Volume 640 Week 50 - Tuesday 24 July 2007 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 640 Week 50 - Tuesday 24 July 2007 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2007. Volume:640;Page:10591. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 24 July 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Therapeutic Products and Medicines bill—Suspension of Legislation 
1. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What reports has she received following the announcement of suspension of work on the trans-Tasman joint therapeutics agency legislation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I have seen the report of the Advertising Standards Authority released late last week that upheld complaints about the supplement published in the  
New Zealand Herald  
and the radio advertisements played on Newstalk ZB both of which were sponsored by the New Zealand Health Trust. The authority found that these advertisements were misleading non-factual and designed to instil fear. In fact the complaints were upheld in all regards. Examples of the lies told are: “60% of New Zealand made supplements and vitamins would be forced from the shelves” “prices will increase between 20% and 100% under a joint Tasman regulator” “494 pages of ‘safety’ legislation yet no one has ever died from supplements.” “Clearly this information was false and made with no evidence to support the misleading claims …”. This decision epitomises the misinformation and lies that a minority of opponents used to pervert the democratic process. Further I think it is a sad commentary that John Key and the National Party were so pathetic that they were taken in by these lies and this misinformation. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any further reports regarding this issue? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen the report in the  
Weekend Herald 
 written by Catherine Masters in which Dr Graham Sharpe the President of the New Zealand Society of Anaesthetists stated that a small but loud sector hijacked the bill by “telling lies” and by Opposition politicians who gave in to political point-scoring. I also read the comments of Michelle Beckett who speaks for around 80 percent of the complementary medicines sector. She said: “One of the big pieces of misinformation out there was that hundreds if not thousands of products were going to disappear from the shelves.” This is the same piece of information that was still being peddled in this Parliament last week. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Why did the Minister before suspending work on the trans-Tasman agency not take her modified proposals out by way of a roadshow to the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who strongly opposed the original legislation and instead rely on attempts to stitch a “we know best” deal together here in Parliament or does she continue to believe that the opinion of the people should be ignored in these matters? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No because I had the word of that member that he intended to vote for a two-tier system. But after he went to the National Party he informed me himself that the National Party said he could not vote for it. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any commentaries on the Government’s decision to suspend work on the trans-Tasman joint therapeutics regulator? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I have seen the comments of leading political commentator Colin James under the heading “Key ditches the Aussies for easy populist politics” published in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today. He notes: “John Key’s first act in foreign affairs has been to give Australia the fingers.” He also alludes to the complete failure of leadership on this issue and went on to state: “He might have emulated his search for consensus on the smacking bill—or at least mandated one of his dissenting MPs to make up the majority. But unity is his prime preoccupation. And populist politics is easier politics.” John Key would not even let poor old hapless Gordon Copeland vote for the bill of which he proposed a two-tier system. I seek leave to table the Advertising Standards Authority’s decision of their meeting of 10 July 2007. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Last week the Minister Annette King announced after the shelving of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill that she no longer had responsibility for this issue and it was being passed to Pete Hodgson. I wonder how it is that the Government only a week later can direct questions to the Minister on the diatribe we have just heard? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker I say that I retain this responsibility until the Prime Minister says I do not. At this stage I have the responsibility and it is right that I answer the question. In fact I dispute the comments that member Dr Smith made about a diatribe; it happened to be the truth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members refer to the Order Paper they will see that the bill is still in her name. 
Environment Minister—Confidence 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister for the Environment; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that last Wednesday when David Benson-Pope was asked about the sacking of Madeleine Setchell he replied: “No I don’t know anything about the detail of that issue”; if so how does she reconcile that answer with the fact that the State Services Commission report clearly shows that he was informed by the Ministry for the Environment of the issue prior to getting asked the question by a journalist last Wednesday? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I am aware of that statement. I am also aware of the fact that the chief executive of the Ministry for the Environment told Mr Benson-Pope that he was consulting with the State Services Commission on the issue. He did not give the Minister any detail. 
John Key 
: Who is correct—the State Services Commission which states: “the Ministry informed the Minister’s office about the exact nature of the relationship and noted that the Chief Executive was managing the situation.”; or David Benson-Pope who claimed he did not know anything about the details of the issue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My understanding is that the Minister was referring to knowledge of detail of any way in which the matter might be handled and any settlement that might be entered into. 
John Key 
: Why would the Prime Minister accept the word of David Benson-Pope when he is a Minister with a track record of telling anything other than the exact facts when he gets asked a question? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a longstanding convention of this House to accept an honourable member’s word. 
John Key 
: What lengths has the Prime Minister or her office gone to to corroborate the story that David Benson-Pope has given her? Has she contacted Hugh Logan and what answers did he give her? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I most certainly am not making any such contact. I have looked the Minster in the eye I have had responses and it is a convention in this House to accept an honourable member’s word. 
