transport is responsible for managing and controlling the Auckland transport system unlike local authorities it is currently unable to progress infringement notices for fare evasion.Also the amendment in clause 15 of section 21A of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995 proposes altering the requirements for making name changes. The amendment is meant to address the concern that a fraudulent name change can occur currently. A person registering a change of name by statutory declaration is not required to provide evidence that he or she is the person to whom the name change application is related. I look forward to hearing the committee’s views on these matters and I commend the bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): In the nature of Statutes Amendment bills we will of course support this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). It does a number of tidy-up jobs on various pieces of legislation—that much the Associate Minister of Justice has just said—but it is an opportunity to reflect upon those pieces of legislation that appear in the bill and see whether we can find a common thread weave a common thread or make some sense out of it. I have been through them in some detail and I am struck by some of the—admittedly minor—changes to some very important pieces of legislation. Some are to do with the judiciary some to do with our judicial process and some to do with other administrative process. I am just wondering whether actually through this Statutes Amendment Bill this Government is setting up an escape path for a recalcitrant Minister. If you have a look at some of these provisions there is a very unusual thread of commonality that goes through it.Let me start with the judicial conduct commissioner and commission bill—let me just clarify the exact name because I would not want to mislead and put wrong the tens of thousands of people who have tuned in specially this afternoon to watch the passage of this legislation. It is the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. This is a piece of legislation that allows those who are aggrieved by what has happened to them in court before a judge to take action. Indeed the Judicial Conduct Panel has dealt with some justified complaints against judges. It is very difficult of course because most of the people who are aggrieved at the conduct of judges are usually those who have lost their case before a judge. But there are some who are treated peremptorily unfortunately and in an inappropriate way. They make complaints and they can have those complaints heard—a sort of second tier of justice delivered. Well the changes in this Statutes Amendment Bill for the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act do two things. They allow the deputy commissioner to do what the commissioner can do once the commissioner has delegated it to the deputy. They also allow the commissioner to dismiss a complaint already dealt with.I just make this point—and of course it would not be a matter for a Statutes Amendment Bill—but in reflecting on this piece of legislation and the processes that it enacts is it not a pity that the judges themselves do not have a body to go toto complain about injustices done against them? They might well lay a complaint against none other than the Minister of Justice—not because of dinners she has had in Shanghai or her travel itinerary in all parts of the world on behalf of her husband’s company but because of her comments and her attitude towards our judiciary.Her attitude is absolutely epitomised by the comments she made in the weekend in an interview on the prospective Victims’ Commissioner when she said of our judicial system that she agreed with the statement that “This is not a court of justice; this is a court of law.” She said of our judiciary: “This is not a court of justice; this is a court of law.” That came from our Minister of Justice. It was not Billy Bragg and his famous song about the appalling nature of the bail system in the United Kingdom; this was the New Zealand Minister of Justice talking about our system of justice on the 6 o’clock news on Sunday night on Television One. If I was a judge in this country of whatever court I would be horrified and I would be looking for a process by which to complain about that Minister. Perhaps they will not have to look much longer if the present Minister of Justice meets her just deserts and is gone by the end of the week because she certainly should do so.Now I want to go to the Official Information Act. This is a very interesting piece of legislation because it allows for oral requests to be made and then for those oral requests if they are not clearly understood to be put into writing by whoever receives the request including Ministers—including Ministers. It also allows a refusal of a document that cannot be found providing a reasonable effort has been made to locate the document. Following our requests for information about for example Michelle Boag and her complaint about the Minister for ACC and her breach of privacy well we were told that it could not be found and so this provision may well provide a mechanism by which to get information from that Minister.I might say this about the Minister of Justice who is the Minister responsible for the Official Information Act. She must have the most appalling record of responses to Official Information Act requests. I have not received a response to an Official Information Act request that has not been heavily redacted—that has not been concealment of information. But this seems to be the flavour of this Minister. Rather than be open upfront and transparent she conceals everything and it now turns out she has got a lot to conceal. There is a lot of conduct that she wants to hide and soquestions are now being asked and we wonder whether this change to the Official Information Act in this Statutes Amendment Bill might enable us just a smidgen further in her door to find out what is actually going on and what it is that she is hiding.I turn to the Ombudsmen Act because there is a change to the Ombudsmen Act in this Statutes Amendment Bill as well. This allows an Ombudsman to refuse to commence an investigation if he or she judges it necessary to do so. That is quite a sensible provision—uncontroversial in any other way—except who is the Minister responsible for the Ombudsmen and the Ombudsmen Act? It is the Minister of Justice—the Minister of Justice. Here is the thing. When you cannot get an answer—a proper answer or a heavily redacted answer to your Official Information Act request—where do you go? You go to the Office of the Ombudsmen and the same Minister is in charge of that office too. And what do we find? The poor old Ombudsmen’s office snowed under predominantly because of Ministers who fail to answer their Official Information Act requests and the Minister of Justice is the worst. So I hope that the Associate Minister of Justice who has shepherded this bill into the House today takes note because he may have to step up very soon and we want responsible people ready to step up and take up these senior roles. Perhaps the Associate Minister when he gets the opportunity in a few days’ time to pick up the cudgels of the real job the big job will make a difference in this regard.Then of course we have the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. There is no question I think that the current Minister of Justice will want to resort to her rights and obligations under this Act very soon—if she has not already. This provision under the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) allows objections to licences that are limited to the suitability of the applicants. So the only ground upon which you can object to an application for a licence is the suitability of the applicant. Whether the present Minister of Justice through this bill is actually preparing her way for a career change I am not sure but if she is she is in trouble. She is in trouble under this provision because it allows you to oppose an application for a licence on the grounds of character. That is to say if you are not a person of good character you cannot hold a liquor licence. So I just say to the present Minister of Justice to be careful because that career option may be closed off because we cannot have Ministers of Justice leaving that post who want to go off and sell alcohol when they have left that post under a cloud of suspicion of wrongdoing. We cannot have that.Then finally there is the Sentencing Act. That is an interesting provision because it deals with what happens when an offence is committed in a car that is not your own. So if a Minister who transgresses commits an offence in a ministerial limousine for example the car can still be seized. The car can be seized and disposed of—Dr David Clark: It could be crushed.ANDREW LITTLE: Well it may well be crushed. So I can foresee a Minister of Justice who has been recently pushed out of her role going off to apply for a liquor licence that she cannot get sells liquor anyway and has the car that she is in seized by the Crown. None of this is any good. But I just want to say this finally. She has a resort. There are two parts of this bill that she can resort to. The first is the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act amendment and if there is any place that the current Minister of Justice needs to go it is surely a friendly society because she is running out of them here. She is running out of her friends around here and she could go along to a friendly society and find that there are people who just want to be friends regardless of the character of the people they are dealing with.But finally if all of that fails—if all of that fails—there are the changes to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act in this bill. The provisions in this bill make it easier to change your name. So if the Minister of Justice leaves the postunder a cloud because of very serious allegations of impropriety and misconduct and she cannot get another job either as a retailer of liquor or anything else then she can go along to the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages and she can change her name. There will be a new form provided under the amendment in this bill and it will be easier for her to change her name. So she has prospects and she has a future. But after all of that notwithstanding the apparent setting up of alternatives for the present Minister of Justice we will support this legislation because these are good changes for the people of New Zealand.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): What a wonderful dissertation that was from our Opposition colleague Andrew Little! I am surprised that he could speak at such length without actually referring to very much in the bill at all. It was masterful it was an achievement but I am not sure that it was one he should be proud of.I am in fact very proud to be speaking to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) in the House this afternoon. This is a good housekeeping bill that points to the National Government’s continuous aim for increased efficiency in procedure and acompletist’s eye for detail in making sure that the laws already passed move from adequate to excellent.Just to take one example out of so many amendments—there are 33 sets of amendments in fact in this omnibus bill—we have the amendments to the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012. One of the reasons that New Zealand went into mainframe computers was to process animal records through our efficient herd improvement system which is organised through the New Zealand Dairy Board. A large part of that was for animal identification procedures. The bill’s explanatory note states that Part 20 amends section 10 of the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012. This purpose of this modification the explanatory note states is to enable “the NAIT organisation to contract out its compliance and enforcement functions”.Section 10 of the principal Act as it currently stands is about the functions duties and powers of National Animal Identification and Tracing organisations. By amending this section the bill will support the work to be completed efficiently and effectively by the best people for the job both in-house and contractors. So the National Government will again be supporting the continued growth efficiency and modernisation of this primary industry organisation by removing unnecessary red tape that may slow down the growth of this vital industry in New Zealand’s economy—and vital it is.This is just one of the 33 sets of amendments—33 Acts are amended by this bill—that our verging-on-brilliant colleague and Associate Minister of Justice Chester Borrows has brought in with this bill. This example of the determination of this Government to promote excellence in our workplaces by cutting through red tape and supporting the most efficient road to get the job done shows what a contrast National’s priorities are with the Opposition’s and thank goodness—thank goodness.This bill is a really good example albeit in lacking in drama of one of National’s four priorities: to deliver better public services for New Zealand and New Zealanders. Part of that is in running an effective and efficient Government. It is another example of cutting through thelabyrinthian and miasmic maze of legislative jargon to bring this into a more understandable lexicon and it is a clearer and more transparent expression of the laws and regulations that we live by. I commend this bill to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I commend the member who has just resumed his seat Chris Auchinvole and say that the only point of disappointment I have with his contribution to the House is that he did not acknowledge as deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee our absolute delight that the Associate Minister of Justice—out of all the select committees that he could have chosen to receive this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) for consideration—chose ourcommittee. As the chair I am particularly delighted that he has done that. I have to say that my delight is enhanced by the fact that we have not got any other legislation before our select committee at the moment. We have got the obvious Budget-related reviews to go through we have got an inquiry and we have got a petition but it seems like the Government has pretty well run out of work which is amazing given that it is an election year. We end up with the highlight of this week’s debate seeming to be a Statutes Amendment Bill.The member also noted that there is not much drama in this bill. Well there should not be because it is a Statutes Amendment Bill. Every party in the House has to sign off as agreeing that the material in it is appropriate for a Statutes Amendment Bill and therefore non-contentious in nature. But compared with the drama that we have had this week with the Minister of Justice when she was in China giving her anti-corruption speech at a conference I do not think we need any more drama. I think she is providing us with more than enough drama to keep us entertained. This bill amends 33 statutes a number of which come under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. I hope that she has been able to give them the sort of attention that they need although I am not sure that she has given how busy she must have been preparing her answers and her apologies in relation to that trip.On a serious note although we are debating something non-contentious in this legislation which is being referred to the Government Administration Committee the actions that Judith Collins has undertaken that have been the subject of many questions in this House are not just contentious but very unusual. It is unusual for any Minister in Parliament to be so much on the edge of a clear conflict of interest to be denying members of the public access to information and answers to questions as well as members of Parliament yet to remain so aloof and arrogant about it. I suppose that is the bit that has surprised me. I know that the Minister concerned has a level of arrogance that is surprising in comparison with most other members of Parliament but to be caught out so blatantly and then to say in her apology that what was surprising was that she was apologising—that is what the Minister actually said. She said that it was surprising that she was apologising. So I think that disconnect with how people feel about accountability and the need to be able to trust their Ministers is really surprising. We know that Judith Collins went on a taxpayer-funded trip to China—Hon Dr Nick Smith: We know that this member has got a conviction for drink-driving.Hon RUTH DYSON: That is right. We know that the Minister went on a taxpayer-funded trip to China. We know that her husband went with her. What we did not know before she left and what we did not know until it was prised out of her because of public exposure was the fact that she actually had a visit to Oravida the company that her husband is a director of and also had a private dinner not just with the directors of Oravida but also with—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Points of order will be heard in silence and there is no need to engage in unparliamentary language. I call the Hon Nick Smith for a point of order.Hon Dr Nick Smith: My point of order is that we are debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). That is not a licence to give a general debate speech or a diatribe on any particular member of the House but to speak about the bill and what it will do for New Zealand. The member is not doing that and I ask that you call her to order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well I thank the member for his elicitation and say that I am actually looking through the bill and trying to find something along the lines—I will just ask the member to try to speak directly to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).Hon RUTH DYSON: I certainly will. I want to speak about the provisions in this legislation that come under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice Judith Collins. One of the amendments that is being made in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. It is entirely appropriate that that Act is amended. I hope that the Minister is still in charge of that particular Act by the time this bill progresses to the select committee but I think that it is not entirely likely.One of the other amendments that is made in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)—and my colleague Andrew Little referred to it in his all too brief contribution on this first reading—is the amendment to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982. I think that that is an area that the current Minister of Justice Judith Collins will be very pleased to hear about. It was so obvious at question time today that a friendly society was something that she is desperately in need of as she blundered her way through questions about her engagement with Oravida and her inability to answer questions. She then further blundered her way through the ACC questions exposing her misrepresentations in the House yesterday in relation to the document that she tabled.I just want to talk about the last Statutes Amendment Bill that we had referred to the Government Administration Committee. It was smaller than this bill. This bill amends 33 statutes and our one was I think smaller than that but perhaps not by much. Our select committee unanimously took the quite unusual step of removing some of the previously agreed statutes amendment provisions because it was our view that when they were taken as a whole they comprised far too much to be legitimately considered in the Statutes Amendment Bill. I think that that was a very good position for the select committee to take—that the threshold of acceptance for amendments in a Statutes Amendment Bill should be quite high. We should not use it as a way of sneaking things through. I do not think that was the intention of the Associate Minister—let me make that clear. I think it was a genuine attempt to get something not very big and not controversial pushed through Parliament in a comparatively speedy way.What our committee also did—and I think this was the good part which I want to draw to the attention of the House because I referred to it only briefly in passing in the deliberation on the previous Statutes Amendment Bill—was not only remove those provisions but say to the Minister and give the assurance at the committee that we would ensure the speedy passage of those provisions when they were moved into a separate piece of legislation. I think that is a pretty respectful thing to do. We had no doubt that the Minister was not trying to trick us. He wanted to get those particular provisions passed quickly. They were not controversial; they were constructive. So I think we acted in a moment of multiparty common sense in an effort to make genuine progress on an issue there was not any debate on. I am sure we will do the same for this current Statutes Amendment Bill.We will apply rigour to the consideration. We will be applying the same sort of rigour to considering this bill at the committee that we will be applying to the questions we will continue to ask Minister Judith Collins during question time. I have been surprised at the new standards in question time. It is a real shame there is no statute amendment in this bill in regard to the standards for question time. If a Minister is able to get up and say: “That’s quite a long question and I really can’t be bothered answering it.” they might as well say: “I’ve got a headache. I’m going to have a wee lie-down in the lobby. Could you just send something to me by email.” This is the onlytime in the day in Parliament that we have the opportunity to hold a Minister to account for a very serious responsibility they hold as the Minister of their particular portfolio. We get only half a dozen questions a day between the Opposition parties and that is for only 3 days a week when the House is sitting and not under urgency unless we have been given the opportunity to ask questions. So it is a very short period of time for us to get public accountability from the Ministers and frankly we have been really short-changed by the Minister of Justice.I have heard some answers from Ministers of the current Government that have made me think: “Oh that’s frustrating and I don’t think that’s quite right.” But I have never seen a Minister absolutely refusing to front up to their responsibilities. I certainly hope the Minister of Justice has taken up her responsibilities in the Statutes Amendment Bill in respect of the amendments to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act the Official Information Act and the other legislation she is responsible for such as the Ombudsmen Act and all those pieces of legislation that are quite rightly the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. I certainly hope that she has applied more consideration to them and will give the public more confidence in her actions as the Minister responsible for those amendments than she has been able to do in relation to her Oravida visit. There is a clear conflict of interest in the Oravida engagement where the Minister has obviously promoted one company a company of which her husband is a director using her ministerial position. That is something New Zealand does not often get to hear about. I hope it is dealt with speedily by the current Government because it does this Parliament a disservice. The Minister really needs to take that into account and vacate her seat.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Satsriakaal Mr Assistant Speaker and thanks for the opportunity to speak during the first reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The purpose of Statutes Amendment bills is to propose minor amendments to existing statutes so that the laws and the statutes of the country are kept up to date.Furthermore with the changing times it is critical that the proposed laws and legislation of the country are helpful to its citizens rather than creating impediments to the personal growth of the citizens of the nation. It is with some confidence that I can stand today in this House in front of my colleagues and say that ever since the forming of this Government led by the National Party it has proposed and implemented legislation that has made the lives of everyday New Zealanders easier such as the renewal of passports online which is getting easier with time with the new amendments being proposed by this Government. With these words I conclude and I commend the bill to this House.