Volume 688 Week 37 - Wednesday 20 March 2013(continued on Thursday 21 March 2013) 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 688 Week 37 - Wednesday 20 March 2013(continued on Thursday 21 March 2013) 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8777. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 20 March 2013 
( 
continued on Thursday 21 March 2013 
) 
Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I seem to be the only one who is expressing such enthusiasm to speak on the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. I rise to share Labour’s support for this bill. I think it is a common-sense change that we will be debating at the Committee stage today. 
Just to refresh the memory of the Committee around the purpose of this bill it will amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 and it does so in order to simplify the arrangements for those who would be eligible for a living alone payment. Currently single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone are eligible for a supplementary benefit and I think that is common sense. Obviously the costs of being a single superannuitant—you do not get I guess the economies of scale you have when you are in a partnership. But those supplementary benefits are applied for separately and this bill instead of having that additional supplementary payment introduces a new single living alone rate for superannuitants and for veterans pensioners. It is also intended to remove the need to make a separate application for receiving the full entitlement. I think it is also important to point out that often those who are entitled to these single payments become entitled after the passing of a partner or a spouse or a loved one. Trying to simplify this process for them at that point I think is not only important but also common sense. There are some issues therefore around the transitional arrangements which I am sure members of this Committee might be interested in canvassing as we debate the individual clauses of this bill. 
I want to start though by looking in a little more detail at the impact of some of the definitions within Part 1. In new section 4A the bill sets out the meaning of “living alone”. Given that all of the major parts of this bill hang off that definition I think it is important to explore it. It sets out that a single person is living alone only if he or she meets two conditions and they are what you would expect. The first is around dwellings and occupancy and it sets out there in subsection (2) that “The first condition is that person A occupies a principal place of residence of a kind described in subsection (6).” That provision is quite detailed; it even goes on to talk about a boat or craft mooring being a suitable residence for that definition. 
Then it sets out a condition where probably there might be a few more issues of debate and it is that “The second condition is that person A does not share that residence with any person 18 years or older except a person to whom subsection (4) or (5) applies.” The bill then sets out that “This subsection applies to “person A’s dependent child—(a) who is—(i) 18 years old … (ii) not financially independent; and (iii) attending a school or a tertiary educational establishment; but (b) only until the close of 31 December in the year in which the child turned 18 years old.” So if we strip that back what the bill is saying is that you are entitled to the living alone payment as long as your child is either in secondary school or at a tertiary education institution but under the age of 18 years. So basically you are never going to be able to claim the living alone payment if your child is over the age of 18 and outside of secondary school essentially. 
That may seem to be common sense on the face of it but we took some issue at the Social Services Committee with the fact that this could be deemed to be a very narrow set of conditions for what sometimes can be extraordinary circumstances. The first of those extraordinary circumstances that I wish to raise is in fact where an individual is caring for a dependant who is over the age of 18 and who may have an intellectual disability for instance and they have some kind of carer role for that dependant. Technically once the dependant hits 18 the carer could fall outside of these criteria. One could argue that under the Social Security Act they may be entitled to some other form of benefit but I think it makes sense that instead we make sure we build in enough flexibility to take into account those circumstances without opening it wide enough that it can be used inappropriately—for example being applied to circumstances where perhaps a DPB for caring for the sick or infirm might be more appropriate instead. 
But I think there is a way to deal with both issues. I have tabled for the Committee an amendment to the bill that would allow for those circumstances to be taken into account. It does so by adding to clause 18 in Part 2 the statement “unless that child has an intellectual disability as defined in section 7 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003”. Just for the benefit of the Committee that seemed to us to be the most appropriate definition for an individual with an intellectual disability that we could find in modern legislation. So that is the first amendment that we as a party would like to move. It is just to allow that additional flexibility for someone on a living alone payment who has some carer responsibilities. 
The second set of circumstances where we think this definition is too narrow is around the use of age rather than whether or not someone is actually financially dependent. Let me explain what we mean by that. At the moment we are really concerned about only—it does not really matter whether a child is in tertiary education or at high school—whether or not the child is under the age of 18. Why is that? Surely the definition should be set around whether or not that individual in the home is financially dependent. Surely that should be what we consider when we are talking about social assistance in this way. A student who is at a tertiary institution for the purposes of student allowances for instance is considered dependent until they have reached the age of 25 because their student allowance is means tested against their parents’ income. So if you are means testing against a parent you are assuming some form of dependent relationship still exists but for the purposes of this bill we are not adding consistency. In fact we are making it less consistent by saying it is not the age of 25 that we are interested in if you are in tertiary education; it is 18. So it is our view that if someone is in tertiary education and for the purposes of student allowance they continue to be means tested then that child should be considered still a dependant for the purposes of this bill as well. I am sure that my colleague the spokesperson on tertiary education for the Labour Party Megan Woods would probably like to expand on that in greater detail but that is one of our other suggested amendments for the Committee today. 
We are also concerned that if you are a student who is studying of course there might be periods when you come back into the home for holidays when you are still a dependent child—I would never assume that child is financially independent—and that could interrupt someone’s ability to access the social assistance living alone payment just by virtue of a child coming home for the holidays. So we have suggested another amendment that sets out that “A person is living alone if a child over 18 returns to live … at Person A’s residence and stays there less than 13 weeks in any period of 26 and is not financially independent.” So basically if you are a student you come home to stay with either mum or dad in your holidays and you are not financially independent as in you are not in full-time work then you should not have the effect of reducing your parents’ ability to access this social assistance living alone payment. Again I think that is a fair amendment to make. 
I would appreciate the views of the Government on those amendments. I think they are reasonable ones. We did raise them at the select committee and we did to be fair have a quite robust discussion about them. I accept that when it comes to the student allowance side of things there was an argument people accepted. It probably if anything points to the inconsistencies around the application of the student allowance regulations more than it does potentially for these payments. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has always supported legislation that allows all New Zealanders to be afforded the same degree of respect and dignity which are the principles that reinforce our democratic values. “Democracy” is a word that is rarely spoken of or has been considered in this Chamber in recent years. If some pensioners fall short of the criterion then our values are meaningless and exist only for those who benefit from them. 
The Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill is committed to empowering senior citizens to enable them to remain independent and not have to deal with bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a parasite that is hobbling the ability of civil servants to get things done effectively and efficiently. It is encouraging to see the Government taking the necessary action to look after those who deserve to be cared for. This bill allows for better treatment of superannuitant and veterans pensioners with respect and not as a burden on society. Our treatment of our seniors sends a clear signal of our status as a developed nation. The intention of this bill is an improvement in pension schemes. It allows for better-practice measures for the future. 
The bill highlights the importance of providing support for our senior citizens currently living alone and allows for a more straightforward approach to their gaining State assistance. If only this approach were adopted more often by this Government instead of it punishing the most vulnerable unnecessarily. Continuous maltreatment of orphan superannuitant and veterans pensioners is disgraceful. Even the Bible says there is a specific place in hell for those who oppress widows. 
We all know the hassle of paper-shuffling and how this can waste time and resources and cause confusion when there has been a chink in the paper trail. For our senior citizens this can be of particular nuisance. I receive phone calls in my out-of-Parliament office frequently from disgruntled seniors not knowing how to operate the new Auckland train fare machines. I am aware of their frustrations when the simplest things in life become overbearingly difficult. 
This bill is to be commended for eliminating such unnecessary processes. On account of providing a single rate for superannuitant and veterans pensions this makes work a lot easier. It makes work a lot easier not only in regard to the eligible citizen’s ease of access but also for the financial parties who have to deal with the amount of data and paperwork that needs to be processed day in day out. This combined effort will fortify a single rate that is more reliable and accessible and less time-consuming. 
However New Zealand First shares concerns with other parties and with those who submitted on this bill in relation to the definition of a dependent child. The proposed new sections 4A(4)(a) and 4A(4)(b) provide for where a child over the age of 18 is enrolled in tertiary education and is financially dependent on the parent. With the exception of dependent children with disabilities dependants who are 18 and over would provide more sensible decision-making skills given support for their drive towards higher academic achievements. Jacinda Ardern and I share the same concerns in this area. 
It is a common trend nowadays. Most tertiary starters begin with university studies at the age of 18. No undergraduate degree lasts for only a year but for an average of 3 years. This correlates to the years for which they would be considered dependent occupants. Yes the Ministry of Social Development has commented that tertiary students are of an age where they are considered adults and should acquire part-time work or apply for the appropriate Government assistance. However I question whether the person who provided this advice went to university at all or at least understands it from a tertiary student’s perspective. 
If we are to encourage our children into higher education why should we then place barriers for our senior parents to give their children this opportunity? I have children who go to university and I can tell everyone now that if it was not for the scholarships that they earned the pressure of putting them through university and supporting them would have been placed on me. Full-time students who are at university from Monday to Friday and have only weekends to work part-time will be under enormous stress to support themselves. This does not take into account time to catch up on study or assignments. Not all students are entitled to the subsidies of Government assistance. My children certainly were not and I would think that this Government would not want its tertiary students on the unemployment benefit. Or is there one rule for one group and a different rule for others? 
Part-time jobs are not easy to get either with employers looking for experience. Furthermore employers are most reluctant to train up students who can work only a certain number of hours. I am amazed at the lack of intelligence being exercised by the Minister for Social Development and her advisers in this area. Most students can hold down a part-time job only over the summer and then are left to fend for themselves. We cannot give them jobs because we are still waiting for the 170000 jobs promised by the Prime Minister so why should we give them and their senior parents the added pressure? 
New Zealand First is prepared to work with all members on both sides of the Chamber to preserve the social security promise that provides security for all when the need arises especially those who are most at risk such as widows. I would like to remind the Committee that Robert Louis Stevenson said: “Don’t judge each day by the harvest you reap but by the seeds that you plant.” New Zealand First supports the bill. Thank you. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am happy to take a short call on this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. As my colleague Jacinda Ardern has very well outlined Labour is supporting this bill because it is a sensible bill and we are happy to support it to make sure that the issues addressed in it are no longer an issue for the elderly in our country. 
I want to talk specifically to one of the amendments that Labour has put up on this bill. Jacinda Ardern foreshadowed the part that I will be speaking on and the previous speaker Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor has alluded to the amendment as well. It is the amendment that harmonises this piece of legislation with the student allowance legislation—brings it into line with it. We think that it is a very sensible move to redefine the age of eligibility of students to 24 years old as they are classed as dependants in that student allowance legislation. We think that this is needed. 
Student support is an issue that we are facing as a country and we are facing it increasingly as a country. If we do want to be an innovation-led economy that bases our prosperity our future and our future economic development on having an educated skilled and trained workforce then how are we going to support our young people to gain these qualifications that are going to be of benefit to all of us in New Zealand? 
The previous speaker alluded to some comments that the Ministry of Social Development made in regard to some of these suggestions as they came up that perhaps tertiary students—those over the age of 18 who were engaged in tertiary education—could go and find part-time work and support themselves. Well this is a very interesting question at the moment because of course in the context of the youth rates legislation that we are also seeing going through this House we see that the Ministry of Education provided advice to StudyLink—the bit of the Ministry of Social Development that administers student allowances—that the $11-an-hour rate 80 percent of the full adult minimum wage that is proposed in that legislation actually does pose some threats in terms of our students being able to support themselves. So there are a whole lot of intersecting pieces of information that we have to take into account. That is why Labour has put up this very sensible amendment which would bring this piece of legislation in line with definitions that we have operating around that very important issue of student allowances. 
We think this is something that we do need to get right. We need to iron out some absurd situations that could come about. A situation that my colleague Jacinda Ardern outlined is about a tertiary student who has gone away to polytech or gone away to university in another part of the country and comes back over the long summer break to stay with their parents—as all parents want their students who go away for tertiary education to do. Then we have the situation of what happens in terms of the classification of dependency and how this would affect the payment. So let us just use this opportunity to make sure that this is a sensible piece of legislation and takes this into account. 
We think that there are many good elements to this legislation. We think that it will improve the lives of older New Zealanders by reducing their requirement to make additional applications to receive their full entitlement. We agree with many of the technical changes that it makes possible. One that I wanted to speak to was one that I saw around the 28-day period when the spouse of an elderly person passes away and when it is they make their application and when their eligibility for that kicks in. These are all things that we need to make as smooth and as easy as possible to reduce the amount of administrative burden that is on our elderly people while at the same time ensuring that they are receiving an income that they can survive on and that they can live alone on. Labour is happy to support this bill. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I thought I would rise just to address some of the comments that have been made by speakers in respect of amendments filed in respect of this bill the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill and to address concerns around tertiary students and people living alone. It is important to note a comment that my colleague Jacinda Ardern made about the significance of age. Under the Social Security Act the significance of age is that from the age of 18 that is the age from which people become entitled to various types of benefits. In respect of children living with their parents who are in receipt of the living alone payment for listeners those young people can come back and live with their superannuitant parent for a period of 13 weeks in any 26-week period—so about 3 months—without affecting that living alone payment that their parent might be getting. Another point to make of course is that while a tertiary student is on a summer break and away from their tertiary studies they may not receive a student allowance but they are eligible for a hardship benefit—in other words for getting an unemployment benefit—over the course of the holiday period if they are not in work. If that young person is disabled in some way then over the age of 18 they would be eligible for a benefit which caters for caring and caters for the disability. 
So it is difficult then to think of any situation where a person over the age of 18 would not be eligible for some sort of a benefit and I note that the people proposing these amendments were not able to give us a situation where they would not be eligible for anything. The comment was made that a tertiary student up to the age of 25 has their parents’ income assessed so there is an element of dependency there. Just to be picky it is actually 24. In any event though that tertiary student is not disallowed from having the ability to obtain a benefit of some kind and some allowance for them because of the mere fact that they would be living with their parent or because of their parents’ income. They are still eligible for those things. So the Government will not be supporting the amendments for those reasons. The Supplementary Order Paper that the Government is putting up Supplementary Order Paper 191 is relating to the dates and the timeliness of the passage of this bill in respect of other work going on within the department. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a short contribution in the Committee stage of the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill. As my colleagues have already stated we support this bill. It is a very sensible bill and it does address a lot of some of the inconvenient processes that many of our kaumatua and kuia and superannuitants around the country have had to face in terms of having to make separate applications for living alone payments. Goodness knows how difficult that is in terms of them not only getting through their weekly budgets but also having to navigate their way through all the different processes and applications that they have to do to get a little bit of putea. 
So we do support this bill. It ensures that the single superannuitants and veterans pensioners who are living alone do not have to make that separate application to get their full entitlement. We support it because it improves the lives of older New Zealanders and it reduces their requirement to as I have said make all these additional applications to receive those extra living alone payments. We do acknowledge the Government for reducing the burden of compliance on single superannuitants. It is a good measure which improves the lives of older New Zealanders who indeed as with many New Zealanders out there are finding it very tough. 
The Social Services Committee had the chance to hear submissions and has recommended some changes. One change has been in regard to the unfortunate situation where a spouse or partner has passed on prior to the commencement of the Act but within the time frames in which applications are to be made. It is very commendable to see that spouses in that situation will not have to be impacted on in terms of having to qualify for the payment because of arbitrary time frames and commencement dates. It is good to see that some flexibility has been given and some fairness applied to those situations so that the full entitlement to the living alone payment can apply from the date of the death of that spouse prior to the commencement of the Act. 
I would also like to speak in support of my colleague Jacinda Ardern and her amendment in relation to Part 1. It relates to raising the age. Notwithstanding the comments from the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows I know that the Government will not be supporting this amendment. We do think that it is necessary to align this living alone payment with the harmonising of the student allowance regime because there are many situations where kaumatua and kuia around the country are looking after their mokos and when those mokos get to 18 it does not just kick in. Obviously the Government is putting a cut-off date at 18 but there are situations—and I am thinking of those who may be disabled or other situations around their tertiary education—where that does put an extra burden on their koro or kuia or taua and paua as we call them in the South Island. So I do encourage and recommend that we support that amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern. It lifts the age to 25 which does capture all of those situations and makes sure that the living alone payment is available for kaumatua and kuia in that situation. That completes my contribution on this part. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I want to thank the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows for his contribution. I note though that he did not speak specifically to the amendment around the issue of disabled children. I would be interested in hearing his views on that particular amendment. I think the point still stands there as I think the point still stands around the issue of those dependent children who might be in study but for the purposes of this bill will affect the eligibility of their parent for a living alone payment if they are over the age of 18. 