John Key 
: Did the Prime Minister look David Benson-Pope in the eye when she asked him questions about relevant other issues on which he has been seen to be misleading the public and was he twitching when he answered that time as well? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course but not as much as that tragic member just twitched when he asked the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Seeing as we do not want to support some incestuous cesspit building in this country’s bureaucracy if Minister Benson-Pope did not know why is it that he was not entitled to know; or should he not have known given the proximity of this person to his operation and would that not be normal in any sound office—in defence of Mr Benson-Pope? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Minister made a fair point and a document has recently been issued by the State Services Commission on the issue of political neutrality. It states that the Minister is entitled to expect to be informed in advance of any issues or difficulties relating to the agency and it refers to a no-surprises principle. The problem in this case—and in my view it was not a problem attributable in any way to Miss Setchell—was that knowledge of this did not make its way to the chief executive.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would everyone please be seated. It is impossible for me to be able to hear. If members do not keep their comments down then we will be having this question time in silence. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister telling not only the House but the Public Service that she does not think it was appropriate that Madeleine Setchell would have been hired because of her partner’s relationship with the National Party; and if that is the conclusion the public sector has to draw from the Prime Minister’s answer will the Prime Minister also tell the Public Service that she now intends to root out others who work currently in their jobs whose partners or siblings have a relationship with the National Party; and if that is the case whatever happened to political neutrality? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition I do not intend to threaten the State Services Commission—that is what he did with his comments yesterday. That is how much he cares about their political neutrality. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Notwithstanding the desire of the State Services Commission— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where’s the question word? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well if you sit there a while Nick young boy you will find out. All you have to do is keep quiet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No—please be seated. Everyone knows that the Standing Orders say that questions should start with a question. If that was rigidly enforced of course I would be stopping every second person who asked a question. So I remind members again of the Standing Orders—you begin a question with a question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect it is long established in centuries of English old and new that one can frequently ask a question where the question word is the last word in a sentence. Where did this rule creep in whereby one has start with “what” “where” “how” “why” or “when”? That is not what this Parliament should be descending to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I am following the Standing Orders and whether they follow Old English I do not know. But the Standing Orders do require questions to start with a question word. So would the member please ask his question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When did the Prime Minister first learn about the objectives of the State Services Commission and its rules in respect of employing people as public servants; and second why does she think that that objective nevertheless overrules the need for a Minister to have confidence that he is not being required to work with the enemy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I learnt about the independence of the State Services Commission in respect of employment matters a very long time ago. That is why I was rather interested to have drawn to my attention today a report from 1996 that stated that the new conservation Minister at that time Mr Nick Smith had asked his director-general to resign over the Cave Creek tragedy and it was reported that the confrontation between the two men had raised a major problem for the State Services Commission the only body that can sack a departmental head. Nick Smith tried to do it himself. 
John Key 
: If David Benson-Pope had nothing to hide and was not concerned about his actions and the implications on the longstanding convention about neutrality of the Public Service why did he not simply answer the question factually with the information he had; or has the Prime Minister—the same Prime Minister who has campaigned on accountability—now decided that that applies to everyone in her Government except David Benson-Pope? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There are obviously non sequiturs in that particular question. What I would say is that the matter could have been better handled in my absence last week. It is being handled now. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that in answering questions on the radio this morning in relation to this issue David Benson-Pope said: “We’d been informed …” in which case why does she accept David Benson-Pope’s word when he said he was not informed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware of the concept of the royal “we”. It should not have been used in that context. 
John Key 
: Well— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ask a question please. 
John Key 
: I have not started yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: But the member said “Well”. I just ask the member to ask a question please. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s looking sick. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Further comments like that will be considered disorderly and members will leave the Chamber. 
John Key 
: Is it the situation then that when David Benson-Pope uses the word “we”—plural; in other words meaning himself and his political adviser Steve Hurring the royal “we”—it does not apply to in his case a “me”; and is it not just a clear example that David Benson-Pope knew all along what was going on: he issued the instructions; Steve Hurring was simply the person who went and carried out the Minister’s message and the Prime Minister knows that that is exactly the case? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course I do not know any such thing; nor is that my understanding of the issue. I repeat again for the benefit of the relatively new member of Parliament who is the Leader of the Opposition that it is the practice in this House to accept the word of an honourable member—even him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No further supplementary questions? Then I call question No. 3. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As you were saying those words the Leader of the Opposition mouthed across the Chamber to me at least three times the word “liar”. I take exception to that. I take great care in this House to be an honest person in responding to questions as I have today and I would ask that that matter be dealt with. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please apologise and withdraw. 
John Key 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the documents and reports at the time of Bill Mansfield’s departure to make plain that at no time did I know even today the political affiliations of Mr Mansfield and that I properly raised those issues— 
Document not tabled. 
Auckland International Airport Ltd—Sale Options Actions 
3.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: What are the costs and benefits to Auckland of the possible sale of Auckland International Airport a key strategic asset and gateway to New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: Any decision on this matter will be made under the relevant test of the Overseas Investment Act. As sensitive land is involved the two Ministers responsible for the decision will have to take into account the national benefit issues outlined in section 17 of the Act which go well beyond the standard business test. 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister agree with the comments of Manukau’s Mayor Sir Barry Curtis on Radio New Zealand National this morning that he is totally opposed to foreign control of a 51 percent stake in Auckland International Airport and that control of one of New Zealand’s key strategic assets must be left in the hands of Aucklanders and New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The nature of the asset and the nature of the cost and benefit involved in any decision will be taken into account by the two Ministers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Government aware that the merger implementation agreement between Auckland International Airport and Dubai Aerospace Enterprise contains a clause that seeks to enhance the relationship between the airport and one named airline which is not Air New Zealand; and on what basis could the Government consider a deal that allows a foreign takeover of arguably our most important strategic asset and that explicitly seeks to favour one particular foreign-owned airline to be a benefit to New Zealand taxpayers and the city of Auckland? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not aware of that clause. Obviously that clause itself is a matter that will be taken into account by the two Ministers making a decision. 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Minister concerned that because the Commerce Commission is not legally permitted to instruct airports over the level of their fees the sale of Auckland International Airport to rapacious overseas owners could lead to crippling monopoly rents and dramatically increase the cost of air travel for both New Zealanders and tourists? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is not the responsibility of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues but in fact the member is wrong—there is power under the Commerce Act to regulate prices at airports. To this point the decision has been taken not to do so but the power is certainly there. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Prime Minister—sorry the Minister of Finance—be in any way surprised to know that our old mates Russell McVeagh drew up this document; that it is all the same old faces in the same old places doing the same old thing to screw New Zealand; and that at 4.1(c) of clause 4 “Tourism growth” these words are to be found: “enhance the relationship between the business and Emirates Airline with a view to increasing New Zealand tourism and creating new routes and services to Auckland”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In light of the previous round of questions perhaps I should say that the Government’s impartiality extends even to the nature of law firms that may draw up contracts for people outside this Parliament. 