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First is satisfied that all the amendments in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) are minor and suitable for a Statutes Amendment Bill but I do have some comments to make on some of the parts. First of all Part 11 has two amendments to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act—quite a mouthful. The first one deals with the ability of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to delegate to his or her deputy. This was something we discussed in the Justice and Electoral Committee when we interviewed the commissioner. We felt that it was rather strange that such a delegation power did not already exist and that it was only a sensible use of the resource that is the deputy to assist the commissioner himself or herself in their work. We were concerned the commissioner might become overloaded so I am very glad to see that this minor amendment is included in the bill.The second amendment states that the commissioner must dismiss a repetitive complaint. We were also concerned in the committee that there were a number of time-wasters who made repetitive complaints that were not useful for anybody so I am glad to see that that particular amendment is here as well. With regard to Part 2 that deals with the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 and implements New Zealand’s obligations under the 2009 agreement to amend the Antarctic Treaty for the purpose of improving the regime for taking species from or introducing species into Antarctica—a very important provision indeed. It includes ice shelves and sea ice as well. It is a very welcome provision. It is one that is long overdue and I am very disappointed that it has in fact taken 5 long years to implement this so perhaps we could have some explanation from the Associate Minister of Justice why it took so long to do such an important thing.I want to move on to Part 17 which deals with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. Clause 50 amends section 4 of that legislation and “provides that the purposes of the Act include increasing progressively the availability of information to the public.” There is a high public demand for information from local authorities and councils are notorious for firstly unnecessarily having meetings with the public excluded and secondly being highly defensive about keeping information to themselves that they do not want known. They have a culture of “It’s our information not the public’s information.” and that is a culture that has to change. So we actually need even stronger amendments than this. This is welcome for progressively improving the situation but in fact what we need is something stronger and I hope the Government will look at something stronger than this in the future.Also clause 56 clarifies that a local authority may refuse a request if the document alleged to contain the information cannot be found despite reasonable efforts to locate it. That is actually a little bit dangerous when you think about it because it is very easy for a local authority simply to say “Well we’re not going to give you that document because we can’t find it.” and nobody would be the wiser for it. So I am a little bit worried about that provision. It should really be just a defence rather than an authority to give that as a reason for refusing to give a document. I am a little bit disappointed in that provision. I do not think it is quite right but it is not so serious that New Zealand First would vote against the whole bill because of it.I want to move on to Part 23 because exactly the same issue arises there with the Official Information Act 1982. Clause 76 amends section 18(e) to refuse to give documents for exactly the same reason—that is that the document has been lost. So I repeat the same concerns I have in respect of that provision as I did with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act matter.Moving on to Part 24 I think this is quite important. It amends the Ombudsmen Act 1975 and New Zealand First approves very much of the amendment that gives the Ombudsman the ability to refuse to commence an investigation of a complaint if he or she is satisfied that it is unnecessary to do so. Again I was present at the Justice and Electoral Committee when we talked to the Ombudsman about this very issue. It is actually quite a serious problem because a lot of time-wasting can happen when the Ombudsman has to set out to investigate a complaint when he or she is sure that it is actually unnecessary to do so. The Ombudsman’s time is very very valuable and I think we need to trust him or her to sift out those complaints that are unnecessary to investigate. This amendment actually makes it possible to do that. We in New Zealand First think that that is completely appropriate. We are a little bit worried about the high workload that the Ombudsman has to work under so this is also just a common-sense way of making better use of the Ombudsman’s time.So with those comments some concerns but there are also some very welcome new provisions which although minor are nevertheless very important in their own way and I think they are appropriate for a Statutes Amendment Bill. It is a bill that is easy togloss over but that we all need to take particular notice of. We in New Zealand First have studied it closely and we think it deserves to pass even with some of the reservations that I have expressed.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak at the first reading of this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) for a very specific purpose. The purpose is to give notice that I will be submitting Supplementary Order Paper 432 which will be available today and writing to the chair of the Government Administration Committee to ask that in the submission process consideration be given to the amendment proposed by my Supplementary Order Paper. That amendment is the inclusion of an amendment to the Human Rights Act 1993—in particular an amendment to section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act which currently sets out the prohibited grounds of discrimination. It states as the first ground: “sex which includes pregnancy and childbirth:”. My Supplementary Order Paper will be seeking an amendment that means section 21(1)(a) would read “sex which includes gender identity pregnancy and childbirth:”.This is a technical amendment which has its origins in Georgina Beyer’s member’s bill in 2004 entitled the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill. At the time the Human Rights Commission stated that it confirmed it would accept complaints from transgender people within the definition of “sex” under the Act. In response to Georgina Beyer’s member’s bill the opinion of the Solicitor-General was sought. That opinion was clear that discrimination on the grounds of gender identity fell within the definition of “sex” in section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. On that basis Georgina Beyer withdrew her member’s bill.In 2008 the Inquiry into Discrimination Experienced by Transgender People by the Human Rights Commission concluded: “there must be no doubt that trans people are protected from discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993. Such a clear signal is necessary if society is serious about reducing the pervasive levels of discrimination against trans people. The Human Rights Commission accepts discrimination complaints from trans people under the ground of sex but notes questions raised by international case law as to whether all forms of discrimination directed against trans people would be considered sex discrimination by New Zealand courts. The Inquiry considers that for the avoidance of any doubt section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993 should be amended to state clearly that sex includes gender identity.”In the presentation of New Zealand’s national report to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly as part of the second Universal Periodic Review on 27 January this year the Minister of Justice stated—and I quote from paragraph 65—“The New Zealand Human Rights Commission has received complaints from transgender people of discrimination on the basis of disability and sex. Its complaints process provides one way of addressing such discrimination. The Ministry of Health changed its guidelines on availability of gender reassignment surgery in 2011 but work still remains to ensure equitable access to health services and health outcomes for transgender people. The Commission considers that amendment to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Act to specifically include gender identity would help to clarify some of the issues. The Government’s view is that discrimination on the grounds of gender identity is already prohibited under the Human Rights Act as sex discrimination.”That has been the position of successive New Zealand Governments since the Solicitor-General’s advice was received in 2006. TheCabinet Manual states: “Statutes Amendment Bills are designed as vehicles for technical short and non-controversial amendments to a range of Acts.” The amendment proposed by my Supplementary Order Paper is technical as successive Governments have confirmed that gender identity fallsunder the definition of sex discrimination in section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. It is a short amendment and it is non-controversial as all parties agree that the proposed amendment will merely clarify what is understood to be the position. This has been confirmed by the Minister of Justice at the beginning of this year.The amendment and inclusion of gender identity under section 21(1)(a) does no more than reflect what the Human Rights Commission does in practice and what Governments since 2006 have asserted is the position. What the amendment does though is make it clear that gender identity is included within the definition of sex discrimination. It therefore would not allow the possibility of an interpretation that is different from the Government position and the understanding of the Human Rights Commission.TheCabinet Manual emphasises that legislation should be drafted in plain English that it should be legally correct and that it should give effect to Government policy. This amendment proposed by my Supplementary Order Paper makes the law clear and does what legislation should do—that is state clearly and directly that gender identity falls within the definition of “sex” in the prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1993.Nō reiratēnā koutoutēnā koutoutēnātātou katoa.MELISSA LEE (National):Ahnnyung ha seyo Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for chastising me for not actually getting up when I should have.Tim Macindoe: You can blame the whip.MELISSA LEE:I should actually blame the whip. As the whip rightfully pointed out I did not realise that I was actually speaking on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).Tim Macindoe: Don’t go too far.MELISSA LEE:But it did however actually say that the duty MP was supposed to get up so ultimately it is my fault.It is a great pleasure to support this bill. It is an exercise that we go through every year it seems to confirm validate and authorise our bills that need to be amended in this House. To those members of the public who are listening in they may not necessarily understand what is actually happening but this is the exercise that we have to go through. I commend it to the House—with the qualification that I do not envy the Government Administration Committee members who have to actually do the committee work. Thank you very much.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to offer the Green Party’s support for this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) and would like to talk particularly to the recently tabled Supplementary Order Paper 432 in the name of Louisa Wall to amend section 21(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act to make sure that it includes gender identity under the definition of “sex”. I recognise that this is a very minor amendment that will confirm our common understanding of the law as it is at the moment. Currently the Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex and clarifies that pregnancy and childbirth fall within the gambit of sex. The Human Rights Commission practises as if gender identity also falls under that definition of “sex”. As we have heard the Minister of Justice has spoken internationally confirming her understanding that gender identity falls under the understanding of sex as a grounds for prohibited discrimination. Further the Solicitor-General has given a legal opinion back in 2006 offering the same interpretation. So this Supplementary Order Paper would be a very minor amendment consistent with Government policy and what I believe is our shared understanding of the world.I do want to just talk a little bit though about why it is important. I think the internationally groundbreaking reportTo Be Who I Am which was commissioned in2006 by the Human Rights Commission gives us a very good steer about why this is important. This was a report that evolved out of a very long consultation with transgender communities within New Zealand so that was withwhakawahinefa‛afafinefakaleiti ‛akava‛ine and many different queens and queer people in this country about their experience of living in New Zealand. What the commission found through that consultation was that the level of discrimination these different communities experience is really extreme. In fact I think the commission described how in some of the stories that it heard as the report repeatedly demonstrates trans people have had to triumph over severe—sometimes heartbreaking—adversities. Being trans is not a lifestyle choice; rather it is a core part of a person’s identity.What the commission found out through this consultation is that people are experiencing discrimination in our schools in our educational institutions in our workplaces and in accessing pretty much most services in New Zealand. The Human Rights Commission will respond to complaints that people make but people need to know that they can make those complaints. Clarifying this law and putting it on paper that we recognise them is an important step in that process of enabling people to make complaints and to protect their human rights in this country. The different trans communities are numerically very small and so it is very hard for them to fight those battles publicly. There are not many of them to do that. So it does fall on us I think as political leaders to speak on their behalf when we can and to make sure that our laws actually provide the leadership and open up the spaces for them to be able to claim their human rights and help us on that journey as a country to becoming totally inclusive and embracing of our differences. So on that note I am happy to be supporting this bill and in particular the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Louisa Wall. Kia ora.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a very interesting time in the parliamentary calendar when we consider a Statutes Amendment Bill. It is quite remarkable that the House has always found reliable methods with which to ensure that legislation is appropriate and dealt with in a way that is common and consistent with democracy.If we look at this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) what particularly stands out from my particular point of view are the aspects in respect of the Biosecurity Act 1993 which we can all appreciate in a country whose economy is principally driven by the primary industries. Here we find that the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) in clauses 8 9 10 11 12 and 13 asks that that Act be amended. No doubt the Government Administration Committee will give due consideration to all the parts that make up the bill but because of the contribution that the primary industry makes to this country’s economy will look particularly at the Biosecurity Act amendments.This Statutes Amendment Bill addresses some 30-odd amendments. On that basis I have great pleasure in supporting this bill going to the select committee.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): In response to the member who has just resumed his seat Colin King I am not sure that the words “very interesting” and “Statutes Amendment Bill” should actually go in the same sentence but I am pleased that Statutes Amendment bills are what float his boat. That is good to know. In fact these really are bills that are used to fix botch-ups little mistakes. They are non-controversial everyone in Parliament supports them and so we put them all together in an omnibus bill to pass them through.I have to say it is not surprising that we have had so many Statutes Amendment bills in this term of Government and in the previous term of Government given the complete disregard for due process that this Government has. A number of times when Labour members have been on our feet discussing various pieces of legislation we have pointed out that we were rushing legislation through Parliament and rushing it throughthe select committee process. I think of the emissions trading scheme legislation. That legislation went through the select committee in 7 weeks including the calling for and hearing of submissions. And then we are surprised that we have to pass so many Statutes Amendment bills to fix up all the mistakes! Those mistakes would have been picked up if the piece of legislation in question had been allowed to have a proper process through the select committee with a time frame that did not put the select committee under enormous pressure to return the piece of legislation before we had due consideration and before submitters had time to consider the legislation put their thoughts on paper and come before a select committee to discuss it.We have had pieces of legislation where we have set a deliberation date the following week before we have even seen a report before we have even seen a revision-tracked version of what the bill would look like. It is just: “Oh we’ll do that all next week.” Well that is not good process. It is therefore no surprise that once again we are passing a Statutes Amendment Bill to fix up all those errors which due process probably would have dealt with in the first place.The second reason it is not surprising we have had so many Statutes Amendment bills—and I notice that in this bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) there are a number of justice amendments in the name of the Hon Judith Collins—is that Ms Collins is a particular Minister who is under pressure. This is a Minister who tends not to read things. She tabled a report in the House on ACC in question time yesterday claiming that the decision to take away the payment of ACC entitlements to people who have refused to sign a document allowing the ACC to distribute their private details was a decision made by the Hon Ruth Dyson. No it actually was not—she tabled a document saying that that was a decision made by the Hon Ruth Dyson in 2006.But interestingly enough what the document showed was actually exactly the opposite of that which was that the Hon Ruth Dyson said that in no way at all should conditions be applied to the entitlements of ACC claimants and therefore if they choose not to sign that document they should continue to receive their entitlement. So I am not surprised at all that there are so many justice amendments in this particular bill the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). The Hon Judith Collins as I have just described—and as we saw in response to the questions today by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway—does not read the documents that are put in front of her. She does not read the official information. If she had read the particular document that she tabled she would know that it actually said the opposite of what she was claiming it said that it was in fact a National Government that allowed that to happen on its watch and that it was a Labour Government under the Hon Ruth Dyson as Minister for ACC that said that there are not to be conditions attached to the payment of entitlements to ACC claimants. So she does not read documents.The second reason I am not surprised that there are so many amendments in the bill under the name of the Hon Judith Collins is that she is under a lot of pressure at the moment. She is under an enormous amount of pressure due to a very real conflict of interest that was carried out in relation to her husband’s company Oravida and a ministerial visit that she did to China. So given the pressure that has come on her to come clean and be transparent around who exactly was invited to a meeting and what exactly was discussed I am not surprised that she has been making a number of mistakes.I always apply theOccam’s razor principle in these situations which is that the simplest solution is usually the right one which is that they were in a room with a Chinese border official who is able to influence products going into China. Her husband’s company had written to the Hon Tim Groser and the Hon Nathan Guy and said: “Please help us get our products into China. Anything you can do would help.”She was sitting in a room with members of the Chinese Government and we are expected to believe that they never ever discussed her husband’s company that they never discussed Oravida. Well I thinkOccam’s razor principle would tell us that that is highly unlikely and that in fact the simplest solution is usually the correct one which is that that is exactly what that meeting was for; it was not private. I have a great respect for public servants. I do not tend to invite them to my private dinners. I do not know whether that is a failing on my part but I do not tend to invite them—and if other members have I apologise—particularly public servants from other countries.So I am not surprised that the Hon Judith Collins has a number of amendments in this particular Statutes Amendment Bill. We have got the Judicial Conduct Commission and Commissioner Conduct Panel Act 2004 the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 the Official Information Act 1982 the Ombudsmen Act 1975 the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Summary Proceedings Act—Iain Lees-Galloway: 2012—that wasn’t very long ago.MOANA MACKEY: No 2012 was not very long ago at all. We have the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. That is a large number of Acts for one Minister but as I said I am not surprised. In response to questions about ACC today she clearly does not read documents. Actually an even worse explanation would be that she does read them but she does not understand them—Iain Lees-Galloway: Or she just misled the House.MOANA MACKEY: —or she just misled the House as my colleague said. The second reason we have got so many Acts being amended or being fixed up because of mistakes being made by the Hon Judith Collins is that she is under enormous pressure at the moment to be transparent to come clean with the New Zealand Parliament and the New Zealand people about what exactly went on during a taxpayer-funded ministerial visit.I want to come to some of the other legislation in the Statutes Amendment Bill. First of all the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 is being amended. The amendments that are being made are very good but again it is disappointing that when we dealt with the Subantarctic Islands Marine Reserve Bill large tracts of that particularly in the marine reserve were withheld because the Government Ministers decided that in the future they might want to carry out some economic activity there that would be detrimental and opposed to the purposes of the Marine Reserves Act. So they just left them out.So I am really disappointed that we do not see in here some protection for those parts of the Subantarctic Islands that were left out deliberately from the piece of legislation that this Parliament passed and the Labour Party supported. We support those marine reserves. We would like to see proper protection not just partial protection in areas where there is never going to be any economic activity—so it is easy low-hanging fruit—and proper actual protection in terms of marine reserves in this country and in the subantarctic area.I come to the next Act that is being amended which I would like to comment on and that is the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. Would it not be great if it was considered non-controversial to have in this part of the Statutes Amendment Bill proper protection forHector’s andMāui’s dolphins? Would it not be fantastic if that was considered a no-brainer? It should be a no-brainer as this is the most endangered dolphin species in the world. It should be a no-brainer that we put in place every single protection we can. No Government should sit by and watch a species go extinct on its watch when there is something it could do about it.So we have got amendments here to the Marine Mammals Protection Act which are clarifying stuff around a warrant being issued to more than one officer. Would it not be fantastic if this amendment to the Marine Mammals Act was introducing non-controversially proper protections forHector’s andMāui’s dolphins? But of course we are never going to see that under this Government. What we are going to see are token gestures. What we are going to see are halfway measures that make it look like the Government is doing something when in fact it is likely to preside over the extinction of a native species despite the fact that there are things that it could have done about it but chose not do.I come next to Part 21 “National Parks Act 1980”. Again would it not be great if in this part of the bill we saw the removal of the rights of the Minister of Energy and Resources to have half the say about consents for mining or Department of Conservation concessions on conservation land for mining which used to be the sole ambit of the Minister of Conservation and is now shared in a decision-making power between the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources? Would it not be wonderful if in Part 21 of the Statutes Amendment Bill—and Kate Wilkinson is in the House.I remember when the announcement was made and there was Gerry Brownlee the then Minister of Energy and Resources sitting next to Kate Wilkinson. Kate Wilkinson did not say anything throughout the entire press conference as Gerry Brownlee was trying to convince us that this was an equal partnership that they had equal say and that this was not going to change anything. The optics as Steven Joyce would say really said it all. Kate Wilkinson sat there in the shadow of Gerry Brownlee saying absolutely nothing.Would it not be great if in this Statutes Amendment Bill we saw the removal from the National Parks Act 1980 of the rights of the Minister of Energy and Resources to have half the decision-making power or under a National Government 100 percent of the decision-making power to grant concessions on Department of Conservation land for mining activity? And would it not be great if we saw the removal of the economic benefit test which applies only to mining and does not apply to any other economic venture in the Department of Conservation estate—for example tourism? Those are things that it would have been nice to see in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). Those are things that should not be controversial in a Statutes Amendment Bill but unfortunately under a National Government they are.