Despite what the Minister has said it seems to me that this has been an issue in the past. If you read the regulatory impact statement there is some discussion in the statement which of course was prepared by the Ministry of Social Development. It says: “For the purpose of determining eligibility for social security benefits section 63A of the Social Security Act … sets out the circumstances in which a child aged 18 years or over is considered to be a dependent child. Our analysis has identified issues with the consistency of this definition across social security legislation.” It goes on to talk about a specific case where this has been an issue: “A recent decision by the Social Security Appeal Authority (SSAA Decision No. 38/09) has highlighted an inconsistency between the definitions of a dependent child as it applies to a child aged 18 years or over. This decision found that an adult child (ie over 18 years) who is maintained as a member of a superannuitant’s family and is not financially independent may be categorised as a dependent child for the purposes of eligibility for the [living alone payment].” 
There has already been a case that has highlighted that this can indeed be an issue and that according to the Social Security Appeal Authority it needs to come down on the side of the entitlement remaining because of the fact that the adult child can still be considered a dependent child because of their circumstances. There is some further clarification though admittedly and we concede this point. This will not apply to a large number of parents and their children but it does clarify that “The Ministry is of the view that it is very unlikely many other cases will arise as the situation applies only to superannuitants living with a student with no income other than a Student Loan (but not a Student Allowance).” 
This has been our point—that there will be students who will not be eligible for a student allowance. They may access a student loan but they may be living with someone who is eligible for a living alone payment and because they are over the age of 18 the crude definition in the bill means that that living alone payment could be affected by that. No one is arguing that this is going to be a really prevalent situation but what we are arguing is that it could occur and that it would be wrong if it did and the regulatory impact statement admits that. 
There is some admission in here that there is some discretion for the chief executive “to continue paying a benefit at a rate … until the pay day immediately after 31 December in the year that the child reaches the age of 18 years.” but we should not ever allow these things to be determined by discretion when we know the issue exists and we have the ability within primary legislation to fix it. So this is something that we are asking the Minister to fix. We are at a point now where we can fix it. We have evidence that it has arisen before. Why should we have to require people to go via an appeal authority to have it addressed? 
So I would like the Minister’s thoughts on that but I equally really would like to hear his views on the definition of “dependent child” as it applies to a child who may have an intellectual disability because equally we feel that that particular issue has gone unanswered. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 5 be agreed to: 
insert in new section 4A(4)(b) after “18 years old” “unless that child has an intellectual disability as defined in section 7 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003”.  
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have spoken to the co-leader of the Maori Party who has authorised me to vote for him although he is in the Chamber this morning. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No. Unfortunately the Standing Orders say that if the party is present it has to vote.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 5 be agreed to: 
in new section 4A(4)(b) replace “18” with “25”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 5 be agreed to: 
Insert in new section 4A(4) after paragraph (b): 
(c)a person is living alone if a child over 18 returns to live with at Person A’s residence and stays there less than 13 weeks in any period of 26 and is not financially independent. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not hear I am sorry what that question was. Would you mind repeating what the question was? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It has been carried that Part 1 as amended stand part. It has now been agreed. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: The reason for my confusion was that I thought there were more amendments than in fact there were votes taken. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think I enunciated it quite clearly. It has been passed unanimously. 
Part 2 Amendments to War Pensions Act 1954 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 18 be agreed to: 
insert in new section 67(A)(4)(b) after “18 years old” “unless that child has an intellectual disability as defined in section 7 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003”. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the amendment be agreed to. 
TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do apologise for this but as you will understand there is a need for me to be coordinating with the Maori Party. It is my understanding that the Maori Party is opposed both to the Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill and to the amendments. Therefore in the substantive vote on Part 1 previously— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We will deal with that after we have dealt with this amendment. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I am just signalling there will need to be a correction to a vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: OK. We will deal with that when we have dealt with this amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to correct the Maori Party’s vote on Part 1 of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: On the question that Part 1 as amended stand part the Maori Party is now voting three opposed? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: The Maori Party is three votes opposed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Thank you. We did not actually cast a vote. I put the question and there were no Noes at that point so we actually had no party vote. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 18 be agreed to: 
in new section 67A(4)(b) replace “18” with “25”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jacinda Ardern to clause 18 be agreed to: 
Insert in new section 67A(4) after new paragraph (b): 
(c)a person is living alone if a child over 18 returns to live at Person A’s residence and stays there less than 13 weeks in any period of 26 weeks and is not financially independent. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 
 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 191 in the name of the Hon Paula Bennett to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 23 July 2013 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 188 and 191(1)(b) and (c). 
Ma tatou. Koia ra te karanga o Whakaata Maori ki a Aotearoa whanui. 
[ 
It is for us. That is the call of the Maori Television Service to New Zealand at large 
.] 
The launch of the Maori Television Service in 2004 was a watershed moment for Maori people and indeed all New Zealanders. It transformed the media landscape in this country. It made our language and culture accessible to a broad viewing audience. For Maori it has meant the celebration and normalisation of our language our tikanga and our people. I am delighted to celebrate its achievements. 
The Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Act 2003 established the Maori Television Service. It also specified that a review of the operation and the effectiveness of the Act be undertaken in 2008-09 with a report to Parliament and recommendations for any amendments to the foundation legislation. The review was conducted by an independent panel with expertise in Te Reo Maori the television industry and the broadcasting legislation. The panel members were Tainui Stephens Hone Edwards and Jane Huria. Their subsequent report contained 31 recommendations. 
The Minister of Finance and I are the responsible Ministers for the Maori Television Service. We worked with Te Putahi Paoho the Maori Television Service Electoral College to jointly review the recommendations from the independent panel. We did this in 2009-10. Following this Cabinet approved in principle the Government response to the review in October 2010 including various proposed changes to the foundation legislation subject to targeted consultation with Maori. At the time Cabinet deferred consideration of the four recommendations concerning the composition of Te Putahi Paoho so that this work could be synchronised with some related work streams in the Maori affairs portfolio. 
Te Puni Kokiri undertook targeted consultation hui with Maori in 2010 and in 2011 to discuss the proposed legislative changes. No concerns were raised at these hui about the proposed approach and the Government subsequently confirmed the proposed legislative changes as a basis for this bill. 
There is general agreement that the Maori Television Service does an excellent job with its core business. On that basis we are not proposing major changes to its underlying legislation. We do however seek to fine-tune this legislation so that the Maori Television Service is optimally positioned for digital switchover and can continue its strong focus on promoting our language our culture. Digital switchover is scheduled for completion in December 2013. We intend to enact this bill in 2013 so that the Maori Television Service is ready to go digital. 
The bill seeks to make minor changes to the functions of the Maori Television Service to strengthen its focus on Maori language and culture. It will also update arrangements for spectrum management and the contents of Maori Television Service accountability documents. It addresses arrangements for borrowing and investment by the Maori Television Service and also the timeliness of future reviews and other miscellaneous matters. 
The bill provides for a transfer of spectrum management rights from the Crown to Te Putahi Paoho and for Te Putahi Paoho to issue spectrum licences to the Maori Television Service to meet its current and future broadcasting needs. It is my expectation that Te Putahi Paoho will issue a national set of spectrum licences to the Maori Television Service immediately following the passage of this bill to cover a 20-year window. This approach reflects the role of Te Putahi Paoho as a kaitiaki of Maori interests in the Maori Television Service. It also provides certainty of tenure for the Maori Television Service about access to the necessary spectrum licences for it to undertake its business. It will also strengthen the relationship between the Maori Television Service and Te Putahi Paoho. 
The bill also provides for the creation of a deed between the responsible Ministers and Te Putahi Paoho to set up the terms and condition under which Te Putahi Paoho must exercise the spectrum management rights. These terms and conditions will address implementation requirements specific provisions about support for the Maori Television Service and the promotion of the Maori language and culture and circumstances under which Te Putahi Paoho would be required to return the spectrum management rights to the Crown. This approach provides some flexibility for the Crown and Te Putahi Paoho to manage amend and update operational arrangements for spectrum management on an ongoing basis without requiring further legislative change. 
It is my intention to refer the draft deed that has been prepared to the Maori Affairs Committee to inform its consideration of this bill. Following that Te Puni Kokiri and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment will work on behalf of the responsible Ministers to finalise the deed with Te Putahi Paoho. 
As I have noted Cabinet has deferred consideration of the issues regarding the composition of Te Putahi Paoho. This is a serious matter and it will require significant engagement with Maori. I am keen to ensure that any work to consider the composition of Te Putahi Paoho is synchronised with related work streams in Vote Maori Affairs. On this basis I intend to report back to the House with my proposed approach to this matter at an appropriate time. 
It is important that this bill progress through the legislative process in a timely manner. There are a number of spectrum-related transitional arrangements that need to occur once this bill has been enacted to position the Maori Television Service for digital switch-over. For this reason I ask that the motion be agreed—that this bill be reported back to the House by 23 July 2013. 
I would like to briefly acknowledge the efforts of all those who have worked to bring Te Reo Maori into our homes through television. E oku rangatira tenei ka mihi atu ki a koutou ara ki a koutou mahi nunui hei painga mo Te Reo mo nga mokopuna mo nga iwi whanui. Tihei mauri ora. 
[ 
To my revered leaders I acknowledge you collectively particularly your outstanding contributions which the language grandchildren and people at large will benefit from. Behold the breath of life. 
] 
As I have noted the Maori Television Service has taken our language and culture to a broad viewing audience. It plays a major role in promoting our unique heritage and identity to Maori and non-Maori viewers through its outstanding annual coverage of things such as Anzac Day to its free-to-air coverage of the Rugby World Cup 2011 and through its presentation on everyday joys tribulations and triumphs of Maori and other New Zealanders. It is my intention to strengthen the platform for our language and culture through this legislation. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatau. Maku tenei korero e tuku ki Te Reo Maori ta te mea e korero ana tatau mo te waka i whakaritea ai hei paho i to tatau Reo Maori. Mana e hapai mana e hiki mana e waha i nga take torangapu take hapori take pakihi hei matakitaki mai ma te marea whanui mai i nga kokorutanga katoa o Aotearoa. 
Ko taku ki a koe e Pita pai ke me tuku e taua a taua e mohio ana ki to taua Reo i o taua korero o taua whakaaro ki to tatau Reo hei tirohanga mai ma a tatau tamariki. Oti i a taua te korero i to taua Reo mo tenei take. Me i kore Te Reo Maori kua kore he pakanga me tu te paoho Maori. 
Ta tenei pire ka nui noa atu oku awangawanga engari i a matau ko te tautoko kia whakawhitingia atu ki te komiti uiui. Tuarua ka nui noa atu to matau pouri te korenga o tenei Kawanatanga e pai ki te manaaki i te tono o te iwi Maori mo nga iarere hou e karangahia nei ko te 4G. Me te mea nei ki te kahore matau a tatau ra o Te Ao Maori e haere ake ki te pakanga i teneki take ki te aroaro o te Taraipiunara e kore nga taringa o tena wahine a Amy Adams e rata mai ki nga inoi o Te Ao Maori. 
Tuatoru e tatari ana matau kia rongo ahea noa atu o tatau nei waerehe o tatau reo irirangi Maori e manaakitia ai. E rapu ana ratau me pehea ranei nga moemoea me pehea ranei nga teihana e whakakahangia ai nga moemoea e whakapuangia ai mena kahore he moni tua atu i nga kongakonga noa iho nei ka kitea. Na ko taku ki te Minita me whakapaua e koe to kaha ki te manaaki i te hia noa atu o nga tono mai i o tatau reo irirangi. E kore—kahore. Tokomaha noa atu te hunga e tika ana me mau korero mai ai ki te aroaro o te komiti uiui. Engari ko taku ki te Whare ko tetahi wahanga horekau matau e whakaae ana otira waiho ma te roanga ake o nga tapaeranga korero katahi ka tino whakatatungia ka pehea ranei to matau tu ko te kararehe e kiia nei ko Te Putahi Paoho. A matau e kuare ana ki te tino whakapapa o tenei ropu mena e tika ana mana e whiwhi i nga iarere hou me ki katahi ka tupu ake pea he raruraru i waenga tonu i Te Putahi Paoho me te Teihana Maori. 
Na pai ke atu me whai tonu te Whare i te tauira i whakaritea ai e Parekura Horomia me ona hoa i te wa i a ratau e mana ana hei Kawanatanga kia whakawhiwhingia rawatia atu nga iarere ki te Teihana Maori ake. Otira ma te roanga ake o nga tapaeranga korero katahi tena take ka whawhatia rawatia. Te ahua nei ka nui noa atu te ngakaunui o te marea kia tu ai te paoho Maori kia tu ai tenei Teihana Maori engari me mohio tatau Te Ao Maori. Ki te kahore tatau e whakamahi i tenei taonga ki te kahore tatau e akiaki i nga kairipoata i nga kairangahau i nga tumuaki o to tatau waka Maori paoho e kore rawa atu e eke rawa. 
Ara noa atu o tatau hoa Pakeha e manaaki mai ana i te kaupapa neki ara te waka Maori ta te mea he korenga no nga teihana tauiwi nga teihana auraki e tino whakaputa whakaatu korero ranei e rite ana ki ta ratau e hiahia ai. Ara nga korero hapori nga korero mo nga take horekau e tino korerotia whanuitia ana i roto i te tumunga me te paringa o nga mahi ia ra ia ra. Na reira e mihi atu ki a ratau e mahi ana i nga pakipumeka pera. Na reira tukua kia puta teneki pire kia takoto ki roto i te komiti uiui otira me mohio te Whare me mohio Te Putahi Paoho me mohio te hunga ahakoa pehea te matotoru te itiiti ranei e matakitaki mai ana kahore ano matau kia whakaae atu kia whakamanangia Te Putahi Paoho ka puta tetahi kararehe hou. Ko wai ranei matau e mohio ana kei a wai ranei te mana he hutihuti nga retireti mo te hunga kei runga i tena ropu? Na hei te roanga ake o nga tapaeranga katahi ka mohiotia ko wai pu nga tangata e whai mana ana hei whakahaere ana i tena ropu hei pupuru i tenei taonga hou. Me te mohio o tenei taonga ehara i te mea ka pau te whanuitanga o te taonga nei i roto i te Teihana Maori anakenake. Ara noa atu nga huarahi eke atu pea i te waru te iwa te tekau nga huarahi ka whakawateangia hei whakapaoho hei whakaatu pikitia a te wa. Na reira mena horekau e ’hakamahingia ana te katoa o te Teihana Maori kia waihotia ki Te Putahi Paoho. Ko wai ranei ka mohio ka peheatia ka ahatia e ratau enei taonga e toe ana? Otira ma te wa e titiro hai te roanga ake o nga tapaeranga korero. 
Na reira matau tautoko ana kia whakawhitingia te pire ki te komiti uiui na ma te wa e titiro pena whakatuturungia e matau nga korero o roto. Kia ora tatau katoa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to us all. I will speak in Maori because we are talking about the vehicle that has been determined will broadcast our Maori language. It will enhance elevate and convey issues of a political community and business nature for the public to watch from every cove in New Zealand.  
From me to you Pita it is better that we express what we know about our language talk and thoughts in Maori as we are both fluent in it and in the language of every tribe so that our children can bear witness to our conversation. It is possible for you and me to deal with this issue in Maori. Without the Maori language there would not be any conflict in regards to Maori broadcasting remaining.  
As far as this bill is concerned I have many concerns but we endorse it being sent to the select committee. Secondly we are greatly disappointed at the lack of support by this Government for an application by the Maori people for a new spectrum called 4G. Had it not been for us of Maoridom taking this conflict before the Waitangi Tribunal the ears of Amy Adams would not have become receptive to the pleas of Maoridom. 
Thirdly we are waiting to hear when our radios and television service will receive support. They are seeking how aspirations may be fulfilled how stations can have greater capacity and productivity if no further funding can be found beyond the mere pittance allocated. My plea to you Minister is that you must work harder to support the numerous requests from our radio stations. There has not been any—none at all. There are many many others who have a right to appear before a select committee to air their views. But my concern to the House is that beast referred to as the Maori Television Electoral College which is a part that we absolutely oppose but are prepared to wait until a greater number of submissions are received about it before determining our position. We are completely ignorant about the genesis of this organisation whether it should receive the new spectrums and let us say whether a friction may well up between the Maori Television Electoral College and the Maori Television Service.  
It would be better by far for the House to follow the example considered by Parekura Horomia and his colleagues at the time they were in the Government where spectrums can be transferred directly to the Maori Television Service. Indeed the great number of submissions received will ensure that the detail to that matter is dealt with at that stage of the process. It appears that the commitment by the public about the Maori Television Electoral College established is a big one which in turn will make Maori Television more functional. But we of Maoridom must be kept informed. If we do not use this spectrum and encourage the reporters researchers and heads of our Maori broadcasting vehicle Maori Television will never succeed.  