Sue Bradford 
: Should the Government end up decisively doing nothing will there be any point at which the sale of assets such as Auckland International Airport undermines our current account deficit to such an extent that the Minister of Finance might decisively intervene and halt the loss of New Zealand assets to foreign owners? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think I should note that the primary question was addressed to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues not to other Ministers so the ministerial responsibility in that sense is more constrained. But I will ask the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to answer as he thinks fit. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues is not responsible for any decision in this matter. It is a decision to be taken by the Minister for Land Information and the Associate Minister of Finance Trevor Mallard to whom the Minister of Finance has delegated his responsibilities in that regard. Neither can “decisively do nothing” because they will have to make a decision. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister of Finance aware of the US Senate recently blocking the sale of several US ports to Dubai-based consortia citing— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can finish his question but I would just note that as I said before the primary question was addressed to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues. So if his question could address that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh yes but we know who the Minister is! Is the Government aware of the US Senate recently blocking the sale of several US ports to Dubai-based consortia citing national security issues and with 70 percent of international business coming to this country arriving through Auckland International Airport will the Government consider matters of national security when the Overseas Investment Commission is asked to rule on the takeover? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I have said the decision will be taken by the two Ministers. It will not be delegated to the Overseas Investment Commission given the size and the importance of the decision to be made. The Ministers can take under section 17 a range of factors into account the last of which is any other factor set out in regulations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister consult her Cabinet colleagues in an endeavour to clear up the total misuse of the term “foreign investment” in this case which is clearly a foreign takeover of an existing business that has been built to the size it is by New Zealanders and there is no guarantee that as a consequence of this takeover—just as with New Zealand Rail which National sold—there will be any more new investment or one new job? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is worth noting that the Overseas Investment Act deals primarily with the takeover of existing New Zealand assets rather than greenfields investment in previously non-existing assets. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Government guarantee the people of this country that its considerations will be somewhat more serious than those between 1990 and 1996 when not one application to the Overseas Investment Commission was turned down by either the commission or the National Party in Government?. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a need for a little bit of discipline at question time. The Rt Hon Winston Peters who is actually a Minister in this Cabinet is meant to be asking questions of the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues but we have heard him call her the Prime Minister—he addressed a question to the Prime Minister—then call her the Minister of Finance and now in his latest question decide to call her the Government. Well I think we all admire the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues for her many achievements but the Rt Hon Winston Peters should actually rein himself in a bit and understand that the primary question—and I know that it is hard for him to keep up—was addressed to the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues and that is how the supplementary questions have to be framed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that points of order should be made succinctly. If every member in this House who mis-spoke was called up on it we would probably not make much progress at any time. I thank the member for leaping to his feet so quickly. I was about to rise myself and say that there is no ministerial responsibility for that question. The Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How about the sale of Wellington airport? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well Wellington airport of course was sold to majority ownership by you Maurice. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a supplementary question or a point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It was a supplementary question rudely interrupted by Mr Williamson from Pakuranga. He wanted to remind you Madam Speaker and the House that it was he who had betrayed the people of this country when National sold Wellington airport. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You were very quick to give the Leader of the Opposition a bit of a flick for using one word “Well” when he was absolutely exasperated at the lack of content in the Prime Minister’s answers but we have had this circus going on from Winston Peters for a number of minutes without much comment. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree but I say to members that if they interject the likelihood is that there will be a response and that will lead to disorder. I want members to take that on board at this time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister any information in respect of someone trained by Fay Richwhite who is at the moment the chief lobbyist and negotiator operating on behalf of Dubai Aerospace Enterprise to effect the airport sale who is also lobbying the National Party today and whose name is Brett Shepherd? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Sadly I have to admit that no I do not. However I think it is fair to say that the two Ministers who will make the decision will probably not consider that to be a relevant consideration under the Overseas Investment Act! 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would request the Rt Hon Winston Peters to table the document he was quoting from during his questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. If the member wishes to table it at any time I am sure he will. If he wants to table it he should do it now. 
Finance Minister—Confidence 
4.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still have confidence in her Minister of Finance? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister worried that New Zealand has some of the highest interest rates in the Western World that the exchange rate is now on a post-float high and that the Minister of Finance has no answers for the mess he has got our country into? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Perhaps I could answer best by quoting from Westpac last week: “It is normal for countries that are doing well to experience higher exchange rates.” 
Darren Hughes 
: Has she seen any reports on other proposals that might address the increase in the New Zealand dollar? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes. I did see a report that recommended having a currency union with Australia to try to halt the rise of the exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar which would of course mean giving up all of New Zealand’s sovereign control of its monetary policy. That report came from a former foreign exchange trader called John Key. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports from the Reserve Bank the IMF and the OECD that all point the finger at the big-spending policies of her Government the impact they are putting on inflation and the fact that New Zealand homeowners are now paying a lot more for their mortgages than they otherwise would be? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I have seen is any number of reports out of market commentators that point out that we are undergoing probably the biggest commodity price boom since the Korean War wool boom that the New Zealand economy has been growing for years that unemployment is low that Government finances are sound and that in those circumstances it is not unusual when the US dollar is very low for New Zealand to have a high currency exchange rate. I would also point out as the member should be well aware that the Aussie dollar the euro and the pound sterling are also historically high because the US dollar is so low. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister’s answer to the economic mess that her Government has got us into is the one she just gave why does the Minister of Finance go around all the time coming up with bright ideas that she then overrules and that he will not implement anyway? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am well aware that the Minister of Finance did for a time engage with Mr Key on how to address imbalances in the economy and look for alternative tools that might reinforce monetary policy. Of course Mr Key could not stand up to Mr English. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that despite months and months of speculation on different ideas from the Minister of Finance he has no solutions to the soaring exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar and no solutions to the highest interest rates in the Western World and that the only people who are paying for the mess Michael Cullen has created are the homeowners the borrowers and the exporters of New Zealand; and is it not about time that they deserved and had a new Government that could actually fix the problems? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would be interested to know what is messy about New Zealand having one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the Western World. I would be interested to know what is messy about having a growth rate that over the last 7½ years has exceeded the OECD averages. I would be interested to know what is messy about New Zealand dairy prices having doubled in the past year. The truth is that the US dollar is low and other currencies like ours are high. We do have some imbalances. Extra tools to support monetary policy would be helpful and every single one of them is opposed by the National Party. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister support the actions of the Minister of Finance firstly to intervene in the exchange rate I think roughly about 4c ago; does she support the Minister of Finance’s view expressed last week that he may suspend the control of monetary policy by the Reserve Bank governor; and what does she think it does to the confidence of New Zealanders when they see a Minister of Finance who has only problems and frankly no solutions? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Minister of Finance did not intervene in the currency. The Minister of Finance did not say he was considering using section 12— 
Hon Members 
: Yes he did. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No he did not. All I can say is that the Leader of the Opposition’s 2 weeks in the sun in Hawaii over the adjournment got to his head. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister then support the intervention that the Reserve Bank undertook on the back of the powers that the Minister of Finance gave the Reserve Bank some weeks ago; and is she aware that it is now sitting on a paper loss of somewhere around NZ$100 million? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It has been my practice as Prime Minister not to comment on the operation of monetary policy and I do not intend to. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why does the Prime Minister not act to restore the Government’s credibility on monetary and fiscal policy by replacing Alan Bollard with Don Brash who actually did the job and Michael Cullen with Phil Goff who has the ability to put the Government’s finances in order rather than always blame hard-working New Zealanders for our economic woes when those hard-working New Zealanders are working harder and harder and are being taxed more and more to prop up a bloated and an unproductive Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There seems to be a perception of reality on the Opposition benches that is not shared by most market commentators or indeed by offshore people. The general perception is that the New Zealand economy is doing rather well is undergoing a phenomenal commodity price boom has good growth rates and has low unemployment numbers and sound Government finances but that its currency like that of other like-minded countries is buffeted by the sharp fall in the US dollar.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave in the interests of putting to rest that last bit of myth-making by Rodney Hide to table the figures for the Reserve Bank governor’s performance for 1994 1995 and 1996 when for 21 months he was outside the zero to 2 band— 
Document not tabled. 