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Some of the speakers who have taken calls this afternoon have addressed matters relevant to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) and I thank those who have actually contributed to the public’s understanding of it. I support this measure.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Government Administration Committee.Victims of Crime Reform BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 8 April.Part 1 Amendments to Victims’ Rights Act 2002(continued)Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): The last time I was speaking on this bill the Committee rose during my second call but I was saying that Labour was in support of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill which we still are. But my word what a difference a couple of weeks can make to the tenor of a debate. This is the Victims of Crime ReformBill. We have seen before us in this House today the most extraordinary performance by the Minister who is the sponsor of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill the Minister of Justice Judith Collins.There are victims of crime. There are people who suffer because of the crimes that are committed against them and this bill seeks to address that. But one of the victims of this Minister’s actions to date has been truth. We see truth as a victim in this particular matter. I see that it is entirely apposite at this point to reflect on the sponsor of this bill because her performance in the House has jeopardised any understanding or any confidence that we might have about her ability to speak the truth to this Parliament. Her ability to speak the truth to this Parliament has been called into question by her own actions—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are debating Part 1 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. That is not a licence—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. Yes the debate is just going through Part 1. When we are on the parts of the bill in the Committee stage these are narrow debates focused on what is actually in the part. That is actually what we will now be focusing on. So we are on Part 1 and I would ask the member to come back to those provisions that are contained in Part 1.Hon MARYAN STREET: In Part 1 of this bill there are of course all of the initial provisions that one would expect: the principal Act being amended the interpretation the treatment and so on. One of the things that does come up here is the purpose of victim impact statements. This is something that members of the Justice and Electoral Committee turned their minds to quite substantially because there were a number of submitters who spoke to this point. This certainly is a matter of some debate. In the course of the submissions that we heard there were comments made by members of the judiciary that it would be better if they still had the ability to control this in a way that allowed the court to proceed without undue delay but also without cutting off the victims’ statements too quickly so that they would still feel that they had achieved something in making their victim impact statement available to the court and have that moment in court to address the concerns that they had and the injury that they had sustained through the crime.This was something that is certainly a matter of balance. Supplementary Order Paper 424 which the Minister of Justice has put up in her own name fundamentally rewrites parts of this bill and addresses the changes to victim impact statements in clause 11 and clause 12. I just want to say that victims should be allowed a chance within the safety and the control of the court proceedings to give voice to their concerns.Where I was about to go in my last speech on this bill was to talk about a case that we knew so well from the media. That was the case of Sophie Elliot and the need for her family to be able to say what the impact had been on them and at the same time to address the kind of trial in absentia of their daughter by virtue of the defence’s ability to misrepresent her—in fact to say things about her that the family felt were inappropriate unreasonable wrong untrue and in need of rebuttal.This bill allows the victim impact statement to be presented to the court. Its purpose is to provide information to the court about the effects of the offending and to assist the court in understanding the victim’s view of the offending and also to tell the offender about the impact of the offending from the victim’s perspective. This is a critical point. This is something that we support. Even though there had been submissions from members of the judiciary who felt that it could lead to some disorder or to some lengthy hearings that were not enhanced by victim statements going on for too long I would err on the side of giving people the opportunity to have their say. So whether a victim impact statement is read to the court by the victims themselves or read on their behalfby somebody else I think it is part of the process in this Victims of Crime Reform Bill that allows us to support this legislation.We have got no doubt that the situation of victims in law and otherwise has improved greatly since Parliament first dealt with the issue in 1987 and we do not oppose that. We do feel that this bill represents another little bit of incremental change. The bill following this one this evening will demonstrate another piece of incremental change that could really have been done with a bit more boldness and a bit more of a comprehensive approach and we could have got more in it.I do not wish to incur your correction again Mr Chairman but I am concerned that the Minister who is presenting and sponsoring this bill and the Supplementary Order Paper that makes a number of changes to the bill has done herself and this Parliament damage. We would not wish to see this piece of legislation damaged by the irreparable harm that has been done by the Minister of Justice sponsoring this bill by virtue of her own admission—by virtue of her own words. This is an omnibus bill that addresses and changes four discrete pieces of legislation and it should be able to proceed. Even if we do believe that it is incremental in its approach it should be able to proceed unsullied in its passage through this House. But quite frankly everything this Minister touches now is sullied and it is that reputation that is part of the shadow that now hangs over everything that this Minister touches. This bill is one of those things that she has sponsored but it is a good bill.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First does support this bill the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. We see the bill and especially Part 1 as another very welcome step forward in the emerging movement to do more to support and consider the rights and needs of the victims of crime. That movement appears to me to have the support of all of the parties of Parliament because we all do want to see victims of crime better supported and considered than they have been in the past so we especially welcome Part 1 of this bill. New Zealand First also supports the amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 424 for the same reasons.I especially wanted to commend clause 10 which concerns section 16 of the Victims’ Rights Act. It ensures that reference to all of a victim’s contact details as are now listed in the bill will be restricted to ensure the privacy of the victim. That of course adds very greatly to a victim’s sense of security and privacy while allowing them the opportunity to take a full part in the process. It is a minor amendment but it is a very important amendment for victims for those reasons.I also wanted to refer briefly to new section 17 inserted by clause 12 which actually requires a prosecutor to find out from any victim all relevant information about the victim’s injuries property loss or damage and other effects of the offence so that they can be taken into account for sentencing and presumably reparation purposes. The words used are that the prosecutor “must make all reasonable efforts” and that puts the onus on the prosecutor to find out the necessary details so that they can be taken proper account of in the process in the court. That means of course that the prosecutor has to be proactive which was not a requirement in the past. They relied on the victim themselves to make sure that those details were provided and of course they not always were. So I think again that it is a relatively minor improvement but it is a very important improvement to the legislation so that the necessary details actually do get before the court and that is as it should be. So New Zealand First is very happy indeed to see that particular provision in the bill.The information to be sought is actually set out in the new section 17(1A) and it refers to: “(a) any physical injury or emotional harm suffered by the victim through or by means of the offence; and (b) any loss of or damage to property suffered by the victim through or by means of the offence; and (c) any other effects of the offence onthe victim; and (d) any other matter consistent with the purpose of victim impact statements …” as set out elsewhere in the legislation. I think that this is a particularly good provision. It is comprehensive and it does the job.The value of these amendments is that they put the victims first and that is what New Zealand First has argued forfor a number of years. The rights and interests of victims have for far far too long been secondary to the process of convicting the offender. Now we are seeing more and more this movement by which the effects on the victim are being taken account of more and more and real and practical means are being put in place to make sure that they are supported and that their rights are protected. So for all of those reasons New Zealand First is particularly pleased to be able to support Part 1 of this bill as it does the bill as a whole.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee it is a pleasure to speak during this Committee stage on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. The previous member Denis O’Rourke made I thought some very valid points in relation to the changes. But first may I speak for a moment or two on the contribution of the Hon Maryan Street who whilst indicating that Labour will support this legislation indicated in her speech that this was by some way a small little step of just not such significance that it would need to be anything other than a minor piece of legislation. Well I take exactly the opposite view. I think that this is a comprehensive and innovative step that the Minister of Justice has brought to the House. In terms of the purpose of this bill which is to change the law relating to the victims of crime and to give victims a much greater voice in our criminal justice system this is an important and very significant step in our justice system.We know that this is an omnibus bill. It amends the Victims’ Rights Act of 2002 the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act of 1989 the Parole Act of 2002 and the Sentencing Act of 2002 as well. As a Government we on this side are absolutely unapologetic about putting victims first in our judicial system and it is partly because the victims are not there in any way other than as innocent participants. They do not get involved in our judicial system by dint of wanting to be there; they are the innocent victims. So I think it is right and proper that as we consider the Committee stage of this bill we do keep a very clear sense of focus on the rights of victims.I want to turn just for a moment to the provisions in the bill that relate to the information that is to be contained in the impact statements. The bill provides that information ascertained from a victim in a victim impact statement may include photographs drawings or visual representations. That is a new step and it is something that I think is quite important. It is particularly of use where there are young victims who may not want to have a process where a formal document is written out but they may want to prepare a picture a drawing or a diagram that is representative of the impact that the crime of which they are a victim has impacted them their families and their loved ones. So I think that is an appropriate step.What it means is that it will enable the victim to provide information to the court about the effects of the offending as it relates particularly to them. Of course it is going to assist the court in understanding the victim’s views about the actual offending. Further it will go to informing the offender who is actually the root cause of the proceedings in the first place about the impact of the offending from the victim’s perspective. Too often that victim’s perspective is not well founded in our judicial system and it is something that has over past years been lost sometimes. So this change is I think an important one.The bill further provides for the procedure relating to how a victim impact statement must be submitted and so there are a couple of important changes that are featured in the new sections 21 to 22B inserted by clause 15. They include that a victim impactstatement may upon request be read to the court if the judicial officer sentencing the offender agrees. In some cases victims are too emotionally distraught and overcome to be able to actually stand before a court—which in many cases can be an intimidating process in its own right—and then have to read out the actual statement. So this provision that allows in certain circumstances for the statement to be read by somebody else is I think a significant and useful step forward. The statement may actually be read by the prosecutor the victim or a person nominated by the victim. So the victim can actually choose if you will to have a voice other than themselves right in the courtroom and I think that that will be a powerful vehicle for sending messages not only to the offender but to others who are involved in the court process. The legislation is good and I support it.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour Party will of course be supporting the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I think it has some worthwhile measures in it. There is a range of questions that I would like to ask about it and I am curious that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Immigration is not the Minister who introduced the bill the Minister of Justice but I think we all understand the reason for that. With the controversy swirling around her she would not be in a fit state of mind actually to manage this bill through the Committee. I would have to say to be honest—and I am not going to dwell on this—that frankly there is certainly amongst many of the parties in this House a total loss of confidence in the ability of the Minister of Justice. The failure to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth is surely fundamental—Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This member who is an experienced member is now straying far from the bill and making allegations that are—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that and I know that the member is coming back to the point.Hon PHIL GOFF: Absolutely—thank you very much Mr Chairman. I will just finish that point which is that of all people in the House it really is important for the Minister of Justice—most particularly—to be seen as a person who can judge conflicts of interest who is a person of full integrity and one who tells the full truth.I come to the bill. The bill is incremental in the changes that it makes and I am not saying that hugely as a criticism. We have over time really strongly improved the provision for victims’ rights. It is fair to say that when I started studying law there were only two things that were important in the courtroom. One was the prosecutor who was prosecuting on behalf of society and the other was the accused who was trying to defend their innocence and the victim really was not part of that. It was shameful that our justice system paid so little attention to the needs of victims.The fourth Labour Government began the process with I think the Victims of Offences Act in 1987 if I recall rightly and as Minister of Justice in 2002 I was responsible for passing the Victims’ Rights Act. I have got to say that I picked up that bill from the National Party. I am not sure whether you were here at the time Mr Chairman. If you were you will recall that the Victims’ Rights Bill which was on the table when I became Minister was a very weak affair. It talked vaguely about the rights of victims but it actually did not do anything to cast the vague principles as explicit rights. What we tried to do in 2002 was set out the explicit rights that victims had and the mandatory obligations on specific Government agencies to make sure that those rights were upheld. Victims had to be informed about the progress in the case against the offender. With regard to serious offences I brought in provisions that victims needed the ability to have input into the decisions on bail. I think that was really important. The victim should be able to express their fears and concerns on baildecisions; that should be taken into account. We strengthened the victim impact statements. We promoted restorative justice processes.The interesting thing about this Part 1 of the bill is that it builds on the things that we put in that Victims’ Rights Act of 2002. I think that from time to time we do need to come back and look at whether the Act is working as well as it should do. One thing that happened under Labour in 2007 if my colleagues will remind me was that we set up the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry into victims. Building on that material and subsequent material we have these changes that I think are worthwhile in their own right. They are not revolutionary but they are worthwhile.I want to pick up a couple of points—probably four major points—in relation to the bill as it has been reported back. The first thing that I want to pick up is the question of funding adequacy. What I would refer you to is page 5 of the regulatory impact statement where it says: “Agencies have indicated that to successfully implement some of the proposals they will need to look to reprioritise funding from other areas. If funding can not be re-prioritised to provide these additional resources then this may result in pressure on services and service delivery may be affected.” Well that is vitally important. One thing we know is that it is one thing to have rights and people responsible for upholding those rights but if you do not fund it properly then how can we be confident that this will work?A specific question to Mr Woodhouse in the chair tonight is what was done in response to that concern raised in the regulatory impact statement? Have the resources been provided? Are they reprioritised resources from other areas in which case which areas have suffered cutbacks? Or has the money not actually been determined yet? Do we face the potential prospect of setting up some very good rights and processes but with inadequate funding to make sure those things are carried into effect particularly if I look at the question of restorative justice? I put restorative justice in the original Act. I am glad to see that there is still an emphasis on that. But in the bill it talks about being subject to resources. I know that everything is subject to resources but will there be adequate resources to ensure that restorative justice processes can be held and that they can be held properly? Again if the resources are not there and it is not done well restorative justice instead of having the positive impact that it might can actually have a negative impact. If the homework is not done and the support services are not there then it can turn out to be negative for the victim when it could otherwise be a very positive experience.There are other things that seem to be missed out in relation to this bill in this part because of a lack of resources. I know that the regulatory impact statement talked about setting up a victims’ centre that would give oversight to victims’ rights and they talked about a victims of crime complaints officer. Both of those seem to have disappeared. They are not in the bill; I cannot find them anywhere. They were recommendations but they have not been picked up. We still do have the code and I think the code is a good idea to ensure that victims have information about their rights and the services available to them—the duties and responsibilities. That goes a little bit further but not necessarily a whole lot further than the original Act. The code itself is a good idea. Minister Woodhouse might like to answer this one too. Why were those other ideas dropped? Why do we not have somebody there who will give oversight? Why do we not have a victims’ centre as was originally looked at by the Ministry of Justice?I think the question of victim impact statements is central. I remember watching a programme where Gil Elliot was talking. He is of course the father of Sophie Elliott who was murdered. He was expressing intense frustration. He was allowed to give a victim impact statement but somebody was censoring everything he wanted to say in it. I accept that there will be a need for certain restraints on victim impact statements. Itcannot be offensive in terms of the language used. It cannot direct the judge what to do but within reason the victim—or the family of the victim in a murder case—has to be allowed to vent their feelings as part of their process of being able to put that crime behind them. There must be nothing more frustrating than a victim being told what he or she can or cannot say to the judge in the court and to the offender who is sitting across from them in the court.So I hope that this bill when it becomes an Act is interpreted in a way that actually emphasises the rights of the victim. It might be uncomfortable for the offender to hear what the family of the victim is saying but so it should be. It should be uncomfortable for the offender if that offender has been convicted and is guilty of sometimes a terrible offence—such as in the