We have a very large number of our Pakeha colleagues supporting this proposal this Maori vehicle because there are no non-Maori and mainstream stations that broadcast and televise similar talks in Maori to satisfy their needs. There are community conversations and talks in Maori about matters that are not discussed so broadly and extensively daily elsewhere. And so I commend those who make documentaries like that. Therefore release this bill and allow it to go before the select committee. However the House the Maori Television Electoral College and everybody else must understand that no matter how dense or sparse the audience we have not yet agreed to validate the Maori Television Electoral College or whether a new beast will emerge. How are we to know who has the mandate as it would be difficult because of those who make up that group? Until an extensive submission process is over it is only then that the right people with the mandate to administer the organisation and hold this new spectrum will be identified. If the majority of Maori Television’s spectrum left to the Maori Television Electoral College is not used up who will know what will be done to them? There are many other avenues—up to eight nine or 10 perhaps will be made available in the future for broadcasting and television. Time indeed after an extensive submission process will deal with this.  
So for us we support this bill going to the select committee. Time as well will determine whether we validate its contents. Salutations to us all 
.] 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 What a beautiful language the Maori language is. I thank the Hon Shane Jones for his contribution. I am sorry that I struggled to follow what he was saying though but one day I might become enlightened. 
I am pleased to speak very briefly in support of the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill. I hope my pronunciation was correct there. It has been about 10 years since Maori Television’s empowering Act was passed by this Parliament and I think New Zealanders can be quite proud of the Maori Television Service we have in New Zealand. In fact those of us who do not typically watch Maori Television but do tune in to the odd individual programme can see good programmes like  
Native Affairs 
 and good programmes like the Anzac Day celebrations that were covered by Maori Television and see the quality of the work that Maori Television is doing. We can see that actually it is contributing to a certain sector of the broadcast community and to a certain population out there that is looking for some indigenous service and a service that is able to promote keep current and inform New Zealanders about Maori language and about the need and importance for New Zealand as a country to continue to promote recognise and keep alive the Maori language the first language of this country. Maori Television does provide that role and I think does a good job of it. 
However there was a review recently that undertook to look at some options and look at the effectiveness of Maori Television. Some recommendations were made about how the effectiveness of Maori Television could be improved. This bill is about putting in place some legislative changes to help Maori Television fulfil the recommendations that were proposed as part of that review. Some of the changes in this bill include some provisions around the target audiences that Maori Television should be targeting and it contains some provisions around how Maori Television should be looking after and focusing its particular services on Maori language. It also has some changes that would aid Maori Television as we come to the spectrum change and provides for some responsibilities that the Crown has to fulfil around spectrum change and what it needs to do to help Maori Television through that transition. 
Maori Television is a world-class service that we are proud of. It has been in operation for 10 years now. These are some simple but important changes to help it be even more effective in promoting Maori language. I thank the Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples for bringing this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Labour as my colleague Shane Jones has indicated is supportive of this bill the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill progressing to the Maori Affairs Committee. There are still some reservations and some things to work through but given the history of this matter the active involvement of the Labour Party right from the beginning and the leading role the Labour Party has taken around Maori language we of course are very happy to entertain the discussion. 
I think without wanting to bring up governorship and leadership too much with my very old friend Dr Sharples there is some work that needs to be done because some of the 13 organisations no longer exist. When you have an out-of-date governance system that will presumably have to be fixed up as part of this process. But I think the vast majority of New Zealanders now accept that Maori Television is doing a superb job. My view is that it is the pre-eminent public broadcaster and the best of the free-to-air channels. I think in recent times we have seen a little bit more from TV3 even. One of its programmes last night that looked into the Tuhoe area was something that I thought was pretty much groundbreaking for mainstream television and that is a good thing. I think the fact that Maori Television has been going so well puts the pressure on the more mainstream providers to in fact deliver in that area. I am pleased that that is beginning to work with TV3. 
My only regret is that the State-owned Television New Zealand both Television One and TV2 seems to be going down to the depths. I could probably say this for Clare Curran—Clare Curran is not in the House—but I do not know why we own it any more. It is just absolutely hopeless as a provider of good public service television. I think maybe we could transpose the management. If we put the management of the Maori Television Service in there maybe that might make a difference and we would have good television rather than a bloated bureaucracy. Thank you. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I too just want to take a short call on the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill. I think it is well overdue that the recommendations from the review of the Maori Television Service come to the House and I am looking forward to the select committee process where the Maori Affairs Committee looks at these changes and gets reflections and submissions from those who are interested. Certainly it is necessary that the shift to digital is made as easy as possible for the Maori Television Service. 
I would just say that the Maori Television Service is a fantastic television station. I agree that it is the best public broadcaster we have of the television stations and I think that is a view that is held by most New Zealanders. I would reflect that this was one of the first pieces of legislation I dealt with as a new member of Parliament 10 years ago working with the then Minister Parekura Horomia on passing the legislation through. At that time it was only the Labour Party and the Green Party that supported the bill to set up the Maori Television Service—if we might remember back to those dark old days when there was so much less commitment to the Reo by other parties in this House and so much less commitment to the expression of Maori voices about their own lives. 
One of the most fantastic things about Maori Television is that it has brought Maori stories to the mainstream. There is a great Pakeha audience for Maori Television because these stories these Maori stories that are told every day are stories of our own country. They are stories of New Zealand. That is what we see reflected in the Maori Television programming and commitment. I am very pleased to see the increasing commitment to the Reo because I know that it is driving people towards the Reo and making it more understandable and easier for people to accept that we are a bilingual country and that the Reo is an official language of this country and therefore deserving of all respect and effort in its preservation—not just its preservation but its continuation growth and life well after we are gone. We want to make sure that the Reo remains as much a part of Aotearoa as the land the soil and the water do—that it is part of the lifeblood of this country of which the Maori Television Service is a crucial part. I am looking forward to hearing more about the provisions of this bill and how to develop that better. 
 I think it is worthwhile noting Trevor Mallard’s discussion about how other TV stations are having to step up in order to meet the challenge that the Maori Television Service presented.  
Native Affairs  
won an award for best current affairs last year I understand. Other TV stations are having to step up to meet the challenge that is being provided— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: To be fair it wasn’t a high test. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Trevor Mallard is saying it was not— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The competition wasn’t strong. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: He is saying the competition was not strong. But the Maori Television Service is brilliant and it won because it is brilliant and because of that other TV stations are having to step up the mark. New Zealanders do want to hear current affairs they do want to hear their own stories and that is where the Maori Television Service—Maori Television—is leading the way. So all power to Maori Television and we look forward to dealing with this legislation in the select committee. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I feel very pleased to see the cross-party support for this bill the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill. I feel that we do not have to spend a long time speaking about this. I support this bill and I would like to send my regards to the Minister of Maori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples for bringing this bill to the House. I support it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is supporting the referral of this Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill to the select committee for good reason. There is a case for the careful consideration of its provisions. It merits closer consideration because a thriving and open media is fundamental to a successful democracy. Indeed in a modern democracy the media play a pivotal part in ensuring the public are informed and not misinformed. It is no exaggeration to say that our society is shaped by the media and particularly broadcast media. We do need a variety of channels for broadcasting channels that will reflect our society and allow the open expression of views and perspectives. What would not be healthy is the concentration of media power and influence in a few narrowly controlled distribution channels. 
In general we believe that there is an argument for having a viable and thriving Maori Television Service provided of course that it is fulfilling the obligations of its charter—a service that all New Zealanders can access and derive information and entertainment from. Indeed given the lamentable sad overall state of public broadcasting in New Zealand in a sense Maori Television because it has been significantly funded for various reasons while the others have not for reasons that are inexplicable has become a de facto public broadcasting service. 
New Zealanders who believe in a public broadcasting system must wonder how this state of affairs was reached because effectively there is now no proper public broadcasting service in our country. That makes us unique amongst modern democracies. No public broadcasting service in New Zealand—there is no public broadcasting service that seeks to be the voice of an emerging New Zealand culture which probably explains that although you have got all sorts of people pushing all sorts of attributes of where we are going there is no New Zealand culture that is being promoted by a broadcasting service funded by the New Zealand taxpayers. Other countries do it—Australia the UK Canada. Here: nothing. 
To some extent Maori Television is filling that gap. The Maori Television Service had a primary role to do with the future of the Maori language because it was argued that no other service was fulfilling this role. Te Reo must be a living language. That means it must be readily accessible and that means in broadcast media. As has been the case with the survival of the Welsh language it is important that the language is seen to be relevant in an everyday media sense. For that reason it was seen that for Te Reo the support of Maori Television was critical for its survival. 
The proponents behind this legislation argue that the bill will give the service a more explicit mandate to protect and promote the Maori language. That needs to be reflected upon—it will give the service a more explicit mandate to protect and promote the Maori language. Well 10 years ago what was that about? That is what every discussion in this House and behind the proposal said. 
The bill is wide ranging and covers a comprehensive set of values and issues including the functions of the service the management of the UHF spectrum accountability of documents borrowing and investment and future reviews. 
The former Minister of Broadcasting Maurice Williamson should listen to this because I remember well when he was the broadcasting Minister dishing out Maori broadcasting licences all around this country and the question was never asked: “But who is listening to these Maori radio stations?”. Minister Williamson remembers this very well. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yes I do. You came with me to a number of the marae. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yeah I came on the road and I could not believe what I was seeing. For example up there in the forests of Northland was an outfit picking up about $385000— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Radio Tautoko. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —that is right $385000—and there apparently was not any audience at all apart from mum and dad and the cousins down the road. That is the kind of shambles that Mr Williamson allowed to happen. So why he is talking during this important speech I do not know. Then of course he went off and he made a colleague of his a multimillionaire. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Which one? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Mr Steven Joyce. He gave out licences under a Vickrey sale process—a Vickrey sale process. I want to remind everybody listening that this is the kind of money that has gone into this. The Vickrey sale process goes like this. Up comes this item for purchase. Mr Williamson is heading the sale. A bids $1 million B bids $100000 and C bids $50000. A gets the tender— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We could have a royal inquiry. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —well it deserves an inquiry all right but not I think from that member—because A bid $1 million but he does not pay $1 million; he pays what the second guy B bid. He pays $100000. Now every morning and five times a day Mr Joyce gets up and he points his face towards Pakuranga. He gets down on his knees and he prays to the Mecca of Pakuranga who made him a multimillionaire and then he walks into the House and calls himself a self-made man. 
You know this has appeared in such books as  
The Undercover Economist 
 a famous economics book out of London. It mentioned the shambles of New Zealand’s broadcasting service which was presided over by the man who is not paying enough attention to this speech as you are up there—but he is not because he knows better! 
We think it is appropriate that all the areas set out in the bill should be given due full consideration. In particular we support the provision that the bill allows for future reviews of the operation etc. 
Let me say one thing— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: This member used to be good. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no the best is yet to come. New Zealand First has always viewed Maori Television as one alternative amongst a number available for the improvement of Maori economic and social performance. It is one alternative of expenditure. We have never viewed it in an uncritical politically correct way. We have in short never been sickly white liberals who say: “Oh we are too scared to confront what’s there and we’ll just dish out the family largesse.” For example for the expenditure— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That’s a phrase from the past—“sickly white liberal”. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Listen to this—listen to this. For example for the expenditure and the money that has thus far been spent on Maori Television every Maori family in New Zealand could have been housed. That is an alternative. For the money the $67 million or $70 million a year every year spent on Maori Television in these last 10 years we could have housed every Maori family. 
For example there was no justification for Maori Television bidding for TV coverage at the last Rugby World Cup. We ended up with five television stations covering the Rugby World Cup. What was that about? It is just a misuse of money. 
Hon Dr Pita Sharples 
: Enterprise. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh enterprise? The Minister of Maori Affairs says it was enterprise. No it was not enterprise at all; it was nationalism spent in the guise of the taxpayers’ largesse when there was no justification at all because most Maori I know—and they watch a darned sight more rugby than most people in this place do—all watched it on nationwide TV or Sky. No Maori Television bid millions of dollars and got the bid and it was a waste of money. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: This member used to be young. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This is just one alternative area—yeah the fact is the great thing about being around Maurice Williamson is that you will always look young. If you move around Maurice and talk to him you will always feel young and look young by comparison. This is just one alternative area of expenditure with a uniquely important or critical need for consideration. 
I want to say this too. In all fairness in the last election Maori Television was by far the most balanced and fair presenter of the issues and the political parties. There is no doubt about that so I give it full commendation for that. Then when it came to the Gallipoli commemorations it was streets ahead of anybody else. So I give credit where credit is due. It is in these things that we seek Maori Television to be focused; as it should be right now on the question of enrolment at census time—which is too late; it has gone by—but on the future enrolment whether it is going to be for the Maori seats or otherwise. So in short stick to the things it should be sticking to. 
We believe there is likely to be keen public interest in the bill and would encourage public submissions but we are mindful that this is not the time for a blank cheque. Whatever Maori Television does deliver it must deliver value for money. If Maori Television is doing its job it will deliver on its charter and it will deliver content that is relevant and appealing to a wide audience across the entire spectrum of New Zealand. If it does that it can escape some of the political correctness that so far has confused so many people about the engagement of this service and it can get on and do its job properly—first of all for the country but in particular for Maori and the Maori language. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I applaud the fact that this bill the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill will enhance the dissemination of the Maori language and I support it. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Te Kaiwhakahaere tena koe. Ki a koe e te Minita Maori e Pita ka nui te mihi. Te pai hoki o te haere kaha o te Pouaka Whakaata Maori kei te ora hoki. Me whakahoki oku whakaaro ki te timata. He nui atu te wehewehe i roto i te mahunga o wetahi o te Whare nei. Takariri atu wetahi mo te puta a tenei taputapu e mau pai atu. Te mea pai i te wa nei e kite atu tatau te kaha rawa te pouri e manaaki atu nga kanohi Maori mai i te motu. Kore hoki atu mo nga kanohi Maori anake. E nui atu ratau o tera piri e mau whatu ki te ahua nei. No reira tena ano taku whakaaro na te mea hoki e tae atu e kite atu tatau te kaha i roto i a ratau hei tu hei manaaki atu te ahua o nga ra o nga hoia te ra o Waitangi Matatini—tera tino mahi hakahaka nga take katoa pera tonu e haere atu i runga i te motu e kite atu te nui o nga kura nga kohanga e manaaki atu e mau ana nga kupu me nga whana o te Pouaka Whakaata Maori. 
He tino rekareka atu te kite atu te oratiatanga i roto i a ratau nga kaiwhakahaere pera i a Jim ma e manaaki e tautokotia atu tenei tino take. E tautokotia atu au i nga whakaaro e pohehe haere nga teihana etahi me TV3. E wero atu toku tuakana a Shane mo ratau na te mea i roto i aku kei te tu pakari atu tenei teihana. No reira tera ano te mea i roto i a tatau. E pai ana e ora ana. 
Kite atu au i Wisconsin i Montreal nga teihana penei tonu e mahi atu te mahi penei tonu. Na te pai hoki he taputapu he pouaka whakaata he mahi paoho a tatau o te tangata whenua. Tera ano te pai no reira ki a koe kia kaha kia maia. Kaua koe e manaaki atu ratau e pirangi tangohia atu te whakaaea te kore whakaaea o te pouaka whakaata i roto to ratau tari. Kei runga ano wetahi o nga mahi nanakia e tika atu e waihotia atu i te tari o te Minita Maori. 
No reira i roto i a wera whakaaro e mihi kau ana ki te Pouaka Whakaata Maori e mihi kau ana ki nga kaimahi e mau tuturu atu to tatau Reo to tatau ahua Maori i runga nga—ahakoa nga piki nga heke. I reira ke ratau e whawhai tonu atu mo te ora o to tatau Reo hei mau kite atu nga whatu mo ratau e kore e tae ki Waitangi ki te ra o nga hoia ki Matatini nga hui nui pera tonu. Kare hoki atu mo nga hui kaita anake. He nui atu nga huihuinga me nga take e pa ana ki te pai o tatau o Aotearoa engari mo te tangata whenua tera ano te timata. Tena koe e te Kaiwhakahaere. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. A huge one to you Pita Minister of Maori Affairs. The Maori Television Service is really going strong. It is alive as well. Let me take my thoughts back to the beginning. There was much division in the minds of some in this House. Some were irate over the delivery of this service and the benefits it had to offer. The great thing we see at the moment is the extreme disappointment at the support accorded to Maori audiences out in the country. But it was not just them alone. There are many of them in that situation who wanted to see this service. However that is my perception because we were there and witnessed how resolute they were as they stood and supported what the army days Waitangi Day and Matatini were about—that great cultural arts festival and everything like that going out to the nation being seen by the many schools and many Maori preschool language nests that in turn support and hang on every word and action by the Maori Television Service.  