Maori Language—Usage and Standing 
5.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: He aha nga purongo mo te reo Maori kua tae atu ina tata nei? 
[ 
What recent reports has he received on the health of the Maori language? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
I te po kua hori nei i whakaputa au i nga hua o te Rangahau mo Te Reo Maori i te tau 2006 na runga i nga mahi a Te Puni Kokiri. Kitea ana i tenei rangahau kua piki haere te tokomaha o nga Maori e mohio ana ki te korero me te whakarongo ki Te Reo a kei te kaha ake te korero ki nga tamariki. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
Last night I launched the results of the survey of the health of the Maori language in 2006 which was conducted by Te Puni Kokiri. The survey showed a healthy increase in the number of Maori who can speak and understand te reo and highlighted that more Maori are speaking te reo to their children. This is great news. 
] 
Dave Hereora 
: He aha nga mahi e puta ake ana i te rangahau nei? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
What are the outcomes from this survey? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Ka haere tonu nga mahi hei wetewete i enei tatauranga hei kaupapa mo te Rautaki Reo Maori. Ka whakaputahia hei tirohanga a-rohe hei kaupapa mo te mahi tihikete ki nga iwi ara hei awhina i a ratou ki te whakarite kaupapa mo ratou ano. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
We will continue to analyse the results as the basis for our ongoing investment in the Maori Language Strategy. We will develop regional profiles so that we can work with iwi to develop their own language programmes. 
] 
Environment Ministry—Communications Manager Appointment 
6.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: When was he first informed Madeleine Setchell had been appointed communications manager at the Ministry for the Environment and who informed him? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am advised that on 28 May my adviser informed me that he had received confirmation of a rumour that a recent appointment to the role of communications manager in the Ministry for the Environment was the partner of the chief press secretary in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. The person was unknown personally either to myself or to my adviser and it was not until sometime later that I became aware the person’s name was Madeleine Setchell. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did the Minister have any discussions with his adviser Steve Hurring subsequent to the advice that he had received about Madeleine Setchell’s position at the Ministry for the Environment and was that prior to Mr Hurring phoning the chief executive of the ministry to inform him of her personal relationship; if so what was the nature of that discussion? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If we are to believe that the Minister did not know of the appointment or of any conflict of interest and did not express concerns to Mr Logan why was it only after Mr Hurring’s phone call and the subsequent discussion between Mr Logan and the Minister that the State Services Commission became involved and Ms Setchell was moved on? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is my understanding that the State Services Commission became involved on the request of Mr Logan when he went to Dr Prebble for advice. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he inform the House as to whether Mr Logan took the step of going to see Dr Prebble because he had had the message from the Minister’s office that he had to do something about the situation because the Minister found the appointment unacceptable? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I think the clearest answer to that question is in the words of Mr Rennie in the State Services Commissioner’s report that my colleague Mrs King tabled last Friday. I will read paragraph 3 and will ask for leave of the House to table the document at the end of this question: “The possibility of an issue was brought to the attention of the Chief Executive Mr Hugh Logan by way of a phone call from the office of the Minister for the Environment after Ms Setchell had started work at the Ministry. This phone call enquired as to whether Ms Setchell’s partner was a senior member of the Leader of the Opposition’s staff. The staff member from the Minister’s office indicated that it would be helpful to know whether this was true but also stressed that it was entirely the chief executive’s responsibility to make decisions on the employment of staff.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he consider Mr Hurring’s phone call was acceptable; if not what action does he intend to take regarding Mr Hurring and if it will be nothing more than a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket does he believe that that will confirm for public servants that if they want to make progress under a Labour Government they had best join the Labour Party? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is not difficult to understand that the call could have been unwise because there was a danger that it might have been misinterpreted—as has certainly been the case with a number of the media reports of this matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it not true that if the Minister had not kicked up a fuss Ms Setchell could be in that position today carrying out her duties with all the integrity expected of a public servant and proving that these things are possible if it were not for the Minister’s own petulant display in this regard? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is not accurate to suggest that I kicked up a fuss and I will refer the member again to the absolutely clear description of events that was released by Mr Rennie last week. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the film  
Primary Colors 
 which will give us all a chance to see the kind of fictional setting that Gerry Brownlee believes in. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I seek leave of the House to table the briefing from the State Services Commissioner that I referred to earlier. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table the film  
Wag the Dog 
 which is a perfect replication of what happens in the Labour Government. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a serious point of order. There is an old English saying that the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant without knowing it and that example given by Gerry Brownlee he knows could be imaged as being true but in fact is not.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a valid point of order.  