case of this family the taking away of their beautiful daughter and the extreme arrogance that the offender expressed in the court during that process which all of us saw in the televised accounts.I think the bill is basically right in that the victim the prosecutor or a person nominated by the victim can read out the statement. I like the wording of the language that the judicial officer must agree to the request made unless he or she considers it inappropriate to do so and there are quite narrow and specific reasons set out. I think the emphasis here must be on this process serving the victim or the family of the victim. The person has been convicted at that stage and the judge is considering the sentence. The judge needs to know exactly what the damage that has been done to that family is and what might be regarded by them as a way of if possible putting things right or certainly going in that direction. There is pretty free rein given to the judge—CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. In doing so I want to note that this is a step forward for victims of crime that it has taken a long time to get to this point and that some of these steps probably do not go as far as this side of the House would like to see. But along with my colleagues we are speaking in support of this bill. I want to pick up in Part 1 and talk about the impact of crime and the importance of victim impact statements for a particular group of victims and that is victims of sexual crimes. But before I do that I just want to make a couple of general points. There certainly is a need for victims to have a greater role in the criminal justice process and to ensure that there is more information and more weight given to their concerns and the impact of crime upon those victims. That is not just victims of sexual crime; that is all victims of crime.One of the issues though is the particular needs of victims of sexual crimes. For me to be speaking this afternoon on this is quite important having spent several hours this morning on the Social Services Committee dealing with submitters and dealing with the inquiry into services around sexual violence support. Can I acknowledge the member across the Chamber Melissa Lee who I think is doing a very good job of chairing that inquiry. We have heard some terribly moving traumatic information as part of that inquiry. It is an inquiry that is looking at a crime that in the end has very low conviction rates a very low level of reporting in the first instance very low levels of charging people who have committed those crimes and then very low conviction rates of those who do get into the court system. In that case the victims of sexual crime are in a particularly difficult situation because often they are the only witness to the crime.Also the impact of sexual violence is very very significant. Today a number of submitters were talking about it as a form of trauma—that it was a deeply traumatic experience. Being able then to ensure a couple of the things that are in Part 1—first of all information about the proceedings of the court system and making sure that both the victim and their support person where they have them are fully cognisant of what is happening and how it is going to happen are really important in a situation where they are talking about a crime that is so so personal and so traumatic. Also one of theparticular areas that has come up when looking at the issue of sexual violence is making sure that the support people are specialised people. Victim Support is a great service that is provided but actually in this area we need to have people who are specialist and people who particularly understand the nature of this crime and how it is then going to play out through the court system.We were given an example today by Louise Nicholas who talked about having in her court proceeding situation a very helpful person from Victim Support trying to do their best but actually all that person did for her was cause her further anger and grief because she was unaware of the trauma that had been suffered by Louise and was using language that in fact those who had perpetrated the crimes on her had also used to her. So there is a need for very specialist people in this space.In terms of victim impact statements in this bill it talks about the purpose of victim impact statements: “to enable the victim to provide information to the court about the effects of the offending; and assist the court in understanding the victim’s views about the offending; and inform the offender about the impact of the offending from the victim’s perspective.” It is particularly important in cases of sexual violence where those consequences the impacts can be of a physical nature can be around the person’s health can be about injuries they have suffered and can also be of an emotional and psychological nature. Those impacts can be around an inability to trust people they can be around nightmares and they can be around reliving—constantly reliving—a crime that is so fundamental so invasive and so personal that the level of impact at a psychological level is often very significant.Of course one of the particular aspects around sexual offending that is important to understand and why the victim impact can be so severe is that often these are people who are very well known to the victim—members of their own family people they potentially were friends with or even people they were in a relationship with. They are not people who are emotionally neutral to the victim. They are people whom the victim often knows well. Again that can have a particular impact and can make that trauma more significant. Those are all important factors in what might be covered in a victim impact statement in sexual violence cases.The bill goes on to talk about the information to be ascertained from victims and goes through some of those things around physical injury or emotional harm; loss of or damage to property—again that can be relevant in these cases—and any other effects of the offence on the victim. The information that we have been provided with in the Social Services Committee is that those other effects can actually be quite significant. They can be around drug and alcohol abuse and substance abuse. They can be around self-harm. Again we were being given examples of that today. All of those things need to be out in the open and the person who has offended needs to hear directly about the impact of their crime on that victim. I think as Scott Simpson has said the ability of others to read a victim impact statement in the court is an important provision. I think there would often be situations where it would be far too difficult for the person to do that themselves. Again the need for specialist support in the court system is really important.I note that at the moment there is a lot of effort going into raising concerns about better outcomes for victims of sexual violence. There is the inquiry. We have waited a long time to get improvements for victims of sexual violence. There was a task force under the last Government. It did report in 2009 over 70 recommendations most of which have not been actioned. Some of those are around the support services some of them are around prevention and some of them are around the court system itself. We are talking in this part about court processes but can I say something that would seem self-evident: preventing crime in the first instance is the best way to ensure that we donot actually have victims of crime. Every submitter to the inquiry—submitter after submitter after submitter—is saying that we can prevent sexual violence in this country. We actually have to decide that we are going to do that and we have to resource that.I will come back to court processes. The Minister Judith Collins—a Minister who is in a lot of hot water at the moment for her own behaviour—when responding to the Hon Phil Goff about issues for victims of sexual violence talked about this particular bill and said that reforms in this bill would assist victims of sexual violence. Well yes they will but certainly not enough. There is a need to ensure as I have said already that there is effective support in the courts. That is going to require specialist sexual violence support services of a greater extent than we have currently and we need to look at a whole lot of processes around how the court is conducted.MELISSA LEE (National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): As my colleagues have said in the earlier discussions on this bill the Victims of Crime Reform Bill at this very important Committee stage it is absolutely crucial that this Parliament continues to recognise the important role that victims must play in the administration of criminal justice. They are the party who have been most overlooked.We have inherited the administration of our criminal justice system from Britain and we have adopted the principles that go with it—that is the interests of the victim are subsumed into the interests of society at large as the court system addresses criminal wrongdoing. But that has not been good enough in the modern age when getting through the requirements of a prosecution—and if there is a conviction then sentencing and the disposal of the matter—has overlooked the impact of offending on a victim.Over the last 20 years the rights of victims and the place of victims in our judicial system have changed significantly and for the better. That is a good thing. It is right that we should gradually and over time improve and amend the way the place of victims is represented in court and that their rights and the rights—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you for the opportunity to resume what I was saying before I was interrupted by the ever so important dinner bell and to say as I was saying about how this is a very important area of endeavour not only for lawmaking but for the conduct of the law in the criminal justice system. It is not an area that is taken lightly by this House and the members in it or by anybody whom I am aware of—notleast of course the victims who are affected and who benefit from the laws and the improvements we make in them from time to time. But it is also an area of the law that requires a champion in the form of a Minister of Justice who is beyond reproach and conducts themselves with considerable integrity. The victims look to our criminal justice system for their share of justice if you like so that their interests and their cause are heard by the courts and are taken into account when criminal matters are being disposed of.This is a very crucial area and we should ask the question: what if somebody holding public office were themselves to be convicted of a designated crime a crime that the Commissioner of Police said ought to be one of those affected by this piece of legislation? Who is the victim of somebody who commits a crime in public office or who misconducts themselves in public office? It is the people of New Zealand. So we need to make sure that when we are making rules for every other citizen—for those who transgress the law and those who are victims of those transgressions—we are ourselves people of principle and operate with integrity.With that in mind I come to Part 2 and these provisions here and these relate to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act—at least to those parts of that legislation that cover the administration of justice for young people and children who commit crimes or at least have allegations of offences made against them. These changes extend victims’ rights to those who are victims of crimes committed by children and that is right. So when the Youth Court is dealing with young people and when the issue of for example their being considered for bail is considered by the court then it is right that victims of that criminal offending should know about it and should have a say on that because they are the ones who have been affected. Even though it is a bail hearing and the issue of guilt or non-guilt is yet to be determined—there is no issue of a conviction being entered—nevertheless generally speaking by that time the issue is not whether the person before the court has done anything wrong. That is usually clear. It is of course whether or not they are guilty of the specified offence and that the elements of the offence have been made out and therefore a conviction entered. But even at the bail stage when all that there isis an allegation or a charging document laid it is still appropriate for the victim of an offence in those circumstances to be heard and that their views and their interests are considered. We accept that and we think that this makes a reasonable addition to the rights that the primary legislation provides for.The next significant change is the right to attend a family group conference. This allows the victim of an offence to attend or to be represented at a family group conference that is dealing with a young offender. Again that also is an appropriate measure. For a Government that creditably has been doing good things in relation to restorative justice this is effectively a restorative justice measure. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is not a fan of restorative justice and there is a story about an offshoot of the Sensible Sentencing Trust meeting in a hotel last year at the same time as a national conference on restorative justice was being held. That offshoot of the Sensible Sentencing Trust approached the hotel management and instructed the hotel management that if the folks in the hotel who were meeting to talk about restorative justice were not evicted from the hotel and did not have their meeting shut down then this offshoot group would itself leave the hotel and would not be paying its bill.It is a bit sad that a victims’ advocacy organisation and its offshoot should take that attitude towards restorative justice. Our view is very clear: whether a victim participates in a restorative justice process is a matter for the victim because it is not just about the perpetrator of the crime; it is about the victim having an opportunity to confront the perpetrator of the crime against them. It is an opportunity to come to terms with theoffending and for them to understand. The victims I have spoken to who have been through a restorative justice process have said that usually their expectations are exceeded.It is right that this process is available for the victims of adult offenders and that the victims of young offenders should also have the opportunity to participate in those processes that are about trying to get the young person back on track and hopefully avoiding a recurrence. And if there are underlying problems—social health-wise or other—then that is an opportunity an early intervention that can take place. Why should the victim not have something to say about that? Why should a young offender not be able to hear from a victim in a controlled setting about the impact of the offending on them? That is a worthwhile and good measure in clause 36 of this bill and we support it.The other significant change is in relation to one other aspect—which I shall name shortly when I see it. It is the provision in relation to what happens when a youth offender or a young offender goes through the system and the matter is disposed of—ensuring that victims are kept apprised of that. If they are to be further processed in the criminal justice system or if having been processed they are then to be released or released on any conditions then the victim of the young offender is to be notified as well. Sadly also if a young offender who has been detained in a facility—whether it is a prison or whether it is a youth facility—dies during the course of that then the victim is to be notified of that as well. That is a tragic occurrence that happens occasionally and hopefully not too often.My colleagues have said in relation to the other parts of the bill that this does make good and important changes for the administration of justice and for victims and we support it. This particular part that deals with young offenders and young offending and the victims of them has useful changes that I think will go some way to addressing our criminal offending rate helping the fate of young offenders and stopping them graduating on to harsher offending through the involvement of their victims in the processes set up to deal with them.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is a pleasure to rise and take a brief call in this Committee stage for the consideration of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I want to focus on two particular areas of this part of the bill Part 2 that I think will be of benefit to our most vulnerable and littlest citizens in New Zealand—the children of our country.In particular I think there is a very positive measure in this bill that will allow the submission of victim impact statements in a variety of formats and media. The ability for a child to depict their feelings and the consequences of the offending that they have either witnessed or been subjected to themselves I think is a very positive measure. This will allow people—and particularly children—to submit paintings or pictures or short stories that describe the sorts of consequences and impacts that the offending has had on them.Another very positive measure in my view is the ability of those who have witnessed domestic violence incidents but who have not necessarily been subjected to them themselves to be considered as victims and to receive the support and the assistance that victims of crime get in this country. So for instance having a child or a young person seeing a parent or family member being assaulted or abused in a domestic situation would then deem them to be able to be in receipt of all of that support. Again that is a very positive measure that will help our most vulnerable and smallest citizens. So I commend this bill for further consideration.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I begin by first expressing my disappointment that the Minister in charge of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill the Hon Judith Collins is not the Minister in the chair. I thought that perhaps under the cover of darkness she might have snuck back into the Chamber through the back way—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! The member would say that he is not referring to the absence of a Minister but he is indirectly doing that and I just caution him to not proceed down that line.Hon PHIL GOFF: I am sure you will not mind me saying that it is better in the Committee of the whole House stage to have a Minister in the chair who is the Minister in charge of the bill. When that Minister is here then she might be expected to answer questions.Having expressed that disappointment can I say that I acknowledge at least that in the chair is Chester Borrows. Chester Borrows is not only the Minister for Courts but also the sort of man who could recognise a conflict of interest and avoid it and if he made a mistake would tell the truth to the House about what he had done. So in that sense the Minister in the chair is a distinct improvement over the Minister who is in charge of the bill.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Totally washed up. What a hack—what a low-grade hack.Hon PHIL GOFF: Can I just say if the Attorney-General stops prattling on—if he wants to take a call then take a call. Perhaps he could stand up and explain to us why Judith Collins did meet with an unnamed official in a clear conflict of interest. If he does not want to take the call then he should shut up and I will invite you Mr Chairman to tell him to do that. Otherwise I will continue to ask him questions about his colleague the Minister of Justice and why the Minister of Justice should not be relied upon to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I am on my feet. Right we will debate Part 2 of this bill from this point on.Hon PHIL GOFF: I am happy to do that. Can I say that I welcome this bill and the improvements that it makes but express another disappointment—notwithstanding the importance that I am sure the Minister in the chair would say is attached to the provisions in this bill—and question why it has taken 2½ years to get this bill back to the Committee of the whole House when these rights are being denied to victims and when every party in Parliament supports this bill. This is the sort of bill that you would have thought would be facilitated through the House. We will not hold it up unnecessarily. We have indicated that we are showing support for it. Once again we have a bill that took damn near 3 years from the point when it was introduced to the point when it goes through. There is no reason other than the incompetence of the management of this House that that should have happened with this bill.This part of the bill deals with amendments to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. The purpose of the clauses in this part is to ensure that victims’ rights in the adult jurisdiction are applied in the youth justice jurisdiction and I support that absolutely. It is also about increasing the participation of victims at hearings in the Youth Court and providing support for those victims. I want to come back to Chester Borrows to ask a question about the nature of the support that will be provided to victims who appear in the Youth Court. As the Minister for Courts will be aware court services for victims are not currently available in the Youth Court. So I would very much like the Minister in the chair to take the next call and explain to us whether the court services for victims will now be available for victims appearing in the Youth Court. It is a valid question. I am sure that the Minister will have the answer to that.The reason that I ask the question about whether those resources will be available—[Interruption] And still the Attorney-General prattles on. The reason that I ask about that is because in the regulatory impact statement it states: “Agencies have indicated that to successfully implement some of the proposals they will need to look to reprioritise funding from other areas.” The fact that the agencies say that suggests to me that no additional resources have been provided to ensure that the rights that we are supposedly giving to victims will be backed up by the services that are there ensuring that they get those services and that those rights are upheld.So it is a valid question to ask the Minister whether court services for victims will be available and if so how they will be funded. If it is reprioritisation can he assure us that those are not funds taken from another part of the justice system diminishing the rights of victims in that part of the service? They say that if they cannot reprioritise then this will result quoting from the regulatory impact statement “in pressure on services and service delivery may be affected.” That is bureaucratese for the fact that if there is no money there they will not be delivering the services properly and maybe they will not be delivering the services at all.I think that those are valid questions to ask the Minister in the chair and I invite Chester Borrows to take a call after I have finished and address those questions. Members on this side of the Chamber believe that that is the very sort of thing that the Committee of the whole House is here for and that the Minister should be prepared to answer them. Chester Borrows is one of the better Ministers. He will probably be willing to do that.I want to say that the things that I think are really important here are firstly that we do get the recognition of the automatic right of the victim to attend a Youth Court hearing. That is not currently the case; it will become the case. Having said that in the youth jurisdiction family group conferences are perhaps the best area where victims can participate in the process and where the process is properly restorative. At the moment the victim is encouraged to attend a family group conference to have a say on reparation to have a say on rehabilitation for the offender and to express how the actions of the offender have affected them. In fact under a Labour Government New Zealand led the world in 1989 in making these sorts of provisions for restorative justice for the family group conference and for the victim to be part of the process and not excluded from it. That is great.I am not sure why in the past we did not include the Youth Court jurisdiction in this. I can back up the words of the Principal Youth Court Judge who noted that sadly under the status quo the court is often left without any information on the victim. That is plainly unsatisfactory. This bill remedies that. It makes sense for the judge to have complete information about the offence when sentencing a young person in the Youth Court. There is absolutely no reason why the age of the offender should reduce the rights that victims have under the Victims’ Rights Act. So we are supporting this part of the bill because those two areas are remedied. The Ministry of Justice has rightly recommended that victims should have the automatic right to attend a family group conference that they should be able to provide a victim impact statement—that is really important—and that there should be amendments to clarify the application of the Victims’ Rights Act in the youth jurisdiction.The clauses in the bill that I think are important are clauses 35 and 38. Clause 35 sets out the rights of the victim to be consulted when a hearing is being held on the custody or potential custody of a child or young person and that the prosecutor must make reasonable efforts to ascertain the views of each of the victims. That is important. The Commissioner of Police must inform each victim of orders made by the court and any conditions such as conditions on bail that are applied. So this is a sensible provision. Itis not a political party - orientated clause. It has been recommended by the Ministry of Justice. It makes sense and it has been supported by the Principal Youth Court Judge.The other area is clause 38 which sets out the entitlement of the victim to be present in the Youth Court and also—I think the Justice and Electoral Committee made this amendment—to have a support person alongside the victim acting as their representative or as a support person for them. I think that that makes sense as well. Other clauses like clause 38A and 38B are about areas where the victim should be notified of certain things. When young people abscond from custody of course the victim should be told about that. If the offender dies then obviously that is a piece of information however regrettable the death of the young offender might be that the victim is entitled to. So I think this is a good area.I just come back to the Minister because I know he has been taking advice from the officials. It would be good to know why it took so long to get this bill back to the Committee. But it would be particularly good to know whether the resources are there to provide court services for victims whether the resources are there to ensure that the rights of the victims will actually be delivered upon and where that money is coming from. Was there any new money provided for the victim support services or is it going to be stolen from another area which will detract from the ability of the justice system to deliver elsewhere?Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): I rise in response to the comments made by the previous speaker the Hon Phil Goff and speakers previous to him. It is important to note the point that the honourable member Andrew Little made about restorative practices within the Youth Court and within our criminal justice system generally which are being enhanced all the time. Obviously as we all know they are world recognised because especially within the youth jurisdiction they are world leading and we need to be able to keep them up at that pace.Comments have been made around for instance derogatory messages given by some lobby groups against such things as restorative practices and in particular restorative justice conferencing. People have been suggesting for instance that restorative justice conferencing is more about the offender than it is about the victim. What we know of course is that that is absolutely incorrect. When we look for instance at the reoffending rates of those who have been through a restorative justice conference when tested against a control of those who were willing and able to attend a conference but it was withheld from them what we found was that in community-based sentences where restorative justice was completed there was a recidivism rate that was about 57 percent less and where it happened behind the wire in prison it was about 34 percent. That was a study by a young doctor HeatherStrang of Cambridge University a few years ago. So it is interesting to note that the complete opposite of what is being put about by the likes of the Sensible Sentencing Trust is actually true. Another point is that as I understand it—and I have been made aware of it on a number of occasions; I do not know whether the position has changed but I doubt it—the president of or the spokesperson for the Sensible Sentencing Trust has been given the opportunity to attend a restorative justice conference anywhere any time and although he said he would he never has. I think it is a terrible thing when people operating within a sphere of ignorance put themselves out to be experts.In respect of the matters raised by the Hon Phil Goff I make the following comments. Firstly about the time delay for the Victims of Crime Reform Bill all I can really say—he will know as well as anybody else—is that this Government has been extremely busy. The amount of legislation it has passed through—all of it is important and none of it is blatantly out there to do things like win the next election like theElectoral Finance Act was which we had to put up with in years gone by. But I am pleased to see that the bill has finally made its way to the Committee.In respect of youth within the Youth Court jurisdiction victims wanting to be represented within the Youth Court jurisdiction and funding when this Government came into office in 2008 one of the first pieces of legislation we put through was the offender levy contribution—$50 for every offender appearing before the court to be paid and that money to be used for victim services. That money was used to set up a number of different initiatives or to support a number of initiatives to support victims going through the criminal justice process. So it is that money used for those purposes that will now be extended to victims within the youth jurisdiction as well. But there are a number of specific rights that are extended pursuant to this part. The member will realise as I go through them that a lot of them are not expensive and will easily be met within the funding that has been set aside for those specific purposes under the offender levy.The first right is to attend a family group conference. An invitation is made for all victims to come to family group conferences. Whether or not they make themselves available for that family group conference largely depends on their own feelings towards it and their feeling of safety or feeling of really wanting to be in the room. Of course we are very sensitive about anything that could be seen asrevictimising a person who is already a victim but the ability to be able to attend a family group conference and take part in that along with their support people is a right that is extended. Another one is for victims to be informed about the services each agency provides and their ability to be able to access the support of those agencies. If the offender is a child or a young person they also have the right to choose whether to be informed of the progress following the family group conference plan. That is progress through that family group conference rather than necessarily through the court process which would also flow on automatically. There is a right to choose whether the victim wishes to express their views and they have a wide range of abilities to be able to do that. They can make a victim impact statement. They have the right to express their views in other ways as has been mentioned by my colleague Paul Foster-Bell which may not necessarily be in writing. That may be difficult if that person is a very young victim so they will be able to do it by way of pictures or speech or other ways. There is the right to make a complaint if any person from an agency does not provide the service consistent with the principles of this particular code that I am reading from at the moment.There are also additional rights for victims of specified offences which might be sexual offences or serious assaults and they include to be informed of and to express views on bail and other orders that may be sought by prosecution or by the offender. There is the right to read the victim impact statement in court or obviously to have it read for them. There is the right to choose to become a registered victim so they go on to the victims register for continued notification. There is the right to appoint a representative to receive information on behalf of that victim. There is the right to receive after the sentencing information and notifications as to the progress of the offender through incarceration and future appearances before the Parole Board. There is the right to choose whether to make a submission to a parole hearing or in respect of extended supervision orders. And obviously there is the right to be able to attend and to speak and be heard in respect of those matters.Just to allay the fears of the Hon Phil Goff the cost of this will be picked by those services that already exist. In effect it is extending down the services that are there within the adult jurisdiction. Obviously if there is a higher volume of victims requiring these services then there will be an increase of cost. It is expected that that will be metwithin the current funding arrangements and there is no suggestion that those would not be met. Thank you.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I also wish to join my colleague the Hon Phil Goff in acknowledging the Minister in the chair Chester Borrows and in fact to reflect on the point that our junior whip Iain Lees Galloway made that you would make a fine Minister of Justice. In fact you may have an opportunity to be so quite soon.Iain Lees-Galloway: There’s a vacancy coming up.CAROL BEAUMONT: Yes there could well be a vacancy in that area. So I wish you luck with that Minister.Getting on to the bill the Victims of Crime Reform Bill we are speaking now on Part 2 of that bill. As others have said this part is about ensuring that victims’ rights in the adult criminal jurisdiction are applied in the youth justice jurisdiction. So that goes through Part 2 which amends the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. Part 2 talks about certain situations including family group conferences when a child or a young person is in custody pending hearings and what happens in situations where children and young persons abscond. It talks about who can present at hearings in situations where there is a child or young person who is the perpetrator of the crime.I just want to reflect here for a minute. When I spoke on Part 1 I talked about victims of sexual violence and the particular needs of that group and the particular impacts—very deep impacts often—of sexual violence crimes. Of course that would equally apply in Part 2 and in fact we have seen situations—quite troubling situations—in this country with the so-called Roast Busters case in Auckland not that long ago around young persons and sexual violence where I think very troubling cultural attitudes were displayed by young persons around sexual violence. In that situation in the youth jurisdiction you may well have both youth perpetrators and youth victims potentially affected by the changes in this part.You can see in Part 2 that a number of changes have been made that I think strengthen the provisions here. In terms of better victim support at Youth Court hearings an amendment is in this part—in clause 38 amending section 329—for victims to bring support people without seeking prior permission while allowing if necessary the judge to restrict numbers. Also clause 38A amending section 385 means that victims of offences committed by a child or young person would be notified when the child or young person absconds from a youth justice residence. As the Hon Phil Goff mentioned that would also apply—about being notified—when the child or young person dies in a youth justice residence. In terms of the definition of “victim” in schedule 1 amended by clause 39 that amendment aligns then the definition of “victim” in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act with that in the Victims’ Rights Act.Those are some of the provisions in Part 2. I just want to pick up a point about funding though because in the regulatory impact statement it does clearly say that “Agencies have indicated that to successfully implement some of the proposals they will need to look to reprioritise funding from other areas. If funding can not be re-prioritised … then this may result in pressure on services and service delivery may be affected.” I am sure that none of us would like to see service delivery affected for victims of crime. It specifically identifies two of the provisions in this part as being within that category of the need to ensure there is adequate funding. That is the automatic access of victims of child and youth offenders to the Youth Court and also the proposals around victim impact statements in both the adult and youth jurisdictions. So I understand that the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice did comment on that but I would just like to ask him whether he would just really like tocomment in a little more detail given the very clear concerns that were flagged up around this issue in the regulatory impact statement. So in concluding on Part 2 I will leave it there.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I would very much like to hear Raymond Huo.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you—Carol Beaumont: Excellent decision.RAYMOND HUO: Excellent decision—thank you very much Mr Chair. Much has been said about the issues the problems and the situations that victims often find themselves in under the existing legal regime. Victims feel marginalised by the court system and their anguish is often exacerbated by the justice process and the adversarial criminal justice system. Our adversarial criminal system is bipartite and it attempts to recognise only the accused and the prosecution. Victims often feel marginalised and it is not fair to the victims and their families.Part 2 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill concerns amendments to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. The Law Society in its submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee raised concerns about the move to allow children’s pictures in court saying that young victims should be protected from the judicial process. The proposals of this bill would enable the families of murder victims to attach photographs of their loved ones to statements presented to juries and allow child victims to show their drawings to the court.The Law Society in its submission supported the move in the legislation to give adult victims the right to read their statements in court but its family law section chair told the Justice and Electoral Committee that the children who have been victims of crime should not be subjected further to the court process. He said he could not think the move to have them directly involved in impact statements would be an advancement for children’s rights.Talking about the impact statement the Chief Judges of both the High Court and the District Court expressed their concerns in their short but powerful submissions to the select committee. They are concerned that the proposed new section 17AB inserted by clause 11 enlarges the purposes of the victim impact statements. That particular section is in Part 1 but the judges’ views are valid in terms of Part 2 as well. At present section 17 of the Victims’ Rights Act limits those purposes to informing the court about the effect of the offending upon the victim which is information the court must take into account when sentencing an offender. But the proposal under this bill—especially pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 2002—would create a certain kind of expectation on the part of the victims which the court has no capacity to meet. So that was the reason the judges expressed in their submissions—that it would create a kind of expectation that the court has no capacity to meet and that it would create a further confusion that could well be understood as entitling the victim to express his or her view about an appropriate sentence for that offending.But under the Sentencing Act there is no provision that enables the court to take into account the victim’s views about an appropriate sentence and indeed to do so would conflict with one of the underlying principles of sentencing—that similar offenders should receive similar sentences for similar offending in similar circumstances. So perhaps the most difficult but arguably the most important is the balancing exercise where all aspects of the issues the interests and the concerns of the concerned parties should be identified acknowledged and balanced.Also another concern expressed by the judges is related to new section 22 inserted by clause 15 because it would create a new right for victims. That particular provisioncreates a new right for victims of a specified offence to read his or her statement in court unless the judicial officer considers it inappropriate to do so because of the existence of one of the conditions set out in section 22(2).In cases where there are many victims of specified offences and many victims they believed that a judge would be reluctant to pick and choose between the victim impact statements to settle upon those to be read. The regulatory impact statement given in connection with the revised victims’ policy did not in itself quantify the likely additional demands upon the court system. But in the judges’ view that will be significant.As I said the Chief High Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge both expressed concerns in their submissions that it would be difficult for a judiciary officer to impose time limits on a victim reading a statement. They would be very unwilling to interrupt a victim to avoid causing the victim further upset. They also noted that when there are many victims in a case as I said previously the judge would be reluctant to pick and choose and the likely outcome would be all victims giving a statement. This of course would add considerably to the length of time that sentencing takes in the courts. The judges believed that additional demands on the court system would be significant. They said that the Victims of Crime Reform Bill could create expectations that a victim could express a view on sentencing that is not provided for in our law.There is a genuine concern and that concern relates to a certain kind of issue of how to strike a balance—on the one hand the victims’ concerns and anguish are genuine and on the other hand the views expressed by the judges and the other submitters are valid. Thank you.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill because this is the bit that tries to align the Victims’ Rights Act with the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. So this is the part of the bill that tries to capture the answers to the problem that victims’ rights in the adult criminal jurisdiction are different from those applied in the youth justice jurisdiction. That is—or was—a problem and this part is the remedy. We support this part as we have supported Part 1 of the bill as well but there are a couple of things that I wanted to draw attention to in particular.First it has been noted and I do not wish to labour the point unduly but given that this was reported back 2 years ago those of us who have found ourselves as I have on the Justice and Electoral Committee for only a comparatively short time—since the end of last year—have not been privy to the submissions because the report was presented on 27 June 2012. That means that going back and trying to capture the sense of what were the top-of-mind concerns for the submitters has been quite difficult. But I am going to refer to the regulatory impact statement in some detail. In the regulatory impact statement on page 14 it said that the current situation is that “the Victims’ Rights Act gives little guidance as to how its various provisions apply to the processes in the Youth Courts to deal with offending by children and young persons.” And so there was this disjunction there was this gap between the treatment of victims in the adult criminal jurisdiction and the treatment of victims of crimes committed by youth offenders and children. So as a result of that disjunction there was some confusion about the application of the Victims’ Rights Act to the particular circumstances that apply in the youth justice jurisdiction.This bill is a good answer to that question. This is a reasonable remedy to that problem. It essentially means that victims should have the right to attend Youth Court hearings. It says that victims of children and young people—that is victims of crimes committed by children and young people—should also be able to provide a victim impact statement to the judge as is provided for in the criminal jurisdictions of the HighCourt and District Court. Amendments are made to clarify the application of the Victims’ Rights Act in the youth jurisdiction. This is particularly found in clause 39 in Part 2 where schedule 1 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act is amended. It is amended by inserting the relevant bits of the Victims’ Rights Act tailored for this circumstance. So for example it says that the definition of a “victim” also includes “a person who through or by means of an offence committed by a child or young person suffers any form of emotional harm;”. It goes on simply to align those provisions in the Victims’ Rights Act—which this bill also amends because it is an omnibus bill—with the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act.People have talked previously in this debate about the relevance and the purpose and the usefulness of children being able to demonstrate through pictures or drawings or some other mode of communication the impact of a crime upon themselves or of witnessing a crime. This does allow those voices to be heard in the children’s and young persons’ jurisdiction. That has got to be an improvement. We are aware that the bill itself amends four pieces of legislation: the Victims’ Rights Act; the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act; the Parole Act; and the Sentencing Act. By making sure we have some commonality between those four amended pieces of legislation we really are moving towards something that is consistent in its approach recognises the impact on victims recognises the rights of victims whatever their age—in this case whether they are the victims of offences committed by children or young people—and allows them the right to be heard and to have their voice heard in proceedings in the children’s and young persons’ jurisdiction. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins and the following amendments in her name to Part 2 be agreed to:in clause 33 replace “section 2A” with “section 2B”; andin new section 3A(f)(iii) inserted by clause 39 replace “section 2A” with “section 2B”.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Part 3 Amendments to Parole Act 2002Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Part 3 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill is a very straightforward part so I want to take only a rather brief call on it. It is an important change. It ensures that victims are informed about an offender being considered for release on parole and that victims are well informed about how they can participate effectively in the parole hearing process. Actually these were rights that were originally in the Parole Act but were inadvertently removed in the Parole Amendment Act 2007. It is a pity that no one on either side of the House picked it up at that point. So it remedies a gap. There are a couple of things to be said about that. A number of members in the last month have sat in on parole hearings. It is a rather unusual right for anybody who is not connected with the offender to be able to do that but I think those of us who sat in on those hearings gained a much greater appreciation of how the parole hearings work and the consideration given by the Parole Board before an offender is released. I think that for many of us it was quite reassuring to see how that process worked and the common sense of the justices and the laypeople who serve on the Parole Board.One of the interesting factors about this is that only about 7 percent of all victims actually apply to make submissions on whether the offender should be given parole. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice would like to suggest why he thinks that level of participation by victims in parole hearings is as lowas it is because one would think that the release of the person who offended against you in a serious way was an important factor in your life and maybe there are still obstacles that discourage victims from participating in the process. Alternatively I guess Minister you could say that a lot of victims just want to put this behind them and perhaps do not want to berevictimised by the process of sitting—although they do not actually sit in on the parole hearing but they are heard by the Parole Board. It seems to me that that is quite an important right. I would like some assurances that the system is good enough to ensure that all relevant victims are informed about their ability to do that.The other thing Minister that I think is really important because this bill has been around for so long—coming up for 3 years now—is whether this bill is consistent with another piece of legislation before the House which has gone to a different committee and that is the Parole Amendment Bill which is currently before the Law and Order Committee. I wonder whether the Ministry of Justice officials—and I presume that they have but because this is to repair a stuff-up that was made because officials and members of the House did not pick up a past inadequacy—have carefully gone through the provisions of this bill to see that they are consistent with the Parole Amendment Bill which is before the Law and Order Committee and vice versa. I think it is really important that there is that coordination and we have that assurance; otherwise we may be back here in another 12 months because we are repairing something that officials had overlooked and members of the Committee had not picked up on.So those are the two major issues. It is about the low level of participation of victims in parole hearings—having their voice heard by the Parole Board—and whether the Minister is absolutely convinced that victims are fully informed about their ability to participate in the process and that they know for example that if they want to participate in this process they do not have to go face to face with the offender which most do not want to do and know that they also do not have to go to the prison in order to be heard by the Parole Board. The Parole Board in normal circumstances will meet the victims outside the prison environment. So I think the Parole Board is doing a really good job. In fact Minister you mentioned the Sensible Sentencing Trust and its failure to follow up on the offer to sit in on restorative processes but even the Sensible Sentencing Trust with its sometimes rather extreme views acknowledged that the Parole Board under JusticeGendall now and under his predecessor Justice Carruthers is making a real effort to make sure that the victims feel comfortable with the process and that they are treated with respect. I think that is worth putting on the record of the Committee—that our Parole Board is acting effectively in that way. I think members on all sides of the Chamber would be pleased to know that the Parole Board which quite often comes under a lot of flak because occasionally being human its members get things wrong consistently has been regarded as doing its job conscientiously and taking into account the concerns and the feelings of the victims that it is dealing with.So the two things again Minister just so you have got them clearly in your mind—just briefly—are these. First are we absolutely sure that this legislation is now consistent and vice versa with the Parole Amendment Bill which is before the Law and Order Committee but not yet reported back? Secondly is the Minister really assured that everything that can be done to make victims aware of the process and comfortable with the process is being done?The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Part 4 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): First of all I was very patient with the Associate Minister of Justice answering the questions in Part 2 of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. Unfortunately he neglected to take any call at all to answer the questions on Part 3. Maybe that is because he did not feel he had enough time to do so. So perhaps you would give him the latitude Mr Chairman to enable him to answer the two very clear questions which I think I repeated several times in Part 3 of the bill. So you have not missed out Minister. There is still the chance to come back and answer a couple of questions which I am sure members of your own party would like to hear the answers to just as much as members on this side of the Chamber would. So talk to your officials if you do not know what is going on because you are not the Minister and the real Minister ain’t here and we all know why she ain’t here—The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: Just in passing Mr Chairman.The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No. Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: Just in passing. Can I come to Part 4 of the bill which is “Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002”. Again the amendments that are proposed in Part 4 are I think sensible. They enable victims to be compensated by losses not covered by the Accident Compensation Corporation and we would expect that to be the case. They provide more opportunities for victims to participate in the restorative justice process.The interesting thing about this is that the Minister said earlier that restorative justice works and it improves outcomes—I think Minister you said in 37 percent of the cases. Restorative justice which was in the Victims’ Rights Act which I pushed through the House in 2002 is a good process but again for it to work it needs to be properly resourced. It is not something we force on the victim. It is entirely in accord with the wishes of the victim. If the victim wishes to have a process they should be able to. This is about the victim’s choice. If they do not wish to have that process then that should be up to them. They should not be under any pressure to become involved in a restorative process. But if the evidence is that we are getting positive outcomes and it does provide choices for victims I do want to be reassured that the resourcing is in place for the restorative justice process because again if I look at the regulatory impact statement it says that the current service provision is limited so the court can be required to refer cases only where the services are available. So perhaps the Minister could tell us in what percentage of cases the services are available and in what percentage of the cases the victim actually badly wants a restorative process but because of under-resourcing that victim cannot go through the process.Can the Minister please quantify when the restorative process will be available to a victim who very much wishes to participate in it and when it will not be available? And if the percentage of cases where the process will not be available is quite high which I suspect to be the case what is the Minister going to do to ensure that the resourcing is made available so that the victim’s right—in this case once again it is not a theoretical right but a right that can actually be put in place because the resources are there to allow it to happen? Minister you have been involved in the court process; you know that this is really important. So we need to know that this provision is not a theoretical provision that says “Wouldn’t it be nice for victims to be able to participate in restorative justice but very sad but never mind there are no resources to allow that to happen.” because that is clearly the warning that the regulatory impact statement gives this Committee. Again it is a vital question.I will keep talking for a bit longer just so the Minister can get the answer from officials. I appreciate that he wants to answer this as well as the questions—Hon Ruth Dyson: He’ll probably know it.Hon PHIL GOFF: Oh he might know it off the top of his head. Judith Collins would know but then Judith Collins is not available apparently to answer the questions and we know the reason for that.I listened carefully to the Minister’s partial answer to my question on an earlier clause in an earlier part of this bill and he talked about the offender levy being there to help out but all of us know that that offender levy is pretty limited. All of us know that the warning given by officials was “Hey we can’t do these things unless we reprioritise.”—that is take it from other areas. Again I would like the Minister to address this question of resourcing. Are the rights that we are promising victims sincerely—all of us in this Committee—going to simply lead to disappointed expectations because the resources are not there to allow restorative justice to happen? Perhaps the Minister could indicate in how many cases—[Bell rung] Oh well I will let the Minister answer now and if he does not answer it fully I can come back and ask him again.Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): It is encouraging to have this level of debate. I am sorry I did not get quickly enough off my butt to answer while we were discussing the previous part. The two questions were about the consistency between the bill currently before the Law and Order Committee the Parole Amendment Bill and this bill the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I can assure the member Phil Goff that there is no conflict between those two and we will not be running back like we did under all Governments—let us be honest here—and doing little tart-ups later on down the track. So consistency is there.The next question that the member asked was about why victims did not avail themselves of the opportunity to appear before parole hearings. He touched on one reason which was that frequently the victim just wanted to put things behind them and did not want to re-engage. The other part of it though is that a lot of the way that people reflect on the criminal justice system is from a position of ignorance. It is not their fault. I do not mean any malice by saying that. It is just that people watch a lot of TV and they expect that what they see before them in the little square box is similar to the reality of dealing with our criminal justice system and that just is not the case. To try to get around that with the implementation of the code that we have been talking about over the course of this evening all victims will be made aware and completely aware of what it will entail—for instance the ability to be able to take part in a parole hearing without having to be confronted by or sit in the same room as the defendant. The fact that they can do that remotely or that their evidence can be taken at a time that is much more convenient to them and put before the members of the parole board I think is a very very important thing.I must say that people whom I know who have appeared in front of a parole hearing and made submissions have actually found an incredible gathering of strength from that process. I can recall that one of my constituents came to me wanting my assistance when an offender who had tried to murder her was coming up for parole. Unfortunately although I was a member of Parliament I was also the investigating officer in charge of preparing that file for court so I was prevented from being able to go along and make submissions or make any representation.Hon Maryan Street: Do you spot a conflict of interest?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Yes we spied a conflict. What we managed to do then was draft a complete submission towards the Parole Board and one of the things that she asked for was the ability to be able to have a restorative justice conference with both offenders who had tried to kill her. What she found from that process was an incredible strengthening of her resolve and of her ability to be sure that she did not needto maintain any fear of these people and just the ability to be able to have her say. So I would encourage all victims to reflect on what they might gain from appearing before a Parole Board or any restorative justice process.The next question that the member asked was about resourcing and all I can really say there is that it is more good news. In our last Budget the Government doubled the amount of money available for restorative justice conferences made a priority of pre-sentence restorative justice conferencing and got contracts to make sure that every court in the country was covered by it so any victim of a crime right around New Zealand would now have the ability to access restorative justice conferencing without any cost to themselves. Also what we are extending which we have not really done so much in the past is restorative justice availability in prisons—so pre-release. Although that has been available on the request of the offender we are in a bit of a bind here because you cannot drag the offender into a restorative justice conference and make him—usually him—sit there. In fact there has to be an agreement from both parties to be able to do that. So the offender may well request a restorative justice conference but the victim might not want it so it does not take place and vice versa. The victim may well want to have a restorative justice conference but the offender may not want that to take place.There are some places within prisons where it has occurred through the provision of the Sycamore Tree project which made restorative justice available to people in prisons on a purely voluntary basis and provided by prison fellowship. Here if the victim of the offender was not prepared to take part in the restorative justice conference then a victim of a similar crime—a surrogate in effect—who was happy to appear before the conference would explain to the offender the similarities of the crime the way that he or she felt having been abused etc. etc. There has been some good that has come from that albeit it is not the actual victim and obviously there are times when it cannot be the actual victim.So yes I can assure the Hon Phil Goff that there is consistency between the two bills as he sought. I have explained why some victims do not want to appear before Parole Boards but encourage them to do so because it may well be to their benefit. I can assure him that there is sufficient resourcing for the extension of restorative justice conferencing which is now available for the first time throughout New Zealand in every court.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I would just like to put on record as I have on a previous piece of legislation my thanks to the Associate Minister of Justice the Hon Chester Borrows for actually taking seriously his responsibilities in the chair. That is a refreshing change from most other Ministers and certainly the Minister of Justice. I think his credentials for becoming Minister of Justice—a position for which there will soon be a vacancy—are getting better all the time. But I say very sincerely thank you for that.There is just one thing arising out of that that I need a little bit of clarification on. I am aware that there is another I think $2.3 million that has gone into restorative justice. Nevertheless the regulatory impact statement on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill still talked about the service provision being limited. Maybe that is because that regulatory impact statement is so old—because this bill has been around for so long and it does not take into account the money that went through in the last Budget—but the impression that I have got from talking to people who work in the justice system is that nevertheless it still helps it is good but it is not sufficient. Again the thing that I guess I am asking the Minister—I require a very brief answer from him—is whether the assurance he is giving the Committee is that with the extension of this any victim in any part of the country has a good prospect of being able to have a restorative justicesession if that victim chooses it. Although there is extra money there it seems to me that there is still a shortfall in the funding that is necessary for this system to work better. If the results are as the Minister has said—you know 37 percent better outcomes—then surely we would want this to be a universal service. I just need to get clarification about that one small point. Yes there is more money but is there still a significant shortfall that means that many people seeking a restorative justice process may be declined for it?Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): Yes I can assure the member that the regulatory impact statement was written well before the changes in the last Budget when the budget was increased. Restorative justice conferencing is now universally available across the country. It is expected that there will be an uptake in restorative justice conferencing as a result of the passing of the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. From a briefing I had only a matter of a couple of hours ago there has been a huge decline in restorative justice conferencing mainly because there has been a huge decline in crime and a huge decline in people appearing before the court. There are fewer people seeking restorative justice conferences and so there is a pool of money there available at the moment that is not being accessed and will be available.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 424 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 4) the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2)pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 425.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): It is a night for it. This is Part 1 and the most important clause in Part 1 is the purpose clause 3 which acknowledges the ongoing serious effects of serious violent offending for victims and of course everybody in the House would acknowledge that as a matter that we need to address. Secondly it empowers the court on an application by the victim to make a non-contact order prohibiting the offender from having any form of contact with the victim. Both of those goals are worthy of support and the Labour Opposition has supported the first reading of the Victim’s Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. But in the first readingof the bill we made it very clear that there were some fundamental flaws in the bill that needed to be addressed by the Law and Order Committee.The first flaw was a huge flaw. It said that you could make an application for a non-contact order as long as the person who had for example raped you had been sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment or more. If however that person had been sentenced to only 4½ years’ imprisonment you got no protection under this bill. Mr Chairman you are the member of Parliament for Invercargill so you will be familiar with the case that led to this legislation being introduced. It is worth mentioning to the Committee that the gap in the system was highlighted by the case of an unfortunate young woman who had been raped and the offender had been sentenced. The offender had been sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment. That offender having served the period of the prison sentence he was required to then moved in next door to his victim. Can you imagine how that young woman felt about that—to wake up every morning knowing that you are likely to confront in the street outside your own home the person who had been jailed for raping you? That was not a fair go and there was nothing that that woman could do about the situation that she was placed in. There was a clear gap in the system.I asked in the first reading and raised in the select committee—and I think Kate Wilkinson raised the same question actually in the first reading—the question of why there should ever be a threshold set at 5 years. Where did the figure come from? I suspected that it was an arbitrary figure and I think the evidence is that it was totally arbitrary. Then the select committee listening to the submission that Labour made on this said: “OK let’s lower it to 3 years”. I said “Three years fine. Where does that figure come from?” and there was no answer. That too was an arbitrary figure.Thinking back to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act which I had been Minister of Justice for in 2002 I thought that well in the Parole Act there is a threshold level of 2 years that differentiates a less serious from a more serious offence. How does it differentiate it? For example if the sentence is more than 2 years the person will then come before the Parole Board before they can be released. There was a threshold that was already established in law. If you are sentenced to more than 2 years you are likely to be on the victim notification register. So it seemed to the Labour Party that we needed a threshold of 2 years not 5 years. The Minister of Justice who introduced this bill was saying that 5 years was going to solve it. The rhetoric was flourishing in the House about how important this was but when the Minister was confronted with the fact that the legislation did not help the very person whose case had sparked the need for the legislation basically she had nowhere to go.So I am happy to report back to the Committee that what we did in the select committee on the instigation of the Labour Party in reducing that threshold to 2 years makes a big change. The size of the change can be seen from the information that we elicited on it. At a threshold of 5 years this non-contact order was estimated to affect 10 people a year—10 people a year. I do not have the figures for the number of people who have been the victim of sexual violation each year but it would run into the hundreds or maybe even more—maybe into the thousands. The legislation as the National Government introduced it was plainly inadequate but that aspect of the legislation has now been repaired in the bill as reported back. To that extent this is a better piece of legislation. It was a victory for the Labour Party but most important it was a victory for common sense.The second thing that we were concerned about with the bill as introduced by the Minister was that you could not apply for a non-contact order until after the inmate had finished his or her sentence and had been released. Before the select committee we heard evidence from people who had been victims of efforts by the offender to contact them from within the prison walls. Minister Borrows the Department of Correctionsshould have dealt with that—it should have dealt with that—but this bill would have provided another protection if a non-contact order had been available for the victim. But even more important there was clearly the difficulty that when the person was released and before the victim could get a non-contact order there was going to be a space of time when the victim might be confronted with that offender either close to where he or she lived or where he or she worked.It made sense to us in the Labour Party that the non-contact order should be available not from the time of the release of the inmate into the community but from the time of sentencing the inmate to the prison sentence in the first instance. Again it was a victory for Labour and a victory for common sense that we were able to get that change. So in two really important ways this legislation as reported back to the House has been strengthened and it better meets the purpose set out in clause 3 of this bill.On the third issue I have got to give some credit for it to the New Zealand First Party as well as the Labour Party. That is the question of where the offender used a surrogate to apply pressure to his victim—where the offender approached a third party and said “I want you to contact this woman and say such and such.” We needed to have a way in which a non-contact order could be made to apply in those circumstances to a third party. You have to be careful in the way that you do that and we have set certain standards that have to be reached before a non-contact order can be applied. One is that the offender must have asked the third party to take this action involving the victim; secondly the third party must have acted on that instruction or request; and thirdly that must have affected in a negative way the victim and you could well see why it would affect the victim negatively. So the third change we were able to get was that a non-contact order can apply to a third party and that is also sensible.The last point that I really want to make is on the question that still worries me a little. It is that to get a non-contact order the victim has to file an application in the civil court. What worried me—and I know that when Andrew Little spoke on this at the introduction he expressed concern about it as well—is what cost does that impose on the victim that might be unfair? Will there for example be a filing fee for a non-contact order? That is a question that perhaps you could just clarify Minister Borrows. I do not think we have had an answer on that. If you could get an answer from the officials that would be very helpful.The second question is whether the victim will have to secure the services of a lawyer in order to get the non-contact order. We were told that basically the victim could file that order themselves but there may be cases in which legal assistance would be necessary. If that is the case Minister my second question is this. Will there be legal aid available to the victim in every case in order to secure necessary protection through a non-contact order? Or will there be cases where the victim—usually herself—has to go to some expense in order to get protection against the offender? I think it is really important that we try to eliminate costs that might be imposed on the victim. The victim did not ask to be a victim. This is a way of providing protection for the victim but I would hate to think that there were victims who were discouraged from seeking a non-contact order because there were financial barriers in the way of their getting that assistance. I hope you have got both of those questions Minister. I know that in the last bill you made a real effort to answer those questions and I would appreciate you addressing those two questions.I want to finish with this. This bill is a better bill because the proposals made by the Labour Party were adopted by the select committee. I thank the select committee for agreeing to that. I even thank the Minister for agreeing to that.