It is an absolute pleasure to see how well they the operators like Jim and others are caring and supporting this great initiative. I endorse the growing doubts that some channels and TV3 have. My senior colleague Shane has a challenge for them because there is a feeling within me and us that this station is well established. It is well and it is alive.  
I note in Wisconsin and Montreal channels very much like these are operating in the same manner. It is great as well as it is a facility a television service and we the Maori of the country are into the field of broadcasting. And that is the great thing about it. That aside one has to be strong and confident. Do not support those who want to take away the ability to approve or not approve a television service as part of the functions of their departments. The Maori Minister’s department must take some responsibility for some of the strange decisions made about what should be taken out and what should be left in.  
So within the parameters of those thoughts I really acknowledge the Maori Television Service and staff who have held firm to our language and our Maori perspective despite the circumstances and the ups and downs. Actually that is where they were really fighting on for the survival of our language being a face for those who could not make it to Waitangi the army days Matatini and significant gatherings like those. But they were not just there for the major ones. There were several other gatherings and related events about what we of New Zealand are good at but for us the Maori of the country that was just the beginning. Thank you Mr Speaker 
.] 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge what is broad cross-party support for this bill the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill and add my voice of commendation as well. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I call Rino Tirikatene. I understand that this is a split call—5 minutes. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Kia ora. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. A ki a koe e te Minita tena koe. E tu atu au ki te tautoko i tenei pire. 
[ 
Thank you. Greetings Mr Assistant Speaker. Greetings to the House collectively. And to you the Minister greetings. I rise to support this bill 
.] 
I am pleased to speak in support of the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill. We are having this first reading a week short of Maori Television’s ninth birthday ninth anniversary and I think we all—well definitely all us Maori—remember 28 March 2004 very well getting up early in the morning and watching the launch of Maori Television. It was an exciting time and I am pleased to see the progression that Maori Television has taken since its launch back in 2004. 
I would like to acknowledge our matua here the Hon Parekura Horomia who was the Minister of Maori Affairs at the time under a Labour Government who launched that waka of Maori Television. Indeed it is fair to say that Maori Television is held in deep affection across the country as a public service broadcaster but also in terms of fulfilling its role to promote and protect our Te Reo Maori. That is where I would like to start because the whakapapa to Maori Television goes back to the Treaty commitment the Treaty partnership between the Crown and Maori that there is an active duty on the Crown to protect and foster Te Reo Maori and that has given rise to Maori radio Maori TV and various other organisations and activities that have sprung up over the years. 
Maori Television is definitely a flagship for our language and our culture and it was timely that under Parekura it was programmed into the bill that there would be a review. That review was carried out and reported back in May 2009. Te Kahui o Mahutonga—a very capable highly skilled and experienced group of three—carried out that review and it came up with some very good recommendations around the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Act. It is regrettable I guess that not all of its recommendations were followed through but I do note that if we go to the actual functions of the service one aspect of Te Kahui o Mahutonga’s recommendations that has been adopted has been to further broaden or articulate the Maori Television service to not only promote Te Reo but also to protect and preserve Te Reo and that has been reflected in the amendments to the bill. 
I want to pick up on the part in this bill that transfers the management rights for the spectrum that will allow Maori Television to progress to the digital platform to be vested in Te Putahi Paoho. Te Putahi Paoho is the electoral college that was set up under the original Act. The vesting of these management rights in that body I think calls into question—and this was raised by Te Kahui o Mahutonga’s report—that we really need to look at the composition of that Te Putahi Paoho body.  
We are getting a lot of electoral colleges created these days to get wide representation of Maori stakeholders in terms of their support or their input into appointing directors on to a lot of these Maori structures that have been created. If we look at Maori fisheries for example we have Te Kawai Taumata there. If we look at the Maori Te Huarahi Tika Trust there is an electoral college there. And also we have this electoral college for Maori Television. But if you look at the actual organisations that make up that body I think that is where we need to really look because they have the power to appoint people on to these bodies. 
I have been part of a Maori organisation that has a statutory role to actually have to appoint a representative on to these bodies and I know that a large number of these organisations are barely existing and are very highly under-resourced so it is a big responsibility to be putting on to a few organisations. I think we really need to look carefully at that because we want to make sure that Te Putahi Paoho is not a waka kehua and we do not want kaupoais—cowboys—taking over these organisations. Kia ora tatou. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is pleased and proud to support this bill the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill. We think it makes sensible amendments to allow for the continued operation of Maori Television and to equip Maori Television for the digital age. We would like to congratulate Maori Television on the upcoming ninth anniversary of its broadcast as referred to by the previous speaker Rino Tirikatene and commend what I think is a very high-quality broadcaster. Indeed in the absence of a true public service broadcaster for the country Maori Television now fills that role for us in New Zealand as our public service broadcaster and it does an excellent job. 
Maori Television is a great expression of the partnership embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi and a great example of what can be achieved if we think creatively about how to embody that partnership in the modern times. I think as my co-leader Metiria Turei referred to it has done great things for the revitalisation of Te Reo Maori which is indeed a treasure for us all and should be as precious to us as our land our rivers our mountains and our precious natural environment. I will finish with a whakatauki. Ko Te Reo te taikura o te whakaaro marama. 
[ 
Language is the key to understanding. 
] 
Kia ora. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Affairs Committee report the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Amendment Bill to the House on or before 23 July 2013. 
Motion agreed to. 
Medicines Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction)  
on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: I move  
That the Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. After looking at the bill I am pleased that the Health Committee has recommended that it should proceed with some amendments. The committee has worked hard and I thank all the members for their contributions. Before outlining the provisions in the bill I think it is helpful to review its purpose in order to understand what this amendment bill will do and what it will not do. 
This bill will amend some specific provisions of the Medicines Act 1981 to streamline the legislation. What this bill will not do is carry out a comprehensive overhaul of the Act. In June 2011 the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Australia announced their intention to proceed with the establishment of an Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Agency under a treaty signed in 2003. The Minister of Health intends to progress a Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill in 2013 to provide for the agency. That legislation and the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill currently before the Health Committee will comprehensively overhaul New Zealand’s therapeutic products regulatory system. This Medicines Amendment Bill pre-dates the Prime Minister’s agreement to progress the Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Agency. It should be seen as an interim measure before the agency is established. 
This bill firstly will modernise the definitions of “medicine” “medical device” and “therapeutic purpose”; secondly it will amend the medicines approval process to make the legislation less prescriptive instead specifying the detail in regulations; and thirdly it will amend the prescribing framework to name nurse practitioners and optometrists as authorised prescribers and make some minor changes to licensing requirements. The submissions on the bill were generally supportive of these proposals. The bill as introduced also added an enabling provision for a new category “delegated prescriber” and an enabling provision for temporary prescribing rights. 
There were mixed views from submitters on these provisions. A common theme was the need for further information on the process for gaining and implementing delegated and temporary prescribing rights. The bill has been amended in response to this and I will now outline for the House the feedback from submissions and key changes. Definitions—there was general support for updating the definitions of “medicine” “medical device” and “therapeutic purpose” to better align with international norms. The definitions in this bill have been developed to reflect New Zealand’s current regulatory framework. These definitions will be reviewed and updated again as part of the establishment of the agency. 
Prescribing—there are currently two categories of prescriber in the Medicines Act: “authorised” and “designated”. An authorised prescriber is a medical practitioner dentist registered midwife or designated prescriber. These prescribers must prescribe within their scope of practice for patients under their care. “Designated prescriber” is the term used for a restricted subgroup of authorised prescribers. Currently optometrists and nurse practitioners with prescribing rights and some registered nurses practising in diabetes health are designated prescribers. Designated prescribers are allowed to prescribe only certain medicines listed in regulation. The bill revokes the designated prescriber regulations for nurse practitioners and optometrists and names them as authorised prescribers. This will align their prescribing rights with those of medical practitioners dentists and midwives by enabling them to prescribe all medicines appropriate to their scope of practice rather than limiting them to being able to prescribe only from a limited list of medicines. This move acknowledges the safe and appropriate prescribing practice of these groups over the past 7 years. There was broad support among the submissions for amending the definition of “authorised prescriber” to name nurse practitioners and optometrists. A small number of submissions raised concerns about extended prescribing rights in terms of patient safety fragmentation of care and increased costs to the sector. This reflects in part a general opposition to the extension of prescribing rights to people other than doctors. 
The bill also creates a new category of prescriber the “delegated prescriber”. Delegated prescribers will be allowed to prescribe under a delegated prescribing order issued by an authorised prescriber. The competence training and qualifications required of delegated prescribers would be set in consultation with the responsible authority. The requirements for delegated prescribers would be set at a lower level than for designated and authorised prescribers commensurate with the more limited level of prescribing and the oversight of the authorising prescriber. Generally there was cautious support for the new category of “delegated prescriber” from medical and pharmacy organisations and opposition from nursing groups. The “delegated prescriber” category adds a prescribing option for professional groups beyond the existing categories. It will be for regulatory authorities to determine what form of prescribing rights if any they intend to seek for their profession. 
A common theme in submissions was the need for further information on the process of gaining and implementing delegated prescribing. The bill has been amended so that delegated prescribing rights will be made via regulation rather than by  
Gazette 
 notice. Requiring a regulatory mechanism will allow greater scrutiny and reflect the significant responsibilities that accompany any form of prescribing but it will still allow flexibility to tailor conditions and requirements to different groups of delegated prescribers. Further consultation and education on the details of the delegated prescriber provisions will need to occur during development of the regulations and prior to their implementation. 
The bill as introduced included a temporary prescribing provision to allow time-limited demonstration sites of new models of care that involve extending prescribing rights. Officials’ previous understanding was that designated prescriber regulations could not be time-limited. I have since been advised that the existing designated prescriber regulation-making power does allow conditions to be placed that specify a time limit. This would allow all the restrictions that would be imposed by a temporary prescribing provision to be imposed by designated prescribing regulations. Given this ability the temporary prescribing provisions are redundant and have been removed from the bill. 
This bill also amends the licensing provisions in the Act to enable a licensing authority to take into account previous convictions when considering an applicant’s fitness to hold a licence and to impose conditions either when issuing a licence or at any time while a licence is in effect. The bill removes the provisions in the Act that deal with medicines approvals and will replace these with regulation-making powers. The default commencement date is set at 1 July 2017. This anticipates that the medicines approval process provisions in the bill are likely to be superseded by the establishment of the Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Agency but provides a backstop should the implementation of the agency be delayed. 
Of the submissions that addressed the medicines approvals process there was general support for the removal from the Act of the detail about the application and process requirements for the new and changed medicines and related products. Regardless of where the approvals process for medicines is developed as a New Zealand - only scheme or as part of the joint agency scheme the regulations will be risk based and provide different approval pathways to cater for medicines in different risk categories. Each pathway will trigger the application of a level of scrutiny that reflects the risk of the medicine. For example in keeping with international norms more rigorous scrutiny will be applied to higher-risk prescriptions etc. etc. Medicines with known ingredients that can be purchased without a prescription would require less scrutiny. The regulations would be set out in the eligibility criteria for the different pathways and the validity requirements. They would also set out the process to be followed by the regulator and applicants to resolve or not technical queries. 
This bill provides an opportunity to amend some specific provisions of the Medicines Act in advance of the comprehensive overhaul of the— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. His time has expired. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow such a fulsome contribution from the Minister for Building and Construction Maurice Williamson on the Medicines Amendment Bill here on a Thursday morning during extended sitting hours—a time for non-controversial legislation to be progressed through the House legislation that has broad support from parties around the House. What an appropriate place for this Medicines Amendment Bill to be debated and what an appropriate time because the issues dealt with in this legislation ought to be non-controversial. They ought to draw broad support from across the House but unfortunately to paraphrase Chris Auchinvole it ain’t always necessarily been so. 
The Medicines Amendment Bill does get broad support and it is supported by the Labour Party. We support the fact that the bill streamlines the Medicines Act and amends some specific provisions in the legislation. I think the thing that the public will take most notice of is the work towards establishing the Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Agency. Having a trans-Tasman authority to oversee medicines and therapeutic products is a sensible thing that we should be working towards. Of course we have been lurching towards it for some years now but progress has been held up and the politics of that I will address in a moment. 
The other thing that New Zealanders will notice the most is the broadening of prescribing rights. To be honest this is the thing that I am most interested in and most supportive of in this legislation. The ability for in particular nurse practitioners but also other health practitioners to gain prescribing rights I think is an important step towards improving the accessibility and availability of medicines and improving the flexibility of our health system. We know that it can be challenging for people to get access to appropriate health-care and that can simply come down to the availability of appropriate health practitioners. In the 21st century I think we recognise that that does not always have to be a medical practitioner. It does not always have to be a doctor. We received a number of supportive submissions particularly from the Nurses Organisation and other nursing representative organisations for the extension of prescribing rights to nurses and to other health practitioners. There was some opposition. Sadly but predictably it came from the GPs and from the medical fraternity who seem to think they are the only people qualified to deal in health and particularly in medicines. It was not exactly die in the ditch stuff from the medical fraternity. I think they realise that the world has moved on. It was not exactly a strident submission from them but nevertheless that is where the opposition came from. 
As I said this is a bill that is necessary and improves the regulatory framework for medicines. But everything contained in this bill the substance of this bill could have been progressed 5 years ago had the National Party not decided to play politics with this important issue. The National Party withdrew its support for the then Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill which interestingly is the title of the legislation that we are working towards of course but the National Party saw an opportunity to put the Labour Government under pressure by withdrawing its support meaning that that bill could not be progressed. This was not in the interests of good health-care in New Zealand. This was not in the interests of good regulation of medical products. It was not in the interests of good regulation of natural health and supplementary products which we are also going to be dealing with this morning. This was pure politics. When I read last year that the Minister of Health Tony Ryall is in the media’s opinion the best politician on the National benches I thought: “You know what? They are absolutely right.” He is a terrible Minister of Health. He is ruining the health system. He is setting up all sorts of problems for future Governments to have to clean up but my goodness Tony Ryall is a very very good politician. Unfortunately politics does not always make for the best lawmaking or the best regulatory system or for improving our health system but it can make for good politicians. I know that Dr Paul Hutchison agrees with all of this. He will not say so of course because he is whipped by his party but Dr Paul Hutchison agrees with all of this. 
What did the National Party say that Labour had to do in order to keep its support for establishing good regulation around medicines? It was to take away the provisions in that original piece of legislation to do with natural products. Well what is the next bill that we are going to be debating this morning? What did we work so hard on Dr Hutchison to align this piece of legislation with? It was the Natural Health—and now—Supplementary Products Bill which actually shows how political National’s opposition is to actually achieving everything that is achieved in this bill. Five long years ago it could have been done. We could have had nurses— 
Hon Annette King 
: Along with folate. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Along with folate as well Ms King says. We could have had a good regulatory framework for medicines. We could have had nurses prescribing. We could have had nurse practitioners particularly diabetes nurse practitioners doing more to deal with the tsunami of diabetes that this country is facing. We could have been tackling that 5 years ago but no National likes to play politics when actually the thing we are supposed to do is get on and govern properly and do the right thing by New Zealanders. This bill and the bill that is going to follow it are both excellent pieces of legislation. It is just such a pity that in this case when the National Government actually for once got off its backside and did something about this bill the thing is that what it did was completely contrary to the interests of New Zealand—it put politics ahead of the health of New Zealanders. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to speak on this Medicines Amendment Bill. Contrary to what Iain Lees-Galloway the former speaker said this is yet another positive and continuing contribution by the National Government towards improving health in New Zealand and I must say that the health situation in New Zealand by objective measurements has only improved under the Minister of Health—the outstanding Minister of Health—Tony Ryall compared with a very miserable performance in the 9 years before. But I would like to acknowledge the work of the Health Committee on this important bill. We work as a very consensual committee and it was very positive and an excellent result has been formulated. Secondly I want to thank the 43 submitters amongst which again there were some thoughtful submissions and of course I thank the Ministry of Health staff who were extraordinarily helpful to us. 
This bill is reflective of the need to deliver high-quality safe modern public services within tight budgets. I must remind the former speaker that the facts are that since 1950 the cost of living has gone up by 152 percent but expenditure on health has gone up by 452 percent. That was totally forgotten by the previous Labour Government which increased expenditure on health from $6 billion to $12 billion over 9 years with no real increase in output. It was a failure. It totally failed to realise that it is important to expend every health dollar well and that has been reversed under this National Government. But I do want to acknowledge Health Workforce New Zealand and others throughout our health system that are continuously looking for innovative new ways to work that will lead to better sooner more convenient health care for all. 