Electoral System—Reform 
7.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What is the Government doing to reform New Zealand’s electoral system to protect it from abuse? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yesterday I introduced a Government bill that aims to make our electoral system fairer and more transparent and to safeguard it from abuse. The flagrant abuse of our electoral system that saw the undue influence of big money from secretive groups in the 2005 campaign must be stemmed. That is something New Zealanders have known since 1895 when the first limits on election spending were introduced. This bill reforms the system to make sure that a level playing field is in place for 2008 and that we continue to have an electoral system that New Zealanders can have confidence in. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What does the bill do to ensure that the voices of New Zealanders who want to get involved in elections are not overwhelmed by those who can spend the most? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: This bill puts fair and reasonable limits on the amounts that third parties can spend.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s a rort. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I say to Mr Smith that it gives the referees such as the Chief Electoral Officer more tools and tougher penalties for those who would choose to break the rules. The bill will effectively extend what is known as the regulated period for campaign spending thus restricting to a fair and reasonable level the influence of the already capped campaign spending during an election year. This Government and some other parties in Parliament want to restore and maintain trust in our electoral system and to deliver a level playing field for all. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If this bill is passed as it stands will individuals and corporations still be able to make unlimited anonymous donations to political parties—yes or no? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although the matter relating to donations has been referred to the independent review which I also announced yesterday it is certainly the case that the spending limits will be extended to 1 January in an election year thereby ensuring that although donations will indeed be able to be made the ability of any party to be grossly overfunded to the point that it overwhelms proper debate will be curtailed. In the end in New Zealand we want our elections to be a contest of ideas not a contest of bank accounts.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What is to be done about those parties that have sought to use mates’ rates in campaigns to disguise the true real and actual cost of expenditure so that one-tenth of the cost can be entered into an electoral return and claimed to be within the law; what does the bill propose to do about that—  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They have to have proper and reasonable costs. He’s got it wrong.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Has the member finished his question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am trying to finish the question but Maurice who knows everything about everything is finishing it for me. What will happen to so-called business rates under the new law as proposed; will they be fair and actual or any old rate depending on who one’s mates are? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is fair to say that the member who asked the question has unique experience of the unfairness that has been permitted under the current system. Under this bill fair rates will be required—the apportionment of fair cost in value to donated goods and services—to ensure that again those with large bank accounts will not simply be able to overwhelm the voice of others and try to buy an election. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Consultation with Political Parties 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Which parties did he consult with before introducing the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Government consulted members of the Justice and Electoral Committee at the early stages of the forming of this bill. Represented on that committee were Labour National the Greens the Maori Party and ACT. Since then consultations and briefings have been held with New Zealand First the Greens United Future and the Maori Party. The bill is now of course available to all parties to consider and for referral to the select committee in order to enable full public debate of the bill. I invite members opposite to facilitate that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the bill was written by Labour for Labour and that it hands a huge advantage to Labour in 2008 by restricting any advertising by Opposition parties or by interest groups and third parties throughout the entire year which is a set of rules that is unprecedented in New Zealand? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is— 
Hon Members 
: Read the bill! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
:—I can assure members that I am very familiar with the bill—that the bill extends precisely the same requirements and restrictions to the Labour Party as it does to every other party. It brings us more into line with best practice established in similar jurisdictions to ours such as the United Kingdom where a 12-month cap period applies. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What specific new measures does the bill contain to address the type of undermining of the electoral process by secretive wealthy interest groups that was evident in the 2005 election? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. When questions are asked all members in the House are entitled to hear the answer. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: One of the new measures is that third parties will have to notify the Chief Electoral Officer of their involvement in election activities if they intend to spend over $5000 nationally or $500 in a constituency. There will be a $60000 limit nationally and a $2000 limit in any one constituency for third parties. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Unless you’re a union. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No including the unions. Clearly defined rules on third-party election activities will mean that third parties can continue to have their say on issues of concern but at a reasonable level. In 2005 New Zealanders— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the interests of fairness I think I should point out to you that there is a person asleep in the press gallery. You know what a sin that is for the rest of us here. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has been here long enough to know that that was not an appropriate intervention. We do not refer to members in the gallery. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That would after all be an unfair thing to do! I can say that in 2005 New Zealanders were shown that our electoral system was not as safe from abuse as most had believed it was. The public will be able to see who is behind third-party political campaigns because this bill establishes fair and transparent rules around campaigns from third-party friends of the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the limit of $60000 that he is applying to all interest groups for the whole of an election year is not much more than the cost of a full-page ad in a handful of our newspapers and can he confirm that the only possible reason for that in 2008 is to suppress criticism of the incumbent Government? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I most certainly cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that the limit is to ensure that the sorts of groups that sought to rort the last election and buy a result will not be allowed to get away with that in future. Ordinary New Zealanders deserve a contest of ideas not a contest of rich people’s bank accounts. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tena tatou katoa e huihui mai nei i te Whare i te ra nei. Kei te marama te Minita i hui maua ko ta matou Kaiarahi Tari me te Kaiarahi Tari o Te Ropu Reipa i te hapahi o te 9 o te ata i te 5 o Paenga-whawha 2007 ki te korero i Te Pire Putea Poti engari kua panui ke ki te niupepa  
Dominion Post 
 i taua ata o te 5 o Paenga-whawha 2007 a ka taea e ia te ki i muri mai i era momo whaki korero koi ra te ahua o te whakawhiti whakaaro? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Is the Minister aware that a meeting was held at 9.30 a.m. on Thursday 5 April 2007 between the chief of staff of the Labour Party myself and the Maori Party chief of staff to discuss the Electoral Finance Bill which had already been leaked to the press that morning in a  
Dominion Post 
 article; and would he say that informing after that leak was consultation? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am not sure what ministerial responsibility I have for that particular meeting but yes I am aware of it. Certainly I would regard that as an engagement with the Maori Party of a type referred to in one of my answers. 
Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister tell the House which political parties in Parliament have asked him for a briefing on the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think a number of parties—I referred to them in the principal answer—have already received a briefing either because they have asked for it or because they have been offered it. To the best of my knowledge neither the National Party nor the ACT party has asked for a briefing at all. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the effect of his legislation is that in an election year from 1 January for up to 11 months of that year anyone who wants to publish anything that is critical of the Government will be subject to tight rules and tight spending caps the likes of which we have never seen before but that the Government will be free to run multimillion-dollar large-scale taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns on any or all of its policy and that that is the intention of the legislation? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Where do I begin? [ 
Interruption 
]  
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members ask a question they presumably wish to hear the answer. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No; again the member is clearly wrong. What I can confirm is that any third party that wishes to engage in the election campaign process will be constrained by spending limits. Given the spending rorts that we all saw in 2005 by those who sought to get around the law as it stood that is desirable in order to ensure that the right of New Zealanders to have an open and a fair democratic process is preserved. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Mai i te 5 o nga ra o Paenga-whawha 2007 he aha ake nga hui kua whakatungia i waenganui i te Minita me nga ropu MMP hei wananga i Te Pire Putea Poti a he aha ai i makere mai te Pati Maori i te rarangi tono? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What other meetings has the Minister had with MMP parties since 5 April 2007 to discuss the Electoral Finance Bill and for what reason was the Maori Party dropped off the invitation list? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I cannot give the member the dates of the meetings I have had or that my officials have had off the cuff. I can say to the member that it was not a matter of dropping anyone off or in; it was about putting together a bill for this House to consider. The question is whether members of the House will support the bill in order to give New Zealanders the opportunity to consider it submit on it and even—possibly—improve it. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Ko te mate ke kaore au i tino rongo i te whakautu o te Minita e taea ana e koe te patai ki a ia kia korero ano i tana whakautu? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The problem is that I did not hear the Minister’s response. With respect would it be in order for you to ask him to repeat his answer? 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please repeat his answer. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think in essence I cannot give the member off the cuff the dates of the meetings I have had or others have had on my behalf. But I can say to the member that it was not about dropping people in or out of consultation. It was about bringing together a bill that would enjoy the support of sufficient numbers of members of the House to be referred to a select committee where it can then have the full consideration of members of Parliament and the wider community. I invite members to give that opportunity to New Zealanders and to support its referral to a select committee where I am sure the bill will be further improved. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Minister said I was wrong in my description of the effect of the bill can he tell me which bit is wrong: that every interest group in New Zealand will be subject to a spending limit of $60000 the cost of a full-page ad in a handful of our provincial newspapers; that that $60000 limit will apply from 1 January in an election year until the election is held; and that the bill has no restrictions on the amount of money that the Government is able to spend on multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns on any or all of its policies; and finally was I wrong when I said that that is the intent of the bill—to allow Labour to spend taxpayers’ money as much as it likes and stop everyone else criticising it? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In reverse order my answers are: firstly no the member is wrong as I said he was. That is not the intent of the bill. Secondly this bill does not deal with parliamentary expenditure either on the part of the Government or on the part of individual members of Parliament. That matter is certainly being dealt with elsewhere. I would say to the member that members of Parliament must be able to continue to go about their legitimate business. Thirdly the spending cap limit of course applies to groups and individuals who seek to be third parties in the election campaign process—to no one else. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that Labour is having trouble raising money and will be more than ever dependent on taxpayer-funded advertising campaigns in election year is it the case that the reason why Madeleine Setchell was sacked was that she could be too professional and competent to go along with Labour’s plan to use the bureaucracy to advertise its election campaign promises? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That question barely warrants a reply but no I cannot confirm that. 
Building—Consent Process 
9.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What reports if any has he received on improvements to the building consent process? [ 
Interruption 
]  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members who intervene again will leave the Chamber. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I have received reports noting that building consent authorities are being audited and accredited to ensure they lift their game and deliver better services to people needing building consents. Yesterday I presented the Palmerston North City Council with its accreditation certificate. It is the first council to pass accreditation. The council has boosted its building control staff numbers from 12 to 20 put these staff through rigorous training programmes and has invested in new information technology so that they are equipped to meet the new high-quality inspection and processing standards the Government is putting in place. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has he received any reports on alternative changes to the building consent process? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes. I have seen a report from one Pat Seymour who describes the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill as “a daft piece of potential legislation” that will mean “the only one that will end up paying every time is the general ratepayer”. Pat Seymour is the chair of the East Coast branch of the National Party and was writing in the National Party’s  
East Coast Informer 
 newsletter. The bill she criticises is in the name of one Dr Nick Smith and is supported by the National caucus including Anne Tolley. I seek leave to table the  
East Coast Informer 
 a National Party newsletter of January 2007. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the report by the Registered Master Builders Federation stating that it now takes longer to get a consent to build a house in New Zealand that it takes to build it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I seek to table the select committee report on the Building (Late Consent is a Free Consent) Amendment Bill in which the select committee notes that only 20 percent of consents are processed outside the 20 working day period. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
10.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes; but the chief executive understands that he is responsible for continuing to make improvements with clear lines of accountability across the whole department. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that section 107 of the Corrections Act enables prison staff to open an inmate’s incoming and outgoing mail where they suspect that letters may be used to threaten or endanger the recipient of that mail; if so why was a serial stalker allegedly allowed to receive graphic photos of the death scene of a man who committed suicide and why was he then allegedly allowed to forward them on to the dead man’s partner? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of the claims the member has made there. Currently an investigation is under way. The current situation is that corrections staff are limited in their ability to block mail. I consider the situation untenable. I have sought and obtained Cabinet approval to introduce a bill next month that will allow corrections staff to screen all mail and block any intimidating threatening or inappropriate correspondence. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was the decision to send to the inmate the material relating to the inquest made by his department or by the coroner’s office; and were graphic photos part of the package sent to the inmate as alleged by Simon Power? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Approval to release the information was made by the coroner’s department; and I am informed that no such graphic pictures were part of any information forwarded by the Ministry of Justice or by the coroner’s department. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that the woman who allegedly received these photographs had also allegedly received over 200 letters from an inmate since he was jailed in 2004 yet according to the police: “This is despite the complainant requesting various prisons where the defendant had been incarcerated to put a stop on his mail to her.”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Those matters are currently under investigation. As I have said I consider that the limited ability of corrections staff to intervene in mail is untenable. That is why I have moved to make the changes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the inmate concerned been charged in court with criminal harassment for his actions; secondly is the Minister aware of any other cases of inmates wrongly harassing people from their prison cells through correspondence? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes that inmate has been charged; and I am aware of a number of incidents. There are two in particular one of an inmate Samuel Wyatt in 1999 and another of a Glen Holden in 1988. Both of those prisoners harassed individuals from inside a prison. The Minister at the time was Nick Smith and he did nothing. 