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): This Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is one of a number of moves needed to improve the rights of victims and to support them where they have been subjected to violence. Fear and anxiety about unwanted contact with the offender can be as bad as the offence itself and can impair the recovery and ability to enjoy a normal life. In this Part 1 debate I wish to comment only briefly on clause 5. Clause 5 defines a violent offender as a person who “has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years …”. In the bill as introduced this was 5 years or more and we regarded that as narrowing the field down far too much. I think that is what other parties have concluded as well. Instead of requiring sentencing to a period of 5 years or more I suggested at that stage that it would be more appropriate instead to require sentencing only of offences punishable by 5 years’ imprisonment or more. That would have broadened the scope of legislation to capture offenders whose sentences were less than 5 years but who had committed an offence serious enough to enable a court to sentence them for 5 years or more.The Law and Order Committee has now instead amended the definition to “more than 2 years”. That of course is the other way that would substantially widen the offences to which the section would be applicable. I agree with what the Hon Phil Goff said about that. The offences to which it would have applied were far too few; the scope was far too narrow. What is being done now although my own suggestion was not adopted is sensible and acceptable to New Zealand First. After all if the offence was so serious as to attract a significant imprisonment term at all then the victim should be able to use this new law. It is another step forward for victims and it deserves our full support. We support what is being done. Even though it was not New Zealand First’s own particular suggestion that was adopted it has the same effect and therefore we feel able to support that particular provision in Part 1 which we had been previously concerned about.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill aims to stop violent and sexual offenders from living and working near their victims. The change has been prompted by a specific case where an offender who was jailed for rape in 2004 lived upon his release in 2011 next door to his victim. Police at that time had no power to force him to move away. So there is obviously a gap in the protection available to victims of serious violent and sexual crime.I would like to take this opportunity to thank the submitters and I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the concerns raised by the National Council of Women of New Zealand. In its submission it expressed concerns that the reference to physical injury was too narrow. It was suggested that the definition should include references to suffering mental torment torture mental and psychological harm emotional injury and traumatic stress. It is also suggested that the definition should include close family members of the victim if they have suffered physiological or psychological trauma because of the violence suffered by the direct victim.A number of the submitters raised very valid points and also questioned the bill being limited to violent offences that incurred a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more. As stated by the Hon Phil Goff in his earlier contributions that has been reduced to 2 years by the Law and Order Committee. I commend the select committee for listening to the victims and listening to the submitters. Some respondents from Rural Women New Zealand were concerned that in rural semi-rural or smaller urban areas it is not always practical for the order to be made available to the police station nearest to where the victim resides.The Law Society also recommended a number of minor changes to the proposals in this bill. The first was that the term “violent offence” as defined in clause 4 and as usedthroughout the bill should be replaced with the term “serious violent offence” as that term is used in section 86A of the Sentencing Act 2002 and is identically defined. Secondly clause 17 requires information on non-contact orders including the making varying and discharging of a non-contact order to be made available to the police. Clause 17(3)(c) allows for the order to be sent by ordinary post. Given the important consequences that can flow from the breach of an order a more reliable method of informing police should be used. The Law Society believed that the mechanisms in paragraphs (a) and (b) seemed appropriate but that if the postal service was to be used then the documents should be sent by a traceable method. Thank you.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I take a short call on the first part of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. Every now and then we pass pieces of legislation here that have the potential to have a really dramatic and worthwhile impact on people’s lives. I just want to go back to the original purpose of the bill as was stated in I think the Bills Digest actually. The essential purpose was that the bill “provides that a victim may apply to a District Court for a non-contact order in respect of a violent offender and that an application may be made at any time after the offender is released from prison. However a victim may not apply for a non-contact order if there is in force a protection order against the offender under the Domestic Violence Act … or a restraining order against the offender under the Harassment Act …”. This really touches on the lives of many women and I just want to draw the Committee’s attention to them for a moment.In Nelson we have seen an increase in the instances of violent crime. In the latest statistics that were released recently there was much cause for celebration as crime statistics were going down but not sexual or violent offending statistics. Whether that is a function of more women being prepared to report violent crimes against them and sexual offences against them whether it is in fact a greater level of assiduousness on the part of the police who are very committed to bringing perpetrators of sexual and violent offences to book or whether it is that there are indeed more offences occurring and there is more crime in this area nobody is entirely sure. So out of those three possible reasons nobody has sufficient evidence to say which is the dominant contributing factor. Are more crimes happening are we reporting them more or are the police better at dealing with and resolving these crimes?I think the prospect of having somebody who has violently and sexually assaulted a person be released from prison and wash up in close proximity either to where the victim works or lives is arevictimising of the victim. Hopefully and I believe that it will this bill will address that issue and will give—and it is women I think of in particular. Before anybody gets up and says that males are victims too I know that but predominantly it is women. And to the women whom I talk to who work with women’s centres sexual abuse counselling services Rape Crisis and all of those chronically underfunded bodies that are out there in the community trying to assist women to cobble together again the fractured parts of their lives I want to say that this bill will help; it will provide some protection from therevictimising that can happen in these instances. The case in Invercargill has been the one that has had attention drawn to it in particular but it is not the only one. Sometimes it does take a ghastly case of that nature before Parliament moves to take action and repair the wrong and fill the gap that exists in the legislation and the legislation’s authority.One of the things that I particularly approve of in this bill—I was not a member of the Law and Order Committee which this bill came to and nor did I hear the submissions—but one of the things that I think is a positive outcome is that “victim” is defined in a way that I trust is consistent with legislation we have been debating just in the last hour and a half. The victim is a person against whom a violent offence iscommitted by another person is a parent or legal guardian of a child or a young person who has had an offence committed against them or is a member of the immediate family of a person who has had that violence perpetrated upon them. There is a caveat in that definition of course that says that obviously if the parent legal guardian or family member is in fact the one charged with such offences then clearly they are not the victim in this instance. But it is good to see that there is a recognition that the shock waves of these sorts of crimes go through families and remain in place for a long time. And it takes a long time to recover to regain and repair a fractured life and to begin to approach the world again as a whole person. Having family and the impact on them recognised as well—with the proviso of course that they are not the perpetrators—is a useful supportive device.I will take another call later on other parts of the bill but as far as Part 1 up to the end of clause 6 is concerned I think those are the most significant points. Thank you.Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice): I would like to congratulate the way the Law and Order Committee and speakers have engaged in this debate and have moved the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill through the process of the select committee. Comments made earlier by the Hon Phil Goff that indicated that both sides of the House—he singled out the Hon Kate Wilkinson as somebody who had been part of it. It is great to see that sort of across-House debate.I guess that as much as I endorse fully the comments of the previous speaker the Hon Maryan Street I think it is important to acknowledge that there is a whole swathe of victims who will not be covered by this legislation here. What we know is that only about one in 10—and I would sort of tag on to the back of that “if that”—female rape victims report a rape and what we know is that only about 33 percent of all rapes taken to court actually result in a conviction. So if we accept those rules of thumb—and I think we are probably being generous in the amount being reported—only about 0.3 percent of those people who are victims of rape those female victims of rape will actually be covered by this piece of legislation. So the challenge before this House is to have a reporting system an investigation system a prosecution system and a sentencing system that actually encourage people to report crime because it is specifically these matters that very rarely get reported.It would be interesting to know—and I do not know of any work that has been done on it—how many rape victims who having reported the rape against them to the police and having gone through this process actually would ever go on to report a second rape. I know a lot of rape victims and I cannot think of any who having been through the process said that they would go through the process a second time.I want to just also explain to the Committee or acknowledge the hell of a long way we have come in respect of the investigation and the reporting and so forth of rape crime. When I first became a detective I was operating under the old detectives manual. The Committee would be absolutely astonished at the advice it gave to young detectives in those days about being very suspicious about females who complain of rape and that they largely put themselves in a position where it is brought upon them by the clothing they wear or where they are late at night and all those sorts of things. That was not rewritten till 1985. Prior to 1985 it was not an offence to rape your wife for instance. Prior to 1985 what we would call rape with an implement was only an indecent assault and did not even amount to a sexual violation. That offence came into force only in 1985.I remember investigating a rape in Nelson in about 1980 I guess—and this goes back to the comment made by the Hon Phil Goff and thankfully I do not think this would ever happen today. Two young men had given a girl a ride home from a party. She was the worse for alcohol and probably so were they. They drove her up the Maitai Valley.They both raped her twice. I remember the case well because I got in trouble for unlawful detection and made a bit of case law—if you ever want go and have a look at it. In any event we arrested the two men. One of them got 3 years’ imprisonment for rape and one of them got 9 months’ periodic detention for rape. Thankfully we see now that there is pretty much a minimum tariff for rape of about 8 years and a 20-year maximum so I do not think you would ever find somebody convicted of rape getting a 2-year sentence these days let alone a 5-year sentence. I would like to think so in any event.So I just acknowledge that it was important to move that threshold down to 2 years. Also the change that was made so that the application can be made on sentence or any time after sentence rather than release is important. But again I just acknowledge that there are a whole lot of victims here who will not be captured by this because there was not a conviction there was not even a report and in male rape I suggest that the figures are even less than 1 in 10.It is important that the protection was extended to surrogates because people who are involved in family violence crimes against family members and particularly sexual crimes are in a class of people who are very good at manipulation. They are also very good at getting people to do things for them and that would include using surrogates to contact victims.There were a couple of points that were raised by the Hon Phil Goff. One of them related to whether there was going to be a filing fee in respect of this. I can assure the Committee that the District Courts Fees Regulations 2009 will be amended to ensure that there is no filing fee. What does filing entail? Filing entails filling in a form similar to what we do now in an application for a protection order. Most people would be able to do it without legal advice. If there was a need for legal advice an application for legal aid could be made in any particular way but I would suggest that people—friends and supporters of a victim agencies such as Women’s Refuge or Victim Support or the police themselves—would be in a position to be able to assist anybody filling in the forms which would amount to making an application under this legislation. Legal aid could be available if that was required in the normal circumstances. In any event making or filing an application amounts to completing a form. I know that some forms can be relatively complicated but I also am sure that those people who need to fill in that form would be able to do so with the assistance of the agency if they chose to do that their friends or supporters or the people who are behind the court counter ready to receive the application.The point was made by the member Raymond Huo about whether these services were available around the country and whether for instance the police would be able to access an order once it was made. The way in which the police are currently resourced particularly electronically would mean that a simple check on the name of either the offender or the victim would be able to easily identify whether there was such an order in place.I just want to reassure the Committee given the comments and the questions that were raised that I believe that the bill goes a long way towards settling a number of issues. An aside was made by the member about the resources of Women’s Refuge. I understand the challenges of resourcing these social agencies but in the end we are talking about filling in a form. I do not think that that would suck up a whole lot of resource from an agency charged with and taking on the vocation of helping and supporting the needs of vulnerable people. I will leave it there but I hope that I have covered the questions outlined by those.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I cannot help but rise in response to the Associate Minister of Justice’s speech. Thank you Minister for acknowledging thevery low conviction rate we have for sexual violence in New Zealand. I would like to acknowledge that it is the most conversational I have seen the Committee and I think it is the character of the Minister in the chair and I appreciate it.Hon Phil Goff: He’d make a good Minister of Justice wouldn’t he?JAN LOGIE: Yes he would.Hon Phil Goff: And he could recognise a conflict of interest and be honest about it.JAN LOGIE: Well I am not going to go there Mr Goff. I am going to stick to the positive issues at the moment. I do want to acknowledge the Minister for acknowledging that low conviction rate and the low reporting rate. I want to pick up on that point and recognise that this bill is part of a much wider piece of work and thinking which we need to be doing as a country in terms of what we need to do to improve reporting rates and disclosure rates.I would note the Law Commission’s work which hundreds of New Zealanders submitted on on this very point around how we could change our pre-trial systems and trial systems to improve the conviction rate—and my utter utter disappointment in that being taken off the work agenda for the Law Commission before it was able to be completed and after hundreds of New Zealanders had submitted ideas. There were very high levels of agreement around some of the points and recommendations within that report—for example having the victims’ support workers being available to victims when they first disclose at the police station rather than just on the day of the trial and to have advice and to have an agency brought in so that a victim is aware of their options at that first stage. There is a whole range of things in that commission report that would provide us with a pathway to improving those reporting rates. When we are looking only at answers like the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill which are important but are after the fact I think we are not doing our best.I think we can certainly do a lot better and we have been hearing through the Inquiry into the Funding of Specialist Sexual Violence Social Services which again I thank all parties in this House for supporting. A number of those services have been bringing up concerns regarding the justice process. How harrowing that is the need for support systems and for them to be funded to walk through that process with survivors—they do not have that capacity at the moment—and to be able to be there with people afterwards. So we do have a lot of work to do in this country and this bill is a very small part of the puzzle. That is not to dismiss anything that is positive. We have got to support all of the positive initiatives but really it would be great to have a far more comprehensive view where we could all come together based on the best evidence and the community’s experiences and really really get a handle on changing our culture and making sure that all the victims and survivors are properly supported.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Non-contact ordersANDREW LITTLE (Labour): This Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill as other members have said in the earlier parts of the debate is a very important piece of legislation addressing yet another small but significant gap in the growing raft of protections that we have in place for victims of crime—in this case victims of very serious crimes. Indeed the cases where we know that this bill had it been in place earlier would have had some effect are harrowing and distressing cases. These are cases where an offender usuallysociopathological in nature not content with the violence they have inflicted upon their victim some time afterwards wants to carry on victimising the victim sheeting home the terror that they inflict upon them and continue to remain in contact or in close proximity to them. So this bill provides a very important device that will protect those victims in the way that we already haveprotection orders in domestic violence cases—for those who are victims of that type of offending.We should note that we still have issues with enforceability—the extent to which the protection orders are enforced the means we have to enforce them or at least the resources we have to enforce them. So we do not want to create another important device to protect victims that is found wanting not because of the device itself but because we simply do not have the means in our enforcement agencies to provide proper and adequate enforcement. So I make the plea to the Associate Minister of Justice that as he rises through the ranks of Cabinet and develops a louder voice beyond justice principles and into the allocation of resources he makes sure that the administrative and enforcement requirements of matters such as this are properly met through proper resource allocation and budgeting.Part 2 deals with the mechanics if you like of applying for an order that a victim can make against a violent offender under this bill and indeed the conditions or the contents of that order. There is a two-step phase if you like. A victim can apply for an order without notice and that can result in a temporary non-contact order and there are conditions associated with that which a judge can put into it. That of course needs to be eventually served upon the offender. Once an offender is aware of an application having been made that then becomes an on-notice application. When an order issues as a result of the on-notice application it becomes a final non-contact order. Again there can be conditions attached to it as indeed there should be. So that is all good. As my colleagues have said in the earlier part of this debate in this Committee stage of this bill we welcome that particular change. That is important.There is also scope added in by the Law and Order Committee for an order to be extended to other people—those who have aided and abetted the offender and those who have been party to the offence in some other sort of way. A victim who secures an order can have the order extended to those other people so that they can be afforded protection against all those who may have malicious intent against them. That provides a very well-rounded set of provisions for those orders. Amidst all the muttering on the Government benches at this highly animated time at the moment—there is clearly something going on that the thousands of people watching tonight will be interested to know and perhaps we will hear a bit about that. As we deal with this very important piece of legislation and as members on the opposite side of the Chamber are distracted by some activity going on in their quarter let us not understate as we develop our rubric—indeed our matrix—of victims’ rights and victims’ provisions just how important this will be.One of the important changes that I know was achieved in the select committee process was the threshold for the making of the order so that the conditions under which an order can be made are now set at a slightly lower threshold. The offender has to have been subject to a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more as opposed to 5 years as appeared in the original bill. So that starts to make it a little more meaningful. But I cannot go past the point that if the provisions are to be truly meaningful—just as we want with protection orders and other parts of not only our criminal jurisdiction but the civil jurisdiction of the family court legislation—they have to be enforced. Those who are protected by the laws need to know that there are the means that they can summon up at short notice to provide them with enforcement and therefore the protection that the order promises.On that basis these are welcome developments. The rest of Part 2 provides as you would expect for effective and sensible administrative procedures that allow for an amendment of the order or indeed a discharge of the order. We would hope that the nature of these orders and of proper enforcement is that victims get to a point wherethey are no longer fearful for their person and themselves that they themselves can take control that they can shed these orders under their control get on and pick up their lives put them back together and be happy.So this bill is welcome as I have said and I know that this Committee will be doing the right thing for those people who are affected always against their choice in this sort of way and who are subject to violent offending and who were it not for these orders could be re-victimised time and again. This is a good thing and I look forward to supporting it.