Hon Members 
: Slogans. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: No slogan at all. 
I do note that in the submissions the New Zealand Medical Association was understandably somewhat more conservative in its submission than others. It did support delegated prescribing under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner but noted that the bill could enable any authorised prescriber including nurse practitioners and optometrists to also be responsible for delegated prescribing. I think it is understandable that it has a conservative approach because at the end of the day the responsibility for mishaps—and mishaps will always occur and when it happens with prescribing indeed they will always continue to occur—does indeed fall at the end of the day on the medical profession. But on the other hand the submissions from the nurses the pharmacists and the optometrists were far more activist in wanting to extend their prescribing rights. I have no doubt that at the end of the day the bottom line is that of patient safety and again I welcome the initiative of this Government of forming the Health Quality and Safety Commission led by the very able Professor Alan Merry in ensuring that safety is absolutely at the bottom line of any legislation that may go to new and innovative measures. 
As was pointed out this legislation is an interim measure intended to address some problematical provisions of the Medicines Act in advance of a comprehensive overhaul. That overhaul is likely to happen by mid-2016 when a single regulatory regime will occur across both countries—Australia and New Zealand—and that of course will be an extremely satisfactory advance. I do note that the nomenclature around this bill is somewhat mind-boggling. It does require a Gilbert and Sullivan alliterative command as was so ably demonstrated by Maurice Williamson in his initial speech when it comes to these new definitions of authorised designated and delegated prescribers— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I just read what I had in front of me. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: But he read it so well—he read it so well. I will not go into further detail now other than to say that this is yet another step in the innovative continued work of the National Government in ensuring that New Zealanders are delivered better sooner and more convenient health care. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Medicines Amendment Bill and I take some pleasure in doing so but I would have taken even greater pleasure in doing it 5 years ago. The member who has just resumed his seat Paul Hutchison who chaired the Health Committee—I have to say in an extremely able way and I have no beef with him about that at all—saw fit to take a flick at the previous Labour Government and its innovations in the health area which was completely unjustified and it would be remiss of me to allow that to go unchallenged in  
Hansard 
. So I would ask that member to recall the cut in prescription fees the cancer control strategy the breast-screening programme and all the other helpful innovations that the Labour Government undertook in the health portfolio in the 9 years that we had the privilege of being on those benches. 
In the course of those improvements that we were making to the health sector we proposed to bring in a Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill which oddly enough is exactly the same name as the bill that this Government is going to move on to in due course. But I remember distinctly from that time—it was my first term in Parliament and I was on the Health Committee—Tony Ryall playing complete politics with the health of New Zealanders. He thought that he was on to a winning thing by joining with people under a series of red umbrellas out on the forecourt of Parliament to protest about natural supplements and the regulation of natural health supplements. In the process of his doing that the bill was split into two parts but even so the now Minister of Health could not at that time in Opposition bring himself to advance something that was going to be for the good of New Zealanders and this delay in managing innovative measures of prescribing and of using our health workforce lies absolutely on that Minister’s head. On his head lies the responsibility for the delay a good 5 or 6-year delay—6 years now—in bringing these innovations to this Parliament. So I do not want to hear any more about the wonderful Minister of Health when people realise that his siding with Sue Kedgley which he did only on the basis of politics and not on the basis of being committed to the issue that she raised—which had validity it is true. He engaged with the Green Party in a way we have never seen him do before or since and saw that this was a way that he could score some political points at that time at the expense of New Zealanders. I have no compunction about sheeting that responsibility home to this Minister who continues to call himself the Minister of Health when in fact he should be called the “Minister of Illness”. 
We are supporting this bill because it started with us and so we support it. We support the idea that there be regulated but extended powers of prescribing. When the Health Workforce New Zealand group started to look in the last few years at just how scopes of practice might be amended or adjusted to incorporate additional functions and tasks that was greeted with applause from us. That is a sensible thing to do. If we are looking to maximise the appropriation that goes into health and at the same time ensure that what is delivered through the health appropriation is for the benefit of the greatest number of New Zealanders then this is a good proposal. 
Extending powers of prescribing however must be done only with the imprimatur of this House and with regulatory oversight by this House. People in New Zealand must have confidence that if they are going to get a prescription from a nurse or a nurse practitioner or an optometrist or any other designated prescriber then that person is competent to fulfil that task. And that competence must be regulated must be monitored and must be scrutinised and in the end it becomes the responsibility of this House. We could have had this 6 years ago—6 years have gone by when people have still had to pay their $39 $42 $45 or sometimes $54 to go to a general practitioner just to get a script that could have been given to them by somebody who was appropriately qualified and regulated to do it. So for the last 6 years people have been paying unnecessarily for consultations with their general practitioner when quite frankly somebody else could have done that job and that is the responsibility of this National Government and the responsibility of the National Opposition before it. 
We undertook the development of the delegated prescribing protocol when we were in Government. We think there is strong support for the general proposal across health professionals and also across the New Zealand public who understand that they should not have to pay twice: once to go to an ophthalmologist and then to go to somebody who has prescribing rights to get the medication and the treatment they require. This will allow for more timely access for patients especially in some of our more diverse community and rural settings and that is really important. National could have delivered “Better sooner more convenient care” 6 years ago to people in rural communities and provincial areas had it not decided to play politics with it instead of recognising the merit of the bill that we were passing even when we divided it into two so that the issues around natural health supplements could be addressed separately and the Green Party’s concerns could be addressed properly in that regard. But no “Better sooner more convenient care” was not on their minds when Government members were in Opposition. Opposing was on their mind when they were in Opposition. 
So we support this bill. We welcome it. We think it is important that there is a more comprehensive overhaul of the Medicines Act. In fact it could have been done more comprehensively. This bill remains an interim measure. I think that that is also a sign of inadequacy. In fact the whole thing should have been done at once but now we are passing an interim measure that will have to be revisited again shortly and that is a shame. It is kind of a waste of Parliament’s time but hopefully the Government will sort itself out and we will get there in due course. Both this bill and the one that follows it the Natural Health Products Bill have our support and we wish only that we could have voted for them some years ago. Thank you. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on this Medicines Amendment Bill and begin in the traditional way by thanking the officials who worked with the Health Committee on this bill. The arcane nature of some of the material in the bill I think meant that officials had to work particularly hard on this one and their work was appreciated. I also thank my fellow members of the Health Committee. It is a committee that works very well together under Paul Hutchison’s chairmanship and it did a great job on this bill. We actually made some substantive changes. Also I thank of course the submitters. It was I think difficult for submitters to get to grips with the nature of the bill because although some consultation had been undertaken some years previously with a limited set of stakeholders many submitters were coming to the bill for the first time because of the inadequacy of that earlier consultation process. The submissions we received were I think uniformly well thought through and appreciated. 
It is a long time ago that we were considering this bill. The Health Committee was considering submissions on this bill about a year ago and one has to wonder I think—picking up on Maryan Street’s point that this is an interim measure—why on earth it would take a year for this bill to come back to the House. If the measures were needed for the interim surely they were needed a year ago. There seems no reason at all why it could not have been progressed at that time. 
Maurice Williamson has covered some of the detail of the bill and I pick up on Paul Hutchison’s perhaps backhanded compliment to Maurice Williamson—describing it as “Gilbert and Sullivanian” perhaps. “He read all the speeches with a voice so clear that”—I am not sure what the second line would be but maybe he is deserving of a promotion within Cabinet. The revised definitions were welcomed by all. I just note the need that will arise to align the definitions of medicines in other Acts with the one that is incorporated into the Medicines Act by this bill. 
The principal change made by this bill is to extend and elaborate the framework for prescribing rights reflecting the creaky nature of the existing framework for prescribing. I think there was general support for the extension of authorised prescribers and I note in particular the change made to nurse practitioners which I think is very broadly welcomed across the country. Regarding designated providers the changes made to this category are important for the flexibility of our prescribing framework and I will come to that in a little more detail in a moment. And then regarding delegated prescribers as Maurice Williamson has set out this was not altogether uncontroversial and Iain Lees-Galloway has also spoken about that. 
I think we are cautiously of a mind still to accept this extension into delegated prescribing. I say “cautiously” because to our way of thinking this category of prescribers still does not sit easily with the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. That I think is one of the matters that as we move to the permanent resolution of these issues in the Medicines Act as opposed to the interim one will need to be addressed by the Government—probably by a Government that is less supine about the need for regulatory reform in the area of health. Regarding the category of temporary prescribers as Maurice Williamson has said it was good that the select committee recognised that that further category was not needed and it has been scrapped in the bill. 
The point of our regulatory regime around medicines has got to be threefold. It has to ensure timely access to medicines. The changes that we are making in this bill to the categories of prescribers adds to our ability to provide New Zealanders with timely access to medicines and that is a good thing. Secondly the regime must provide for the safety of New Zealanders. That I think is clearly what was at the heart of some of the concerns expressed by doctors about extending prescribing rights to other categories of health professionals and I am satisfied that the provision exists for us to ensure safe prescribing of medicines. The onus now falls on the Director-General of Health and the Minister to ensure that that is carried forward. 
The third purpose is one that is not normally articulated but is I think very important in the light of this bill and that is to ensure that we make the best possible use of the health workforce that we have. This bill certainly makes a contribution in that regard. It is very important for the reason I outlined in my first reading speech—and Iain Lees-Galloway again has spoken about it—and that is the growing need for health services. A growing population an ageing population a population with more complex health needs all says our health system needs to do more and more. Against that backdrop we have a Government that has chosen to reduce health services funding in real terms and within that sinking lid for health funding to prioritise some particular areas that are of short-term importance and optical value for political gain at the expense of everything else. 
I think everyone in this House ought to be sobered by the research that was published just a couple of weeks ago from the University of Otago showing actually that one in four New Zealanders over the age of 15 either has type 2 diabetes or has pre-diabetes. That is a rate much higher than was previously thought and it is indicative of the kind of load that our health services are going to need to shoulder. Against that backdrop we have a Minister who comes to the House week after week making a smug claim about 1000 extra doctors in response to questions about senior doctors about our specialist workforce. We know that what he is doing is conflating certainly some extra senior doctors—fewer than are needed to maintain parity against the growing health need in fact—along with junior doctors and a bunch of other people. That is what he is doing. He is conflating categories to provide a politically useful answer. 
I think we also need to start drawing attention to the contribution of Health Workforce New Zealand one of the Minister’s initiatives which is still producing a programme that is hopelessly poorly geared to the need that we actually have of serious workforce development in the health sector. Its programme is chaotic haphazard and clearly inadequate for the need. 
So when we look to the extremely slow progress of this interim bill it is emblematic of this Government’s approach to health. In stark contrast to the growing extremely serious need for a comprehensive overhaul of our regulatory regime and our systems to enable this nation to cope with that tsunami of health need this Government is choosing instead to work slowly and to make cosmetic changes that are in its political short-term interests rather than grappling with the serious long-term challenges that New Zealand faces. We have a health Minister who is clearly not up to the task. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Medicines Amendment Bill. Like the previous speaker Kevin Hague I would like to thank the officials for their hard work. There were some parts of the bill that did need a lot of clarity for members and the officials worked hard to ensure that we had that clarity. I would also like to thank the chair of the Health Committee Dr Hutchison for his patience and I thank fellow members of the committee. 
This bill has taken a long time to get back to the House. Why? We are totally unsure. We have had no reasons for the delay in this bill. New Zealand First supports this bill the Medicines Amendment Bill in view of the global advances that are happening in medicines and the changing role of medical practitioners. We in New Zealand First have always believed that decisions regarding health have to be timely and this bill is one way with the burgeoning disease burden that is now approaching New Zealand that we can ensure that timely decisions are actually made. 
By altering the definitions of “medicines” and “medical devices” and further defining where various health professionals fit in on the prescribing framework this bill will help to achieve the goal of timely decisions. What is the slogan we hear in this House quite often? Is it “Better sooner faster care” or is it “Better sooner more convenient care”? We hear it daily and we would like to believe it. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Why does Maryan Street oppose it? 
BARBARA STEWART 
: We are not opposing it; we are supporting it. We believe that this bill will actually enable New Zealanders to have a greater flexibility to get the most out of our health system. 
When one goes to an optometrist or a pharmacist or a nurse practitioner and some ailment is diagnosed identified and prescribed for it makes sense to have that prescription written out at that time rather than going to the general practitioner at some later time and having to arrange the appointment. We all know that attending work is one of New Zealanders’ greatest considerations and the greatest percentage of New Zealanders try to take the minimum of sick leave. 
One of the purposes of this bill as the Hon Maurice Williamson said is to modernise definitions to align with international norms. This tells us a lot. Where New Zealand was once considered one of the world’s leaders in health information and health technology advances we are now playing catch-up with our legislation but it is an important step if we are ever going to get ahead. We do live in a time now when technology is accelerating advancements in health and medicine. As such it is no surprise to find that the definitions of “medicines” “medical devices” and “therapeutic purpose” need adjusting from what is currently set out in the Medicines Act 1981. Realigning these meanings with the products that we find ourselves buying time and time again is timely. Over-the-counter products for self-medication have advanced in recent years. The number of advances in over-the-counter products like contact lens solution eye drops headache remedies self-testing pregnancy kits and nasal sprays cannot be considered by anyone to fall under the category of medicine and they should not be classified as such—and no doubt there is a whole list of other things that should be mentioned. 
In fact technology has advanced significantly and it is inevitable that “technology” in the regulations would need to be amended. We want these advances to continue as we are the recipients and we need to see the definitions of medical devices and medicines aligned with international norms. We live in an international world and we basically cannot afford to shut ourselves away in our corner of the world and ignore what is happening elsewhere. 
Whom we see for a routine check-up or a repeat prescription has also changed quite markedly. Pharmacists optometrists dentists and nurse practitioners are often the first port of call for minor ailments or for ongoing condition maintenance. Where would we be without the trusted community pharmacies that can provide a wide range of advice and remedies for a wide range of ailments from coughs and colds first aid for a wide range of sports injuries and everything else in between—warts nits lice everything? We have all been there and used those services and sometimes bought those products ourselves. It is an excellent service that the pharmacists provide instead of people actually going to the doctor. Pharmacists always provide a very valuable professional service to a very high level. It is instantly available and people appreciate that. So we in New Zealand First were very pleased to see their prescribing regime actually changed recently and we wish them well and hope that it continues. 
Of course we have to recognise too the increase in the amount of training that is actually given to pharmacy staff by various organisations. This has really given the pharmacy staff and the customers the benefit of the wider experience of those working in the pharmacy industry making everyone’s understanding of minor health ailments so much better and allowing them to more ably select the self-medicating products that we rely on. With these subtle changes to the health model that we currently have the legislation needed to catch up to accurately represent our experience within the health system. 
While working on this bill in the Health Committee it became apparent that submitters generally supported the new regime and the new definitions. I am confident that the work done on the bill has resolved the queries of the various groups that discussed their submissions regarding the prescribing framework. It did take some work for all of us to understand the differences between an “authorised prescriber” a “designated prescriber” and a “delegated prescriber”—all of those terms that the Hon Maurice Williamson waxed lyrical about this morning. So we believe that we can support this part of the bill with confidence. 
Delegated prescribers are very important and a valuable step away from “health by postcode”—a problem that we really do not want to have. It is a good option beyond the current prescribing practices that people currently have. When this role is totally established it will help ensure that all New Zealanders have more convenient and efficient access to medicine. We believe these changes will also help bridge the gap between the rural and the urban experience. 
New Zealand First supports the passing of this bill as it allows for greater flexibility where medicine and health changes are happening at an incredible rate. We believe it is in the interests of our health outcomes to keep up with the changes. Safety however is a priority for New Zealand First. We will watch as the regulatory authority is created and carefully monitor what problems are arising in this particular faction. Given we are seeking to increase the flexibility of our health system we will support the bill right through all stages. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
Natural Health Products Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources)  
on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move  
That the Natural Health Products Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the Health Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the Natural Health Products Bill. I would also like to give particular acknowledgment to the work of the excellent chair of the committee Dr Paul Hutchison. The committee has recommended a number of amendments to the bill which the Government will be supporting. I would also like to thank the members of the Regulations Review Committee who provided important feedback on some technical aspects of the bill which has been taken into account. 
The Natural Health Products Bill began its parliamentary life in 2011. It was developed by the Government in conjunction with the Green Party pursuant to a memorandum of understanding signed in 2009. At this point in proceedings I would like to acknowledge the work of Sue Kedgley and more recently that of Mojo Mathers for the constructive way they have worked with the Government in helping to give the bill its current shape. 