Simon Power 
: Why did Public Prisons Service Northern Regional Manager Warren Cummins state: “There was nothing in the prisoner’s list of convictions that would have provided us with reasonable grounds to monitor his correspondence as a matter of course.” when that inmate has 191 convictions including criminal harassment making false oaths misuse of a telephone forgery impersonating police speaking threateningly threatening intimidation and sending a letter threatening to kill? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I would consider that that would give an indication of the need to monitor. However as I have said there is a limited legal ability to intervene. That is why we will change the law. That inmate is being charged for all of those inappropriate allegations and threats made from within the prison. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with the view of his department that it is reluctant to find fault with its mail-screening process and had acted “within our legal ability”; and is that why his department has no plans to apologise to the woman who allegedly received this correspondence? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I consider that the mail-screening process could be improved and I consider that the law needs to be changed to make sure that those improvements are carried out thoroughly and consistently. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was not going to raise a point of order because this happens so often with the Labour Party. But I noticed Phil Goff’s intervention. I wish the House to note—and I would be happy to table my ministerial warrant—that I was the Minister neither in 1988 nor in 1999 as the Minister of Corrections claimed. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table three documents. One relates to Glen Holden dated 21 October 1998. The second is Samuel Wyatt— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: 1998? He said 1988. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No 1998. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a new point of order. I understand that when a member is on his feet addressing a point of order other people are not to interject and Nick Smith has just done so continuously. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. That is correct. In the answer to the original question the date 1988 was used. If people wish to file documents— 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated if he wishes to remain in this House. As I recall the year stated was 1988. Although the member rose to correct that as he well knows that is not a point of order. We then had another point of order wanting to table documents. That is where we are at at this stage. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The first is dated 21 October 1998. The second is dated 22 January 1999. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The third document is just to indicate that the member’s warrant actually ran from 8 December 1997 to 31 January 1999.  
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I must say that when people are making points of order they are to be heard in silence. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If I mistakenly said 1988 I correct my answer to say 1998 which was when that member Nick Smith was the Minister. 
Respite Care—Regional Services 
11.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Which regions in New Zealand currently lack sufficient respite beds for disabled teenagers and adults who qualify and what work if any is the Minister doing to address the issue? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Quite a lot of work is going on. The member raises an important issue. The priority areas for increased respite care in this year 2007-08 are Hawke’s Bay the Bay of Plenty the Waikato and some areas of the South Island—the details are not yet worked out but it will certainly include Southland. That is where this year’s $4 million additional budget will be targeted. In the year just concluded an additional $2 million was targeted at Auckland and Christchurch. In the 2008-09 year there will be further targeting probably at Wellington and Northland. 
Judy Turner 
: What explanation can the Minister give to members of the west Auckland family who on top of looking after a young baby have just learnt that their severely disabled 13-year-old can no longer attend respite care as there is no appropriate facility in west Auckland that takes clients who are 12 years old or over; and how does the Minister propose that this family survives? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That sort of case not only leads the member to ask her question but leads the ministry and myself to increase the availability of respite care starting in the areas of greatest need. We do seek continued improvement and the reason that we know where to go first is that the ministry has been holding consumer fora and actually asking the people who are affected. So we have a fairly informed response. 
Maryan Street 
: What other improvements in disability services are under way or planned? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are of course an awful lot so why do I not just give the House a few examples in order to give members a feel for the various ways that the Government supports those with disabilities and their families? First of all the level of payment for daily expenses for caregivers is being increased. Secondly there is an increase in the investment for beds which was part of my primary answer to the member’s question. Thirdly there has been a very substantial investment in home-based support services: about a 40 percent increase since March 2005. Last but not least my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson yesterday launched New Zealand’s first-ever draft caregiver strategy which is now available for consultation and to be commented on by all who are interested in it. 
Judy Turner 
: How many days of respite care are being allocated but not utilised due to a lack of appropriate services and surely those figures alone should have been sending an alarm to the Ministry of Health regarding the crisis that faces families who are caring for family members with high and complex needs? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member is right. Respite care can be a bit tough in various parts of the country—and somewhat seasonal if I might say that. What happens is that people are allocated respite care on the basis of need and the areas where need is not able to be met are precisely where the extra investment is going region by region. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflict of Interest 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding the conflict of interest allegations at the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board: “the district health board has looked at it and found no material advantage”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I do. The contract at the centre of the review has been examined already by the audit committee of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Its legal advice is that Mr Hausmann’s company did not receive any particular advantage. However rumours continue and at the request of Mr Hausmann himself I have decided we should have a fresh look. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board cancel the tender process for the community services contract? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It was well before a tender process I can assure the member. I think it was a request for proposal process; it was very early on in the process. There was no tender. There was no contract. There was a request for proposal process which legal advice said should start again in case it was unsafe. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What were those matters that would have made it unsafe to continue with the process? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The matters that have been the subject of continual conjecture by the member and by other folk for the past 2 weeks even though the review to take a look at these issues got under way before the National Party had ever heard about it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the process was cancelled because of matters that are being raised in the House and if the matters being raised in the House are those that the whistleblower revealed how can there be no connection between those claims and the cancelling of the request for proposal process? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There is a very convoluted question sitting in there somewhere. Let me tell members what the answer is. In January 2006 now 18 months ago the chair of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board rang me and said he had concerns because he had—[ 
Interruption 
] He rang me—he did. He rang me and said he had concerns about a request for proposal process and that one of the staff members of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board had raised those concerns with him. I discussed this matter with him for some time. He went on to take advice from lawyers the Ministry of Health and others and as a result the audit committee said that the request for proposal process should cease in case it lead to an unsafe outcome. That was 18 months ago. Rumours persist and because the person against whom they persist Mr Hausmann has written to me asking that the issue be looked at afresh I have decided to look at it afresh. 