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Denis O’Rourke.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): A very good choice Mr Chairman. Regarding Part 2 of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill I firstly want to comment on clause 7. As introduced this clause provided that a victim may apply to the District Court for a non-contact order in respect of a violent offender and that an application may be made at any time after the offender is released from prison. The requirement that an application must be made after the release of an offender from prison was of course too late. I said at the first reading that the victim should be able to apply for an order at any time after the conviction so that the court could make an order to have effect immediately as from the date of release. My concern then was that there was likely to be a significant delay between the victim learning of the offender’s release and the making of an order and its service upon the offender and that that would potentially be a period of high risk for the victim. That issue I am glad to see has been addressed by the Law and Order Committee and the amended clause is now acceptable to New Zealand First.Regarding clause 9 though I am disappointed that this has not been amended in the manner that I suggested at the first reading. In clause 9 subclause (1)(a) says that the court may make a non-contact order if it is satisfied that there are ongoing effects of the offending for the victim. But I question why the court would have to be satisfied that there are ongoing effects of the offending. What would the victim have to prove to satisfy that test? It would have been better I think for that paragraph to have been deleted altogether. Similarly subclause (1)(b) should also be deleted. It refers to the possibility of the contact between the offender and the victim being detrimental to any of the ongoing effects referred to in subclause (1)(a) which I have just mentioned. It should not be necessary for a victim to have to prove those things. Subclause (1)(c) and subclause (1)(d) are I believe sufficient by themselves. These provide that the order is reasonably necessary to avoid contact. I think that that is really what the issue is and that would be sufficient for the victim to have to establish.In my view this is the only notable defect in the bill. It is therefore as I have said a little bit disappointing that the amendments that I suggested were not made. Nobody whom I know of has come up with a good explanation about why ongoing effects will have to be proved or why they have to be shown to be detrimental. It is sufficient that the order is reasonably necessary. That is nice and wide and general and it is good enough for a victim to have to prove only that in whatever the circumstances may be. So I am a bit disappointed that those amendments have not been made but it does not detract from the value of the bill as a whole.Clause 11 sets out the effect of a non-contact order—now amended to temporary non-contact order—and it prohibits the offender against whom it is made from having any form of contact with the victim as we know. In addition the court may prohibit the offender from entering living in or working in a specified area. The concern I had was that subclause (1)(c) should be qualified by the addition of an exception as to the entry into an area that is incidental to or necessary for the purposes of the offender’semployment. Although we need to make an order effective we should also see that it does not unnecessarily cause problems for the offender in obtaining or maintaining their employment.Subclause (1)(c) I am glad to see has now been deleted and instead we now have new clause 11A entitled “Effect of final non-contact order” which is much more comprehensive and has more refined powers for the court to specify so that the effects of the order will be no more than needed to properly protect the victim. I am very glad to see that that has happened. Similarly new clause 11B is welcome. It deals with the need for a final order to be directed by the court to apply to specified other persons whom the offender may encourage to engage in the same kinds of behaviour as the offender’s. Again I am glad to see that included.Lastly concerning clause 15 I suggested at an earlier stage that the court should be required in this clause in considering whether a discharge of the order should be granted to consider some specified matters such as the record of the offender in complying with the order the behaviour of the victim also—which may of course also justify a discharge—and obviously the places where the victim and the offender live permanently amongst other things. I note that this clause has now been deleted and replaced with much more comprehensive provisions in the new clause 15 and that an additional clause clause 15A has been included to address the sorts of issues I had suggested be looked at.So again the amendments sought by New Zealand First have largely been included to our considerable satisfaction. For those reasons with the reservation I expressed earlier New Zealand First will be happy to continue to support the bill as amended.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Can I say that it is refreshingly honest of Minister Chester Borrows to acknowledge that although useful the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is relatively small in its effects and it does not tackle the wider and more serious underlying problems.I concur broadly with the figures that the Associate Minister of Justice used that showed that at best 10 percent of those who are victims of rape report the crime and that at best 3 percent of those who are victims of rape get accountability through a conviction in the courts. Actually the rape survivor groups say that the figure Minister is probably closer to 1 percent but let us say 1 percent to 3 percent. When only 1 percent to 3 percent of those who suffer as victims of a horrendous crime get accountability and get justice then it is time to change the underlying fundamentals of a justice system that is failing those who are such victims.I want to contrast Chester Borrows’ attitude with that of the Minister of Justice who wrote to me on 14 March. I have got the letter in my hand. I had raised—advocating on behalf of the rape survivor groups—that we actually need to take a more fundamental look at what is happening in the area of sexual offending. What I got was a reply that was full of excuses such as “We’re doing this minor thing we’re doing that minor thing and those bigger things that the Law Commission talked about they’re just too big and we can’t do it.” They are not too big. They are not too big when we are failing 99 percent of those who are victims of sexual offending. I just cannot wait for the day when maybe Mr Borrows is in the chair as Minister of Justice—perhaps as early as next week or the week after—Hon Maryan Street: Tomorrow.Hon PHIL GOFF: —maybe tomorrow judging from the activity on the other side of the Chamber—because I think he would at least take an honest view of it. It is refreshing to have that level of honesty where somebody can tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth which unfortunately is not a characteristic of the present Minister of Justice and hopefully she is the outgoing Minister.I want to look specifically at Part 2 of this bill. In Part 1 we addressed the fact that the major change that was necessary in this legislation was to have a threshold where a non-contact order could apply to those who had been sentenced to 2 years or more for their sexual offending as against the 5 years that Judith Collins introduced this bill with. That is the most significant and the most important change in the bill. Otherwise this bill would have dealt with 10 people a year when we are talking about literally thousands of victims. It was a nothing bill and the Labour Opposition supported by the other Opposition parties in the Law and Order Committee got that essential change to lower the threshold to 2 years.The other changes we got come within Part 2 of the bill which we are looking atat the moment. Under clause 7 the application for a non-contact order can be made not at any time after the offender has been released from prison but at any time after the offender has been sentenced in respect of the offence. That is the second most important change in this bill. It means that the victims can get that order from the time of sentencing before the offender has actually really got into the sentence in prison not after the offender is released with that gap after release and the threat the victim may feel from a person who ends up living near or working with them despite the fact that that person is the victim and the other person is the offender.The important thing in relation to these non-contact orders is that it does fill a gap. You cannot get a non-contact order if you are eligible for protection under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 as you can get a protection order under that Act. But again let us not pretend that a protection order means protection. We saw that in the tragic case down south where a maybe disturbed or angry person shot the two children of a woman who had a protection order against him. So a piece of paper does not actually necessarily provide real protection but it is a way of warning a person off. If we really want to solve this problem we have got to go much deeper than something as simple as that.The other order that is available is of course under the Harassment Act and that is a non-harassment order. That is available if the person is actively harassing the victim. There was this gap and the bill is at least successful in closing that gap. That does not mean to say that the non-contact order will be made automatically. Clause 9 of the bill sets out clearly that the court makes a non-contact order when certain conditions are met and I think they are reasonable conditions. There needs to be ongoing effects of the offending for the victim. That will not be a high threshold. For anybody who is a victim of sexual offence there will be ongoing effects. That is part of being a victim. So that threshold will be easily met.Clause 9 refers to the possibility of contact between the victim and the violent offender. Well of course that is necessary for the non-contact order to be given but there are cases—New Zealand is a small country—where the offender will end up living near to the victim or working close to where the victim is. In those cases the victim must be given a remedy that says to the offender: “You might be released from the prison. You might have done your time but the rights of the victim are still more important than the rights of the offender.” That is why these non-contact orders should be given.The making of the order must be reasonably necessary to avoid contact and must take into account all of the circumstances. All of that is common sense. The application can also be without notice if that is required and it is important that that sort of protection can be provided immediately if it is required and if the person had not taken the step of a non-contact order while the individual was still in prison. The other thing is that the duration of the order will go for whatever time the court orders unless the order is discharged or unless the court has set no time limit and 2 years have expired.So I think that the bill that we have got now is a useful piece of legislation. It does provide assistance to victims in a narrow set of circumstances but if you are the individual who is affected in that way—even if the figures are only in scores rather than hundreds—this bill is something that we should support because those people do deserve protection.I want to come back to where I began and that was to concur with the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice and say that it is time—and I have made this comment before—that we look at alternatives that work a lot better. I have been approached by rape survivor groups that say actually in some cases victims do not want a court process at all. They have no confidence in the court process. They do not necessarily want to see the offender locked up and the key thrown away. Often it is the case that they know the offender really well. They do not want a prison sentence. They do want a process where remorse can be shown or reparation or restitution offered—something that shows that the offender can be held accountable and that action can be taken against the offender that is meaningful to the victim.What I am saying to the Minister—and seeking his concurrence and the Committee’s—is that this bill is good in the very limited impact it will have but let us give the Law Commission proposals a chance. Let us look at the possibility of an inquisitorial system rather than an adversarial system. An adversarial system simply does not work in the area of sexual offending. Let us get even more serious about restorative justice and where the victim opts for that process let us make that process available. There would at least be some accountability in a situation where 99 percent of rape victims get no accountability at all.JAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to speak a little bit more around the non-contact orders. We do absolutely support the lowering of the level to the 2 years’ imprisonment as opposed to the 5 years as in this bill when it was introduced. I spoke in the earlier stage a little bit about some of the challenges that we have to make this more viable or useful for the majority of victims of sexual violence in New Zealand. I would like to just briefly go through some of the changes that were recommended in the Law Commission process so far that would help make that possible.In the Law Commission’s report—in what we have had so far from it—there were three proposals that received almost universal support. They were child protection orders a specialist sexual violence court at the point post-conviction and alternative processes for sexual offence cases which the Hon Phil Goff has just been talking on around restorative justice processes. Although the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice mentioned earlier some of the differences from the time when he was working as a police officer when the sentences were very low for sexual violence I personally still remember the public discussion we had at the time we raised the sentencing for rape. It was a very controversial decision and one that I actually think needs reviewing because it is acting—and we hear this back from people—as a disincentive for people entering the justice system. It is such a high level that people are going to be put away for that it is a disincentive to using the processes. Also we do need to acknowledge that the majority of offenders are known to their victims. They are family; they are family friends. The thought of sending somebody away to jail for a very long time is a disincentive to actually holding that person accountable and getting the response that most victims and survivors want which is having an acknowledgment of the crime and knowing that that person is not going to offend again and that others will be safe. Sadly we do not have that system yet. This bill deals only with those very rare cases where that conviction has happened and does put that measure in place but it is not enough.I would like to also just talk a little bit about how this may apply in a domestic violence situation and also acknowledge the extending of this out to what people are otherwise referring to as surrogates which is usually the harassment of a victim by family or friends of the perpetrator. That is a very real dynamic in domestic violence in this country and everywhere. When I was working in Women’s Refuge that was quite a common experience. We would be with a woman and she would be hiding because her abuser had friends and family out looking for her. It was not possible for her to feel safe walking in a public space because she never knew where they might be and whom she actually even needed to be looking out for. So it is very important that there is a provision in this bill to protect victims from harassment from other people when there is a concerted effort to harass them.But again we also need to be looking at how our court systems are working to support this kind of measure of protection. The reality is that a lot of our Family Court decisions at the moment are working against this level of protection. We do not have a system in place that understands and ensures in particular that the people involved in custody decisions through the Family Court actually understand domestic violence. I was at a seminar last week organised by the Family Violence Clearinghouse. They brought out a US expert Dr BobGeffner who is an expert in custody decisions where there are accusations of child abuse or domestic violence. He is well known over all of the literature. It was very disturbing to hear that in New Zealand we have been getting people who have been thoroughly discredited in the US and who are not allowed to give evidence in the courts there coming out to New Zealand and training people in our courts on matters relating to the supposed best interests of the children in custody decisions through our Family Court.We have no system of oversight to ensure that the counsel for the child the lawyers or the mediators in our systems actually understand domestic violence. Decisions are being made that are putting our children at risk and are taking children from situations of domestic violence where their mother usually has left the relationship and giving joint custody arrangements putting that woman and child at risk because they are having to negotiate shared custody in the context of a violent relationship. As a country we can put things like this in place but if we do not address the absolute fundamentals that underpin it all we are not going to get the result that I believe in and I am sure that everyone in this Chamber wants. We want women to be enabled to get out of violent relationships offenders to get the support and treatment they need to be able to change their beliefs and their attitudes and their behaviours and children to be given back to healthy parents and have hope for themselves of a healthy life free of violence and living up to their own potential. Sadly we do not have those systems in place as a country at the moment. This bill becomes just so piecemeal in that context.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Rising to speak on Part 2 of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill I join others in acknowledging that this is a small but significant step forward that does fill a gap. It will in part be recognising the ongoing effects of serious violent offending on victims by giving them the power to apply for a non-contact order. Part 2 of course is the part of the bill that actually puts that in place and provides the mechanisms and the substance to those provisions of non-contact orders.The non-contact order has been I think significantly improved by the work of the Law and Order Committee. Again as others have I want to acknowledge the fact that there is good cross-party support for this provision. It does I think reflect a concern that many have about the types of violence and intimidation that do exist and not solely but often are used against women. It has been good tonight to recognise across this Committee the understanding that there is about the problem of sexual violence—thefact that those who are victims and survivors of sexual violence often have extensive ongoing impacts of that violence that in fact as I described earlier this evening having listened to the submissions to the Social Services Committee inquiry have been described as a very traumatic ongoing series of impacts on health on the ability to form relationships and on a whole range of substantive issues. So this bill does provide assistance.I guess one concern that I do have and it is based on recent reflections on protection orders in domestic violence situations is that of course there does seem to be a concern about the enforceability but also the way that breaches of protection orders have been allowed to happen almost with impunity in some cases and we have seen some very significant consequences recently of that. So in establishing this new provision I think we do need to make sure that looking at non-contact orders what happens around breaching them and how that is actually implemented is going to be important for us. As others have said those non-contact orders can relate to the offender entering defined areas residing in specified areas and working in specified areas. Some of this is about the potential for psychological abuse not just physical abuse given the fact that somebody who has taken such a significant and abhorrent action against another person can then essentially put themselves in ongoing contact. So as I say that is good to see.I think that the reflection of others on what we really need for victims and better outcomes for victims and survivors of sexual violence is important particularly in terms of the criminal justice system. This bill is one small thing and the fact of the matter is we need a comprehensive look at this area for the reasons that have been articulated about the low level of convictions and the actual experience that victims of sexual violence face going through the court system and seeking justice. So although these orders are useful we should not kid ourselves that there is not a great deal more to do.I have to say that the current Minister of Justice—and we do not know how long she will stay in that role—has brushed aside suggestions of better legal responses to sexual violence. In the letter to the Hon Phil Goff she refers in fact to a bill that we dealt with earlier this evening the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. She talks about some of the provisions that are already in place and essentially says that some of the wider reforms that you might expect in this bill that we are dealing with tonight around these non-contact orders and the Law Commission’s report on alternative trial processes were all brushed aside.It is quite clear to those working in the area that there are a significant number of reforms that need to be made that will start to deal with some of the low conviction rates and also some of the brutalising experiences and difficulties that people face in trying to get justice in this area and there are particularities around sexual violence that make it difficult. There are evidential issues where there often are no other witnesses but there are things that can be done about that: prosecution guidelines about what needs to happen here better support in court and safety in court. Issues around court delays actually are a problem in this area as well because when it is a very emotionally intense process as it is in sexual violence trials delays can just really make it worse for that survivor. Another issue is the adversarial process itself which is really what the Law Commission deals with. The lack of boundaries and some of the behaviours of defence lawyers—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Victims of Crime Reform Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into four bills progress on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill and no progress on the Vulnerable Children Bill.Report adopted.Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m.(Thursday)