The Government is particularly grateful to the Green Party for agreeing to be involved in the development of the regulations that will quickly follow the enactment of this bill. We acknowledge that the bill leaves some material for regulations that some submitters would have preferred to see in primary legislation. The regulations will set out technical detail that is not appropriate for primary legislation. The Government with the Green Party’s help is determined to get these regulations right. 
The purpose of the bill is to establish a regulatory regime in New Zealand for natural health and supplementary products in accordance with four principles: first these products where sold must be fit for human use; second their regulation must be proportionate to the generally low risk of harm they pose; third they are sold only with information that is accurate and tells consumers about their risks and benefits; and fourth and finally claims of health benefits are backed by scientific evidence or evidence of traditional use. 
The Government acknowledges that most of these products demonstrably pose little or no risk of harm to the people who use them. However it is clear that some form of consumer protection is warranted. At the very least people are entitled to have confidence that the products they buy with the intention of protecting or promoting their own health are sanitary contain all and only those ingredients they purport to contain and have some chance of doing what they claim. The New Zealand public and indeed New Zealand law would not for example tolerate the sale of an air-conditioning unit that did nothing but waft asbestos through a building while failing to cool the air. Similarly we do not intend to tolerate the sale of products that are not true to their labels are not true to their claims and may indeed be harmful. 
In all of human endeavour nothing is wholly effective and wholly without risk. This applies to the promotion of human health in medical science and in the field of natural health and supplementary products. In the case of medicines many of which are very new chemicals at the cutting edge of science the Government requires rigorous scientific assessment before treatments are brought to the New Zealand market. Although by no means perfect this is appropriate. The history of medical science shows that a number of treatments have had to be withdrawn after they were discovered sometimes by tragic consequences to do more harm than good. 
Natural health and supplementary products belong in a different category. Many of these have been in continuous use for centuries and have never harmed anybody. On the other hand some of these products have shown little evidence of effectiveness. The challenge is to achieve a sensible regulatory regime that protects consumers acknowledges people’s right to make decisions about their own health and does not have a large negative impact on industry. 
This bill creates the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Regulatory Authority as well as an advisory committee. The authority is to oversee the pre-market notification of products. To bring a product to market a notifier must tell the authority what is in it and it must consist solely of things from an open-ended list of permitted ingredients. There is also to be a list of forbidden ingredients which will include prescription medicines and controlled drugs. The notifier must hold evidence either scientific evidence or evidence of traditional use to back up any claims of health benefit being made for the product. The notifier must provide the authority with that evidence if it is decided that a claim for a particular product warrants further investigation and a summary of the evidence must be made publicly available. 
There will be a publicly accessible database created and maintained by the authority of all notified products. A code of manufacturing practice will apply to all products. The most significant change made to the bill in the select committee relates to serious conditions. As initially drafted the bill prevented any health claim being made that related to a serious condition. Everyone on the select committee agreed that it was important to make sure people were not discouraged from seeking clinical advice when necessary. This is still the intention of the bill. 
What was found during the select committee’s consideration of the bill was that there is no definition of “serious condition” that worked. Either they were too loose and left the way open for excessive claims to be made or they were too tight and would prevent claims being made about things like the relief of the symptoms of hay fever. The solution we have found is to allow the regulator to publish a list of conditions that sellers will be able to make claims about. This does not restrict any other claim just ones about specific conditions. We expect the list to be long. We look forward to working with the Greens and the industry to make sure it is comprehensive. 
There has been some concern expressed that we have changed the nature of the scheme. We have been told that it is now a pre-approval scheme rather than easy and simple self-notification. This is not true. Indeed it is precisely because this is not a pre-approval scheme that we have to do it this way. In other countries that regulate these products there are pre-approval schemes. All claims have to be assessed by the regulator before they can be made. That means they do not have to be as careful in their definitions because there is a check on everything that goes to market but it adds time and it adds expense. The Government is committed to a low-cost low-compliance scheme and this bill reflects that. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in rising to speak to the Natural Health Products Bill. Once more I wish to pay a tribute to the diligence of the chairperson of the Health Committee Dr Paul Hutchison. He applied himself assiduously to this piece of legislation and the work of the committee was all the better for it so I would like to place that on the record. I would also like to place on the record once again—for the second time in about 30 minutes—that this is an example of the Government changing its tune. When the politics ran out the Government decided to do in office exactly what it had opposed in Opposition. Again we could have had this area regulated 6 years ago had the Government not decided to play politics with it regardless of the fact that it knew that natural health products and health supplements were a cause of great concern. So I put on the record that Mr Ryall now considers useful something he thought was abhorrent 7 years ago. 
I welcome this. We on the select committee wrestled with this issue because on the one hand it is really important to have a regulatory framework around anything that is being sold to the public as having some sort of therapeutic effect. Whether it is a cure or a relief of symptoms the public needs to know that what is on the market for their consumption has been regulated and has gone through a process that determines whether or not the claims that the producer has for that product are justifiable or not. So we found ourselves traversing a wide range of products. 
Just to highlight a couple that will perhaps demonstrate to the House what kinds of issues were at stake here first of all we recommended amending clause 1 to change the bill’s title to read “Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill”—not just the “Natural Health Products Bill” but the “Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill”—because there is an increasing number of claims made for dietary supplements that have caused people concern and have required a closer regulatory oversight than we have had previously. In addition we have seen various products change in their application over time. The most obvious example of this and we referred to it in the select committee’s report is honey. We needed to be able to distinguish between a natural health or supplementary product a food and a medicine. With developments with the use of honey there are different products; different uses for honey that have at different moments the purpose of a food the purpose of a supplementary product and the purpose of a medicine. Bandages that are impregnated with manuka honey have a therapeutic function. They have healing properties and in fact Comvita— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: A great local business 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: —a great organisation—and others are exporting such products hugely into the Asian market in particular. But honey as a therapeutic product is something that has been used for centuries. So as well as being a food it has been used for medical purposes and as a supplementary product as well. So that just gives some idea I think for the House that we were looking at a range of products. 
We did not want to arrive at a regulatory system that was ludicrous. It was very easy to end up with a system that meant that teabags had to be regulated if they make claims—as the teabags I use all the time do—about peppermint tea providing clarity camomile tea for relaxation linden leaves for astuteness and as a pick-me-up or about lemon balm which since the 17th century has been used as a dispeller of the melancholy. Those kinds of traditional uses should not find themselves caught with ridiculous regulation. And so we have arrived I think at a regulatory system that is neither cumbersome nor light-handed. We have arrived at a regulatory system that requires people who are making products and laying claim to some therapeutic benefit to be able to justify that. Traditional medicines including rongoa are still allowed and clearly have a process for regulation but are not going to be hammered with unnecessary red tape as long as they do not claim to cure things and lead people up the garden path. 
In other words there have clearly been instances that have been brought to public attention where people have had terrible illnesses that some practitioners thought could have been healed by old therapeutic and traditional therapeutic means. Those have not succeeded and people in the resistance to more modern medicine have in fact died as a result of some of those treatments—or the lack of other treatments that could have worked more effectively. I think that we have arrived at a system that allows for sensible protective regulation without being ridiculous about requiring Twinings to demonstrate its claims that camomile is a relaxant agent when people have known that for hundreds of years. Thank you. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to speak on this Natural Health Products Bill which is shortly to become the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill which is a far more fitting title. I too would like to acknowledge and thank the Health Committee for the incredibly constructive way that it worked. This bill did require a lot of thought and indeed the committee did contribute very significantly in making changes that at the end of the day were consensual were practical and were appropriate for this challenging legislation. I want to acknowledge the officials who were tested on many occasions. I think they had preconceived ideas about many of these things but they were prepared to wrestle with them intellectually. Finally I want to acknowledge the 739 submitters— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Name them. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I cannot name them precisely but many of them were extremely thoughtful. 
Put thoughtfully the bill seeks to regulate low-risk so-called natural health products in New Zealand. The original title sounds simple and easy but in fact this was one of the most challenging pieces of legislation I have ever had to be involved with in this Parliament. I think that is because the bill literally has to deal with a clash of two important cultures—one being the scientific and the other being the traditional. I am very pleased that the principles of the bill are spelt out clearly in the legislation. They include the fact that natural health and supplementary products should be accompanied by information that is accurate and tells consumers about any risks side effects or benefits of using the product and secondly that health benefit claims made for natural health and supplementary products should be supported by scientific or traditional evidence. Having come from a scientific background I do find bridging that gap to accommodate the idea that traditional evidence might support claims is quite a leap for me personally. But the bottom line is that the so-called natural health products should be safe for public consumption that compliance measures are kept at a minimum and that the public do have choice in what they can use. 
The committee came face to face with the significant problems of what does indeed constitute a so-called natural health product in the setting that many of these products have synthetic compounds binding agents and excipients. Natural health and supplementary products are widely consumed around the world. There are billions if not trillions of dollars spent on them every year around the world whether or not they do good or harm. Some have clear scientific evidence of efficacy and others have none whatsoever. This caused an obvious divide between many of the submitters on the bill. As I mentioned significant commercial businesses have been formed where products with no scientific evidence whatsoever have been sold for centuries. However this whole point about placebo effect and the use of complementary medicines has been accommodated throughout health systems right around the world today because we do know that individuals can get considerable benefit if they think that what they are using is going to be helpful. I always marvel at the fact that the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center’s hospital in New York which has a tradition of science about it also has a complementary medicine department associated with it to recognise the value of some of these traditional products. 
The Prime Minister has said that his Government will have science at its centre and there is no doubt that in any legislation—and in particular this type of legislation—a strong evidence base behind policy is fundamental if it is going to be durable. I must say that I consider the submission made by the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister Professor Sir Peter Gluckman was particularly salutary and worthy of noting. He mentions the original title of the bill the Natural Health Products Bill and he does say that “It is unfortunate that the bill has progressed so far with such a misleading title”. He also goes on to talk about the nature of evidence and how important it is to use the term “scientific evidence” to mean knowledge arising from the scientific process of organised observation and hypothesis testing whereas anecdotal information or the opinions and impressions of individuals does not constitute scientific evidence. He believes that it is very very important to stress whether evidence on manufacturers’ labels is scientific or traditional and I absolute concur with that. I am very pleased that we have persuaded those behind the bill that manufacturers will be required to provide a summary of evidence backing up claims. The other point he made was that the New Zealand economy is based on food exports. Increasingly the food industry is seeking to develop foods and nutraceuticals with proven and regulator-approved health claims. It is now about a billion-dollar industry. It is vital for New Zealand that we are credible in the way we treat these products. It is vital for our exports in this rapidly increasing field. He talked about exemptions and homeopathic issues where there is no accepted scientific evidence that homeopathy is efficacious. 
Finally I just want to make a comment about the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Regulatory Authority. This will have considerable power and its decisions will be all-important. I want to put on record that I would like to see it ensure a strong evidence base behind its deliberations. Quite rightly the committee amended the composition of membership to ensure there would be at least one member with experience in the manufacturing of these products and at least one member with experience and qualifications in the field of science. I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I would like to echo the thoughts of Dr Hutchison in respect of the officials and the submitters at the Health Committee. This Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill was a challenging piece of legislation. There is a range of balancing acts to be achieved in this legislation and at the select committee we drew heavily on the advice of officials and the large range of submitters who appeared before us as well and I thank them for the time they took to work with us. This is an attempt—and I think a very good attempt—to secure consumer safety whilst balancing the scientific view with the traditional view in respect of natural and supplementary products and I think we have done well to achieve that. 
It would be remiss of me not to recognise that on the one hand we could have done this—I think we have now figured out—more like 7 years ago. It goes back to 2006 when Tony Ryall played politics with this piece of legislation and withdrew the National Party support. We could have made progress. We could have secured consumer safety all those years ago but National as it so often does preferred to put politics ahead of health care and the well-being of New Zealanders. That point was actually raised by a number of the submitters who came to the select committee because they actually felt duped by the National Party. As much as I disagreed with their position that there was no need for this legislation I could understand why those submitters felt that they had been duped by the National Party which said one thing in Opposition and then did completely the opposite thing in Government. Those submitters came to the select committee and they said there is no substantial difference between this legislation and what had been proposed by the Labour Government back in 2006. They pointed out the hypocrisy on display from the National Party regarding this issue. They came and said: “We do not understand how the National Party could have held that view 7 years ago and be progressing this legislation now that it is in Government.” Nevertheless I happen to not agree with those people and the Labour Party has been consistent with that approach. We did not agree with them in 2006 and we do not agree with them now. We think this legislation is important and it is great that we have broad support across the House for a sensible regulatory environment for natural health products. 
I appreciate the statements made by a number of the submitters that natural health products—and actually I like the new title of the bill. I do not know when we are actually going to refer to this bill with the new title but in terms of the natural health and supplementary products industry I appreciate that it is a low-risk industry in that the products themselves are low-risk. Where I see the great risk and I know that the Minister touched on this as well is when people choose a substance for which there is very little scientific basis to support the claims made around that substance over a more mainstream medical approach. The risk there is that they may not be getting the appropriate treatment for the ailment they have or they may in fact be putting themselves at greater risk by avoiding using something that we know works and using instead something for which either the scientific or the traditional evidence basis has not been established. 
That is what this bill does. It says that if you are going to put a product on the market and make a health-related claim associated with that product you have to provide evidence whether it be scientific or traditional that this product does what you say it will do. There is still an element of consumer choice here. There is still an element of consumers having to accept a level of risk because consumers will have to look at the type of evidence available and they will have to consider whether they want to follow a scientific approach or a more traditional approach. That is people’s individual choice and that has been accommodated for in this legislation as well. 
There is one particular aspect of the select committee report that I would like to refer to and that is the advice that the Health Committee received from the Regulations Review Committee regarding the “Henry VIII” clauses—those clauses that empower the executive to override primary legislation with regulations. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: He died a long time ago. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Sorry? 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: He died a long time ago. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Henry VIII did die a long time ago. That is true but nevertheless we still call these things “Henry VIII” clauses. Such is the sometimes anachronistic nature of Parliament Minister Bridges. Labour agrees that it is dangerous in the health sphere to allow the executive to override with regulation policy established by Parliament in legislation. It is particularly dangerous I think to let the current Minister of Health wield that power because we know that Tony Ryall will always put politics ahead of health. The idea that Tony Ryall would have the power to override legislation in order to make a political point or to achieve some political point-scoring—we just cannot trust that man with that kind of power. So I agree with the advice from the Regulations Review Committee that “Henry VIII” clauses are not ideal. We have to ensure that this legislation and the regulation established by this legislation cannot be overridden by the executive with regulation. 
This bill is well past its time. It is well past its due-by date. It is a pity that like the Medicines Amendment Bill it has taken an awfully long time to come back to the House. But I think actually one of the reasons for that was the desire to align the Medicines Amendment Bill and the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill because of course they actually belong together in a single piece of legislation that could have been passed back in 2006. But it is good to see these bills being progressed in these extended sitting hours—a time for non-controversial legislation that has the broad support of the House. Once again it is just a pity that National insists on putting politics ahead of health care and consumer safety and that this bill was not passed in 2006 when it should have been. 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is extremely pleased to be supporting this Natural Health Products Bill. Like others before me I would like to thank all of the Health Committee members for their constructive approach on this bill. I would like to acknowledge the issues raised beforehand by Dr Paul Hutchison and by Maryan Street. There were elements of this bill that were quite challenging for us to deal with and we all had to make a bridge between things like the challenge between scientific and traditional evidence and the challenge proposed between different categories of food natural health products supplementary products and medicines. But overall we are very pleased with this bill. One of the best outcomes for us in this bill is that it ensures that we retain control of setting the rules around the regulation of natural health and supplementary products within New Zealand rather than handing that over to the heavy-handed trans-Tasman regulator as was originally proposed many years back. I would like to acknowledge the incredible work of my predecessor Sue Kedgley who worked incredibly hard on helping put down the foundations for this bill and her steadfast commitment to bringing in a low-risk regulatory scheme that is appropriate for the low-risk nature of natural health products. 
It has been pointed out that we need these sensible rules that protect both consumers and manufacturers so that consumers can have confidence natural health products that they use are safe that they do not contain toxic ingredients and that they are not adulterated with medicines such as steroids as is an increasing concern with some imports. We also need sensible rules so that New Zealand’s reputation as a producer of quality natural health products is maintained. It is equally important that these rules are simple low cost and easy to comply with in keeping with the low-risk nature of most natural health products and so that consumer access and choice is not unduly restricted by excessive compliance costs. We are very pleased that the Government has agreed to meet the cost of policy and regulatory advice and enforcement as well as the capital costs for setting up the scheme. A major focus for us was to ensure that the rules balance the need for protection with the risks of the products involved so that we do not end up strangling innovation as has happened in Australia. 
We are particularly pleased that agreement was reached around our requests to include a schedule of approved pharmacopoeia in the bill. This schedule will make the process of approving traditional claims for low-risk conditions straightforward for many natural health products and will help keep compliance costs down. We are also very pleased that products prepared as part of traditional medicine practice on a one-to-one basis have been exempted as each product preparation is unique to the individual. Requiring each product to be notified would have made this practice unviable and impractical. The Green Party wanted to see a clause in the legislation to recognise the Treaty. We are disappointed that this has not been accepted at this stage. We will be moving a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to amend the legislation to include such a clause. 
I also want to acknowledge here some of the concerns that were raised by submitters to the bill about what they felt might be potential impacts. In part some of these submissions were because of confusion with the Food Bill. One common concern that was expressed was around the delegation of powers under clause 45. Some submitters expressed a concern that this would mean that at some point in the future regulation powers would be delegated back to an overseas authority. Officials advised us that because section 41 of the State Sector Act 1988 allows only Public Service chief executives to delegate on behalf of the authority and they can delegate only to Public Service employees any delegation of power will be constrained by these requirements. So we are confident that under this bill there will not be any delegation of powers to an overseas regulator. 
Another common concern expressed by submitters was that this bill would stop people from making their own home remedies for personal use. These concerns are unfounded. The bill covers the regulation of natural health products and supplementary products for sale and distribution in New Zealand where the term “product” refers to the total product which includes the ingredients the packaging and the claims. This bill does not affect products prepared by individuals for personal use rather than for onsale. So people will still be able to prepare their own herbal remedies that have been passed down through the generations. We are pleased that the Government has committed to ensuring that the detailed regulatory work that will affect much of how the bill works in practice will be undertaken in consultation with both the industry and the public. 
It has been an incredibly interesting experience for me working on this bill. I have really appreciated the advice from Ministry of Health officials who have had to deal with numerous inquiries from the committee on various aspects of this bill as we sought to gain clarification around the boundaries of the different aspects. As part of our memorandum of understanding agreement the Government has also agreed that the Green Party will be involved in every stage of the development of the regulations and I am looking forward to being part of this process and working for the best possible outcomes for consumers and manufacturers alike. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand today on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Natural Health Products Bill. We are looking forward to the new title the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill because we believe that that far more accurately describes this bill. New Zealand First supports this bill as it gives greater transparency to all New Zealand consumers of these particular products. Consumers need to have a clear understanding of what is actually in the product they are buying and of course this needs to be listed on the label so that we can have some confidence in the product. This bill is about protecting consumers’ health which is something New Zealand First strongly supports. We believe that this bill will give greater confidence to consumers when they go into the health food shop to make the choices that they believe will help them along the way. 
It was good to work on this bill in the Health Committee to have an input and to see such a collegial cross-party approach to the reviewing of this bill. So thank you Dr Hutchison Dr Blue other committee members and of course the officials who came to the committee endlessly. It was through this process that New Zealand First moved forward with its support of the bill. We did have some second thoughts about this bill to begin with and lots of queries but these were rectified as the select committee process actually went on. Despite this we are still going to be keeping an eye on the implementation process to ensure that our concerns do not come to fruition. 
As Dr Hutchison said the Health Committee received many submissions on this particular bill—739 to be precise. As a committee we considered each and every one of them so it was quite a time-consuming process. Exporters and consumers welcomed the safeguards and the validation of a regulatory system. It was really important to their business. But on the other hand some were afraid that this would create costs and barriers for manufacturers of such low-risk products and these were some of the concerns that we in New Zealand First also shared. It was actually great to see such a large input from members of the public. It shows democracy in full force as many different groups had their own say on the bill and they all had many different ideas which helped construct a bill that will reflect their ideas as well. I think this can also be reflected in the cross-party support for the Natural Health Products Bill and the equal balance of the bill. So now the select committee is confident that the bill will provide consumers with the assurance that the natural health and supplementary products they buy are safe and true to their label. There may be however some issues that we overlooked at the select committee. I received a letter from a consumer who thought that we should tighten up some parts of the bill. I hope that that letter was sent to all members of the Health Committee to act on and as the process continues I will be looking to see whether or not those concerns are actually met. 
The Natural Health Products Regulatory Authority is going to be set up within the Ministry of Health and we in New Zealand First are going to be very interested to see whether the best people will actually be hired for the job or whether the Government is going to hire its mates. We will be keeping an eye on that particular area. The authority is going to be in charge of administering the Act and its regulations because all of those who wish to import or manufacture natural health products or those who arrange to import natural health products are going to need to have approval from this regulatory authority. It will be a relatively straightforward process and not as strict as many of the consumers thought that perhaps it might be. All applications will be recorded in an online register and the database will contain approved regulators of the ingredients claims and evidence of health benefits and of manufacturing standards a list of prohibited ingredients and the notification of new ingredients prior to marketing. Of course this is going to be crucial in ensuring that the process runs smoothly. In New Zealand First we did hold some concerns regarding the online database. We are going to be keeping just a watchful eye over that particularly as we are very aware that the Government has not had the best of luck with its computer systems running smoothly and all of the recent examples sort of bring that to mind. So it is something— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: It’s coming right. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: I am pleased that it is coming right. It is something that we will just be keeping an eye on Dr Hutchison to ensure that it does run smoothly. 
There will also be the appointment of a technical advisory committee which will be advising the authority on its decisions. We know that the members of the advisory committee will all be highly experienced. They must all have some knowledge and experience relating to natural health and supplementary products—and Dr Hutchison agrees with me. This gives us some confidence that those in charge of the bill the people who are doing this regulating actually know what they are doing. This should help the bill heaps. 
In the past there have been lots of healthy supplements available in New Zealand that have not had a lot of products listed on the label or sometimes not even listed and some of these products are totally unknown to many New Zealanders. Many have also contained little or no health benefit to the user despite the fact that many consumers are led to believe by the advertising that they will be great for your health because they are natural and that we need them. On the other hand some of these products have also been somewhat risky to consumers’ health yet the current legislation has never ever made this well known and clear to the consumer and we are pleased to see that the new legislation will actually help out on this point. 
To illustrate the point we were aware that there were recent cases of natural products that were imported into New Zealand from Asia that were popular and were claimed to be made from a plant growing in South-east Asia. Medsafe eventually discovered that this natural product contained mostly unnatural antibiotics. If at the time of this incident we had had the regulatory authority set up within the Ministry of Health this product would more than likely never ever have made it into New Zealand and would not have had the opportunity to pose any potential harm to consumers. Also consumers were led to believe that this product was going to be good for their health because it was an old wives’ tale. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Very deceptive. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Yes. I think it is important to note that the bill does not impede practitioners from continuing to provide their services. This bill does not apply to any supplementary product that is made by a practitioner because we are very aware that many New Zealanders will often choose to go to an alternative healer rather than to a medical practitioner. 
New Zealand First will be supporting this bill as it provides New Zealanders with greater transparency and confidence in knowing that the products they are buying are true to their label. It will ensure that New Zealanders are safe and that our products overseas are top quality because we believe that an exporter-driven economy is absolutely paramount. Overseas buyers need to have confidence in these products. New Zealand First is very happy to support this bill. 
The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be agreed to. 
Ayes 120 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 1 
ACT New Zealand 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Natural Health Products Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 120 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan. 
Noes 1 
ACT New Zealand 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill.  
Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced in October 2011 received its first reading in May 2012 and was reported back by the Law and Order Committee in October. I would like to thank the Law and Order Committee for its consideration of the bill and for the improvements it has made to it. 
Overall the legislation governing the administration of the corrections system is working well. However some provisions have been identified as barriers to the effectiveness and efficiency of the legislation achieving its statutory purpose. Two bills were introduced to remove such barriers: the Corrections Amendment Bill which relates to prisons and was passed last month and the present bill which aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of sentences and orders in the community. 
The Sentencing Act 2002 the Parole Act 2002 and to a lesser extent the Bail Act 2000 govern the management of offenders serving sentences in the community and of prisoners who have been released from prison. Major reform of the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act was undertaken in 2007. Since then a number of problems have been identified in administering the changes introduced by the reforms particularly in relation to the administration of community sentences and orders. So this bill makes minor drafting amendments to these Acts to clarify operational procedure where an Act is silent or unclear and where its interpretation has led to unintended consequences. The bill also introduces a number of minor policy changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of home detention community-based sentences and the electronic monitoring regime. 
 I will briefly outline some of the more significant changes. Currently a home detention sentence is suspended when an appeal is lodged. The bill provides instead that the sentence will continue to run unless the appellant is granted bail. This then recognises that some home detainees who appeal may pose a risk to public safety if released into the community without restrictions. Sometimes offenders who abscond from community-based sentences are not located until the sentence has ended. The bill provides that time will cease to run on a sentence of supervision intensive supervision or community detention if an application is made to the court to vary or cancel that sentence because the offender is not complying with it. This will help to ensure that offenders who do not comply with their sentences are still held to account. 
Enforcement problems can arise because the boundaries of an offender’s address do not align with the boundaries of electronic monitoring equipment. Under the bill where electronic monitoring is a condition of release or a condition of a community sentence the offender will be required to remain within an area defined by a probation officer. Under current law even a sentence of say 2 weeks’ imprisonment automatically cancels a home detention sentence. Yet in some circumstances the completion of the home detention sentence may be in the interests of the community. This bill will give the court discretion to allow a home detention sentence to resume after such a short sentence of imprisonment. Administration problems can arise if a court imposes a non-custodial sentence that is incompatible with another non-custodial sentence already being served. The bill contains provisions to prevent this. 
As a result of ongoing analysis of issues addressed in the bill the Department of Corrections has identified additional barriers to the effective and efficient management of offenders in the community. I asked the committee to consider some additional amendments that will remove these barriers and the committee has included these amendments in the bill as reported back to the House. Some of these amendments are of a technical nature. However they do include four minor policy changes that I wish to describe briefly. 
Firstly community magistrates currently have authority to impose community-based sentences yet they cannot vary or cancel them. The bill now empowers community magistrates to vary or cancel community-based sentences that have been imposed by a community magistrate. Secondly offenders who are serving sentences of home detention and community detention are required to stay at an address that the court specifies on the advice of a probation officer. Sometimes the address will become unsuitable over the course of the sentence. When this happens a probation officer may approve an alternative address but has to apply to the court to have the sentence varied accordingly. Preparing these applications places an administrative burden on probation officers and court time is not well spent considering them. The bill now recognises this by empowering the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to vary the address for sentences of home detention and community detention in these circumstances. 
Thirdly a similar situation can arise for offenders released from prison who are subject to residential restrictions. If their residence becomes unsuitable a probation officer must apply to the Parole Board to have it changed but the probation officer’s authority to manage the offender is limited until the board determines the application. So an amendment has been included to address this by enabling probation officers to approve an alternative residence while the board considers the application. 
Fourthly when an offender is serving 80 hours or more of community work a probation officer may direct them to spend up to 20 percent of the sentence in training on basic work and living skills. However probation officers can make such a direction only if the court so authorises them at sentencing or on application by the probation officer. Because it is subject to such a cumbersome process enrolment in the training is limited and offenders may miss out on opportunities to reduce their risk of reoffending. To address this the bill has been amended to allow probation officers without reference to the court to direct that up to 20 percent of the sentence be spent in training on basic work and living skills if the probation officer believes that it will reduce the offender’s risk of reoffending. 
The committee has also made some minor adjustments to the bill on the advice of the Department of Corrections. Most of these are technical or consequential to existing amendments. Others develop some of the procedures introduced by the bill in ways that are necessary for their proper application. 
In conclusion the measures in this bill will contribute to public safety and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of offenders in the community. I thank again the select committee for all its hard work and I commend this bill to the House. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the chance to speak to the second reading of the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill and to just say from the very outset that Labour will continue to support this bill. 
Can I acknowledge the members of the Law and Order Committee for the way in which it worked on this bill. Our select committee as Mr Goff and I will say works in a very collegial manner and in respect of this bill because we did not have any major opposition to it we worked well. I note that the previous bill the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill that was debated had 739 submissions. This bill had only five. I think they were from the Law Society the Salvation Army and JustSpeak which is the youth wing of Rethinking Crime and Punishment. They were the main submitters on this bill and we thank them for making their submissions and for making some very good recommendations on the bill to the select committee. Can we just also acknowledge the work of the officials who helped us during the select committee process. 
Labour supports this bill. It does make some technical changes to enable the Department of Corrections to more effectively and efficiently manage community sentences and orders in our community. We do support the corrections system which secures public safety and ensures rehabilitation. This legislation makes as the Minister of Corrections said changes to the barriers to the effective management of home detention community-based sentences electronic monitoring parole and extended supervision orders. 
 The Department of Corrections is set to become the largest Government department. I think it was the Deputy Prime Minister himself Bill English who said that prisons are a moral and fiscal failure. It is important to note that we do have an approach with the Department of Corrections that is evidence-based and that works well to make sure that we have effective rehabilitation of prisoners. Before I traverse some of the details of the bill I just want to look at what Bill English said around the moral and fiscal failure of the prison system. We did have a submission from the Salvation Army that looked at some Ministry of Justice figures from 2009 that said 23 percent of those on home detention in 2009 were re-convicted in the following 12 months. Conversely 52.6 percent of those who served a custodial sentence who were locked up in our prisons in that year were re-convicted in the following 12 months. So we are doing a much better job of reducing the recidivism rate of those serving community sentences and community orders than of those people whom we are locking up. 
Let me be clear: there will always be an element of people in New Zealand who when caught and convicted of serious significant or sickening crimes need to be locked up and kept away from the rest of the community. Some are so bad that they may never taste freedom again. But for those criminals who are serving shorter sentences we have to ask the question of whether the public is safer in the long term due to their incarceration. Are we serving our duty as the State to protect the public by rehabilitating people so we have fewer victims and less crime? The question has to be asked as to whether we are serving the dual purpose of punishment and ensuring that upon release those people do not go out and create more pain. Again as I have said the Salvation Army did quote those figures from 2009 that say we are doing a much better job of rehabilitating those on community orders than we are with those people whom we are locking up. 
Safeguards must be put in place to make sure that we get rid of as much risk as we can when we have people serving community-based sentences. I believe that in the future we must look at community-based sentences as a way of being much more fiscally prudent and ensure we are doing a better job of making sure we rehabilitate the people whom we are sentencing. On the fiscal side it is costing taxpayers about $58 a day to keep someone in home detention and that is roughly a quarter of what it costs to keep someone in prison which is a cost of about $250 a day. So on the fiscal side of things it makes sense to ensure that for those who we think can be rehabilitated and can serve a sentence in the community it is much cheaper to do that and it could be much more effective. 
I would just like to look at the bill as I have said and look at some of the details. The Law Society did have some concerns around one of the points that the Minister raised about halting community sentences while a non-compliance order was appealed in the court. It believes that if the sentence continued to be served some people could serve an extra-long sentence while the court considered that. I think that in the bill we have given the courts some flexibility to be able to use some discretion as to whether time has been served or time has not been served. Also as the Minister mentioned we have given the Department of Corrections some more flexibility around its ability to transfer community sentence hours to community sentence training. 
I do want to note the work that the Minister is doing around education in prisons. I think she was recently at Arohata Women’s Prison in Tawa where she was promoting some more education work within the prison and for inmates. As she said and we agree with her on this side of the House education is a very important part. That is actually the key to making sure that we rehabilitate inmates to make sure we reduce crime and reduce the number of victims when those inmates come out of prison. So credit where credit is due for the commitment the Minister is making to those education schemes. 
One other point I want to look at is that we are giving a little bit more flexibility to the Department of Corrections as Melissa Lee said when there is a change of address when a residence where a sentence of home detention is being served has become unsuitable. We think it has been onerous when in the past a parole officer has made a temporary change of address and has had to go to court to change the permanent address. We are now giving the chief executive the option of being able to vary a home detention residence so that we do not have the hold-up we have had in the past. I think that is another way in which the Department of Corrections can effectively and efficiently manage a home detention or community service order. 
In conclusion we will support this bill. It does make some technical changes that we think will help community services to be much more effective and efficient and we believe that these kinds of sentences should be the way to go forward. Cheers. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 As the Minister of Corrections the Hon Anne Tolley has so eloquently described the process that this Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill is to follow I do not need to get into the detail too much other than to say that I guess the bill is the second leg of the double. The first was the Corrections Amendment Bill which was passed into law last month and it tidied up a number of matters related to prison management. This bill tidies up a number of matters related to extended supervision and the sentencing and parole reforms of 2007. 
I want to very briefly refer to the Law and Order Committee. Our chair Jacqui Dean would be wanting to thank all who took part in the process: the submitters and the people who helped work through this bill with us. The cooperation from all was quite apparent and from our perspective it was a great result. I have no problem commending this bill to its next step in the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 The Labour Party supported this bill the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill on its first reading. We worked constructively on the bill at the Law and Order Committee and we are supporting the second reading of this bill. I think that shows that when you get substantive legislation—and in this case the legislation is dealing with relatively small changes—that is properly thought through and is genuinely motivated to get our justice system and our corrections system to work better you will get unanimity surrounding it on the select committee. 
I have to say regretfully that not all justice legislation is like this. Law and order in this country has for a long time been a political football. It is not like that in every country. In countries like Finland you actually do get bipartisan approaches. Those bipartisan approaches are based on what works rather than what superficial appeals to public emotion about some of the pretty awful criminals—and they are—in our community. Too much of our legislation is simply strong on rhetoric and short on having any actual substance that makes a difference to making people safer. That is what we should be trying to do in this House—pass justice and corrections legislation that does make people safer. This legislation was formulated within the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections—not in the National Party research unit—so it made it somewhat easier for people looking objectively at the bill to say: “Yes this is a piece of legislation worth supporting.” 
The bill amends four pieces of legislation: the Bail Act 2000 the Sentencing Act 2002 the Parole Act 2002 and the Bail Amendment Act 2011. I actually had the privilege of being the Minister who passed the first three of those pieces of legislation. They are landmark pieces of legislation. They literally and figuratively brought our justice and corrections system into the 21st century—they modernised it. The work that went into those pieces of legislation was extraordinary. I had a very good deputy secretary at that time by the name of Warren Young who was previously a professor of criminology. We consulted widely we worked hard on the legislation and that legislation I am very proud to say has stood the test of time. The Minister of Corrections acknowledged in I think both her first and her second reading speeches that by and large this legislation has worked well and is administering corrections in the way it should. If we look at a corrections system that is working better today than it has historically in part that is because it has decent legislation to operate under. Having said that there is always room to make improvements. 
What this legislation does is actually introduce—and it describes them as this—minor policy changes to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of home detention of community-based sentences and of the electronic monitoring regime. It also makes minor drafting amendments to clarify operational procedures. Before I get into just some of the practical things that it does—and I will not go into them in detail because they are not important—I want to contemplate for just a moment the effectiveness of the sentences of home detention which we introduced in 2007. I want to do that at this time because there are members who are still members of this House now sitting on the Government benches who decried the whole concept of home detention—it was soft on crime it would make people unsafe and it was evidence of a Government that did not stand tough on law and order. You know those members will not get up in this House now and contribute to this debate because now the evidence is there of how absolutely wrong they were. 
The Government did a review on the sentence of home detention and this is what it found. It found that the proportion of offenders sentenced to home detention in 2007-08 and in the following year 2008-09 that were reconvicted in the following 12 months was 21.5 percent and 23 percent respectively. Although that was higher than what we might want it was less than half of those who served the same length of time on short prison sentences which was 50.3 percent and 52.6 percent. So what we have there is very clear evidence that if you are interested in actually changing the behaviour of people who have been offenders against the law home detention is far more effective in doing that than is the alternative of a short prison sentence. It is not hard to work out why. When you are put in prison you are in prison with a peer group of people who have committed much worse offences than you might have been in for on a relatively short sentence and you take the cue for your behaviour from the peer group that you are living with. 
The other advantage of home detention was of course the cost to the taxpayer. It does cost money to keep people on home detention. It is about $58 a day. But if you look at what it costs to keep a person imprisoned it is $250 a day. It is just slightly less actually—it is $249. It costs $250 a day to keep them imprisoned on a short prison sentence that may be 3 to 6 months and they come out more likely to reoffend than when you put them in. The other good reason for home detention is this: the offender is still in the community—and it is usually his responsibilities to his family—and is still meeting his responsibilities to the community by going out to work supporting his family and paying tax on the income that he earns. So I hope that people who were so vehemently opposed to this and who gave outrageous speeches in the House about what home detention might do—and I am thinking I suppose of people like Mr Ryall—might reflect on their rhetoric then and reflect on the reality of the fact that this sentence has in fact been very effective. So that reinforces the point I started making that when we pass legislation in this House on justice and on corrections let us make sure it is evidence-based. Let us make sure it is rational. Let us make sure it actually does work to make our community safer. And let us forget the race to the bottom on who can flex their muscles and show that they are tougher on law and order when unfortunately that so-called toughness often leaves the community worse protected rather than better protected. 
It is good to see the National Party when it is in Government being more responsible on these issues than when it is in Opposition. Just very briefly on some of the provisions made by the legislation—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I was just saying a very responsible Government. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No no it is a very poor Government but forced to be more responsible on justice policy when it has to bear the consequences of what it says than when it is in Opposition when it makes outrageous and dishonest statements. 
Some of the changes that are being made—I am not going to go through all of them—to the Sentencing Act and things like requiring pre-sentence reports before the offender is sentenced to home detention or community work sentences make sense. You could not be opposed to that—clarifying the maximum number of hours that they may be required to work under community work sentences clarifying the situation when an offender who is serving a home detention or community-based sentence is subsequently sentenced to another home detention or community-based sentence and electronic monitoring where you actually align the sentence to what the electronic surveillance equipment allows because the two were not in alignment and that was producing a silly situation. 
We also looked at some changes that the Minister put forward in her Supplementary Order Paper with community magistrates being able to alter or cancel sentences previously imposed by community magistrates allowing the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to approve changes of address for home or community detention and allowing probation officers rather than the court to direct that 20 percent of a community work sentence of at least 80 hours be spent in training in basic work and living skills. They are sensible changes they have been supported by the Opposition on the select committee and we will always support things that are sensible. We will oppose things that are not evidence-based things that are simply designed for political purposes things that are dishonest in what they claim for the public and things that are counter-productive in what they actually produce in terms of community safety. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call on this bill the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill which the Greens have supported to this point. We will continue to support the legislation. 
I recall in my first reading speech that I confessed we were somewhat suspicious of this bill when we first saw it because it was a Government justice bill that on the face of it actually did a lot of good. At that point—a year or so ago—we did not have much experience of Government justice bills that threatened to do good rather than be regressive and backward-looking. So yes good sense prevailed. It is a useful set of amendments that are being made and for that reason we are pleased to continue our support. The point has been made that this bill amends legislation that is in every instance relatively new—certainly nothing more than perhaps 10 or 12 years old. But clearly some of the work of the bill is to acknowledge technology changes particularly in the area of electronic monitoring and those sorts of things. 
We had some really interesting conversations at the Law and Order Committee in terms of how continued technology changes might require us to adapt and adopt in terms of the increased sophistication of GPS which will enable us to much more readily identify exactly where offenders are located. I think there will be a lot of goodwill to amend our legislation our regulations to enable us to adopt that technology as it evolves and improves. 
Some of the other minor—well not minor—amendments we agreed to were giving more discretion to people at the coalfaces if you like giving more discretion to probation officers to make and effect changes without necessarily having to have recourse to the courts. We think that is appropriate giving these people who are disciplined hard-working people a degree of authority. Discretion making is a good thing with the one provision that we must also acknowledge that they must be well supported in that work. We must not devolve responsibility without also devolving the ability and the resources those people require to do the very difficult work that they do in the community. 
I would say in a general way we are supportive of this bill because we see community-based sentences as the way of the future. We know community-based sentences are far far preferable to imprisonment particularly to short terms of imprisonment. Mr Faafoi and Mr Goff have already rattled off the numbers and that is useful so I need not delve into it but we know community-based sentences are dramatically less expensive in financial terms than a short imprisonment to the tune I think of barely one-quarter of the cost. We know the recidivism rate of people who have served community sentences is also dramatically lower than for people who do short prison terms—or indeed long prison terms. So we do see that community sentences are the way forward. We should be resorting to them much more routinely. We need to be quite creative in how we assign and how we structure the requirement that people do community work do community service or indeed do home detention in order to repay to be punished and to acknowledge that they have done wrong to the wider society. 
One of the great advantages of community sentences generally is that they remove that transition phase. If I may be so bold as to insert an advertisement into these comments we saw last year an excellent book written by Anne Opie called  
from Outlaw to Citizen 
:  
Making the Transition from Prison in New Zealand 
. It highlighted the enormous social and economic cost of imprisoning people acknowledging that very very few inmates in New Zealand do not ultimately end up back in our communities. To the extent that we can we should keep people out of prison in the first place. Prison brutalises people. It dehumanises them. It reduces or even eliminates the ability of those people to function in normal society. It is not helpful that we imprison such large numbers of people in New Zealand. Anne Opie made the point that her book was very solidly grounded in academia in research. Anywhere you see in a bibliography references to Derrida and Foucault you know you are not in for an easy read but it was also blended with real-life stories based on interviews the lived experience of New Zealanders who have been through the prison system and have come out worse off—and we are collectively worse off. 
As others have commented and I am under no illusions we will always need some form of imprisonment. There are those people who are so damaged that they cannot be and will never be able to be released back into society for its general safety and well-being but that does not describe the something like 85 percent of our prison population who could be dealt with in ways other than imprisonment. So refining improving and broadening the range of community-based sentences that are available to the courts that are available to us to clearly signal our disapproval of people’s offending and to ensure there is a level of restraint on their freedom for a time is important but the purpose must always be to make them better able to operate in civil society and less likely to offend against it. 
 I am pleased that we have got a degree of unity in the House on the importance of community sentencing and some of the ways and means by which we might ensure that people do become contributing citizens that they become the citizen rather than the outlaw—the recidivist outlaw whom we are seeing far too much of at the moment. I think I can leave my comments there except to once again close with yet another advertisement. I do believe that there is a great deal of good research being done— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Very commercial. Didn’t know he had it in him. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: Very commercial today indeed but all in a good cause. This evening I am looking forward to going to the launch of yet another book. Professor John Pratt a professor of criminology at Victoria University is releasing a book that is essentially a comparative study of New Zealand corrections the justice system with those of the Nordic—the northern European—countries. His findings in brief—and I do him a disservice by trying to sum them up in a line or two—are that effectively we are getting it very very wrong with our focus on a punitive prison-based system rather than one that seeks to deal with the individual and with their behaviours and endeavours to keep those people within the community rather than isolate them from it except in those extreme cases that I referred to earlier. 
So we do have an emerging body of knowledge an emerging body of research that tells us how in New Zealand we can get it right. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank you for the indication of support for my comments Mr Hayes. I value that highly from you. We have a body of research and information telling us how we can get it right in New Zealand. We have been getting it wrong for a long time. Increased focus on community sentences improving the quality of those improving the likelihood of success turning people round turning them away from a vicious cycle of offending and reoffending is clearly to our collective good and we are happy to support this legislation. Kia ora. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Rather than babble on with inane comments I would simply like to say that this bill the Administration of Community Services and Orders Bill is an excellent piece of legislation which I support. Thank you. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I actually thought that the member who has just resumed his seat John Hayes would consider this bill the Administration of Community Services and Orders Bill to be an important part of electioneering which is something that the National Party is very good at doing during the time of an election. 
Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things. This bill which has been introduced by the Government is for the purpose of fixing loopholes in the current legislation or the current administration of non-custodial sentences. The current system is flawed and this bill attempts to create certainty in our justice system and it is about time. Law and order is a crucial selling point while electioneering I say to John Hayes and therefore it should come as no surprise that this Government is trying to close loopholes that have surfaced over the years regarding administrative limitation. 
Kris Faafoi 
: Did you say that? 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: I do not think he was listening. It is about time that this Government strengthened these policies so that they do not create or foster unintended outcomes. The last thing that New Zealanders need is loopholes in the justice system that favour criminal behaviour. 
New Zealand First strongly believes that to achieve law and order effectively in New Zealand the public should have confidence in our justice system. New Zealand First also maintains a strong stand that for a nation of our size we have far too many people in prison. So let us not go into the details about the cost involved while the Minister of Corrections is ignorantly building new prisons around the country that we do not need. 
We all know that putting someone in prison and throwing away the key does not solve anything. Having said that the other option is non-custodial sentences. This is what this bill intends to fix. Yes we agree that the prison population should be reduced. However in placing offenders in our communities it is of utmost importance that they are closely monitored. Community safety is absolutely vital and a priority for our nation. All New Zealanders have a right to feel safe and free to go about their daily lives within our communities. People in this country should not have to feel threatened or intimidated by offenders. 
As policy makers we need to realise that the machinery is not confined to only front-line staff. We ourselves need to be more empathetic towards the administrative nature in which policies will function. We cannot just come up with an idea and theorise all the pros and cons if we are not going to consider how practical these policies will turn out to be. 
One particular issue that I highlighted in the first reading of this bill was the issue of information sharing between the Department of Corrections and the probation service. It is all well and good to ask for mandatory pre-sentencing reports to be done but will the probation service be provided with the resources to do so? I say to the Minister do not be afraid to give up the good to go for the great. For years it has been requested that the probation service be given access to the prison service’s integrated offender management system or IOMS. New Zealand First has some concerns— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: They’re getting it. It’s happening. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: But they have not done it yet Minister. 
New Zealand First has some concerns around the delivery expectations of a number of these amendments particularly those that rely heavily on the Community Probation and Psychological Services for their oversight and administration. Let me say before I make reference to that that I believe that the current chief executive Ray Smith is to be commended for the step that he has taken to move corrections forward. From my experience his one-team approach will be a tough assignment. 
One of the toughest nuts to crack will be probation. This is an organisation that has dragged its feet in terms of changing culture improving efficiency and dealing to a culture of cliques and cronyism. As a prime example I believe the probation service is still waffling about having access to or sharing the integrated offender management system with its one-team partners. I note that the probation service has a high number of psychologists within its ranks as does corrections generally. Many of them are new immigrants from the United Kingdom South Africa and Europe. Of course they bring with them fancy bits of paper proclaiming all sorts of qualifications. What they do not bring is real cultural understanding and by that I mean Maori and Pacific cultures. Those cultures make up the vast majority of the prison population. A short Te Reo course study papers from a journal or an overnight stay at a marae plus a few kia oras here and there just do not cut it. 
Common sense tells us that the probation service needs real people with drive and real-life experience who have worked at the coalface to make a real difference. The endless meetings where our highly qualified experts bang on about pie in the sky and old-world theory and throw around a few clichés do not cut it for me. Believe me I have observed the endless mindless chatter and backslapping going on at non-events in my previous role. It is a culture that is brought about by so-called experts who like to baffle their people with an endless supply of bovine effluent that serves only to muddy the already murky waters within the Community Probation and Psychological Services. Yes I have seen the glossy pictures awards and all the smiling faces yet the real question lingers: can we place yet more responsibility on these people to administer this legislation? Do we trust them not to once again pay lip-service to the amendments that are before us today? 
Today I make a challenge to the Minister. Does she have absolute confidence that the “One Team Corrections” and in particular the probation service are up to the task? It seems common sense that if a pre-sentence report is required before an offender is sentenced to home detention and community detention access to file notes incident reports and misconduct reports will be useful. In doing so we can avoid the countless errors made over the years with offenders. It is crucial that this Government takes steps to strengthen the way in which home detention is supervised and the monitoring requirements in relation to community-based sentences. 
Probation officers are given more powers but will they have the resources? Will they have the resources? With this bill probation officers will be given the authorisation to direct up to 20 percent of community work sentences of at least 80 hours to be spent in training on basic work and living skills. The initiative has been introduced to reduce barriers to the training of offenders. As a strong supporter of rehabilitation methods I say that it will be vital that probation officers use this authorisation with discretion. Yes we want to see these offenders develop living skills to ultimately prepare them for reintegration back into the communities. However we are sceptical of the approach allowing probation officers powers that only the judiciary once held. We want to know what cost will be incurred with more offenders directed for training. 
Just last year our Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley signed off on a $300 million public-private partnership deal with Fletcher’s to design and build in South Auckland the new Wiri Prison. This is astounding because in the same year we also have had numerous reports and mockumentaries stating our harsh reality regarding child poverty. What does this signal to the rest of the world and more important what does this signal to New Zealanders? 
New Zealand First supports the intention of this bill to remove barriers to managing offenders in the community safely and effectively. A genuine Government is not a searcher for consensus but a moulder of consensus. On that sobering note I can say that New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Thursday)