Points of Order 
Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank)  Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave for the Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for first reading as a members’ order of the day despite Standing Orders 276(1) and 277(1). 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Urgent Debates 
Environment Ministry—State Services Commission Briefing 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from John Key seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of a State Services Commission briefing on an employment decision at the Ministry for the Environment. The release of the briefing is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and given the public interest in the subject of the briefing I agree that it does require the immediate attention of the House.  
I have also received letters from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and Sue Bradford seeking to debate the decision of the directors of Auckland International Airport Ltd to recommend a sale of Auckland airport to a Dubai company. The decision of a company’s directors is not a matter of ministerial responsibility though if such a deal were to proceed it may well involve Overseas Investment Office clearance. However that stage has not been reached yet. I will therefore allow Mr Key’s application and call on Mr Key to move that the House take note of a particular matter of urgent importance. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. It would be easy for people to dismiss this case as one of a young woman Madeleine Setchell who applied for a job at the Ministry for the Environment and for reasons that may not have been made public except for the two degrees of separation that limit all New Zealanders I think lost her job and it was time to move on. That is the position that Helen Clark and David Benson-Pope want to adopt. They want this situation to move on.  
Helen Clark in Parliament’s question time today gave David Benson-Pope a small slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket and she now thinks it is all OK—she thinks it is all OK. She does not want to have this issue debated in public because she knows what the ramifications will be. This is from a Prime Minister who went on the campaign trail and argued about higher levels of accountability and standards. What this story is really about is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Get off the cloud. 
JOHN KEY 
: I tell Trevor that he was 18th man in Valencia and after the reshuffle he will not even be 18th man in Cabinet so sit down son and move on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was actually replaced by 100 kilograms of lead; I was never 18th man. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. 
JOHN KEY 
: The Prime Minister wants this all to go away because it is a little bit annoying and it shows Labour up for what it is—a Labour Government that is arrogant and does not care about the little people any more. The party that was once formed on workers’ rights does not care about them any more. The bit that the Labour Party— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member cannot continue a constant barracking of interjections. The member will listen to me. 
JOHN KEY 
: Trevor Mallard wants to keep commentating through my speech because he does not want the facts exposed for what they are. There are 55000 public servants looking on and they know that under Labour the rules of the game have changed. So it is no wonder Trevor Mallard wants to create a few diversions. He wants the facts not to come out.  
This goes a lot further than a young woman who lost her job. This goes to the heart of the neutrality of the public service in New Zealand. It is a public service that has served us well from Government to Government. It has been able to draw on people irrelevant of what their partners did and irrelevant of what their siblings did. It has been a public service that has been well and truly up and beyond anything that can come from a Labour Party.  
The second thing that the Labour Party does not want people to know is that this is part of a plan to move to get greater exercise of influence in ministerial departments. That is what is happening here. The Labour Party no longer wants a neutral public service. It wants a public service that has Labour Party lackeys in it operating under its rules and singing to its tune because it does not like the neutrality of the public service. On Friday the Government made something very unusual happen. The State Services Commissioner actually had to write an op-ed piece in the  
Dominion Post 
 about why it does not mean the end of the neutrality of the public service because he knew that was the case.  
The last thing that Labour members do not want exposed is that once again David Benson-Pope has been caught being economical with the truth. It is not the first time Labour has found David Benson-Pope being a little economical with the truth and it is not the second time it has found him out; it is the third time that he has been found being economical with the truth and they are the only times on the public record that we know about.  
So let us get a few facts on the table. Madeleine Setchell was hired by the Ministry for the Environment because she was good at her job. The ministry knew she would be good at her job because the funny thing is this was not the first time Madeleine Setchell had been hired by a Government department. This was the third time she had been employed by a Government department. The ministry knew her track record. When Mark Prebble said that she was a person of personal integrity that was not a warm platitude rolled out for a  
Dominion Post 
 op-ed; he knew because there was a proven track record. She had worked there time and time again and the ministry knew she was good. The ministry knew she was trustworthy and she was a person of integrity; it knew that. The Prime Minister wants New Zealanders to believe that when the ministry interviewed her her relationship with Kevin Taylor my press secretary was somehow glossed over and a little vague.  
Well here are the facts. The ministry raised the issue of whether there was a conflict of interest and she answered those questions. She was asked directly how she would handle matters of conflict of interest and she answered them because for the entire time that she has had a relationship with Kevin Taylor he has had positions where conflicts of interest could have been an issue. She answered those questions honestly and she answered them clearly and there was no ambiguity and no vagueness. The Prime Minister knows that and that is just another red herring that has been put up to try to protect David Benson-Pope because she knows that he is in the gun for something that had gone on.  
Ministry staff knew all the facts and guess what? They hired Madeleine Setchell. They were satisfied that the neutrality of the public service would be maintained they were satisfied that she knew how to deal with matters with integrity and they were satisfied with the way things would be carried out. So can members imagine her shock when after 3 days on the job her employment was terminated. It was not because she was not good at her job she could not manage a situation involving a conflict of interests or she did not have a proven track record with three Government departments. It was because David Benson-Pope did not like her and did not want her in that office—and he knows it.  
David Benson-Pope was not asked just a vague question. Duncan Garner asked David Benson-Pope on behalf of TV3 whether he knew the details of this case and David Benson-Pope said: “No.” We now know from the State Services Commission that that is not right. When Duncan Garner asked David Benson-Pope: “Are you sure about these matters?” he said: “Duncan I have been very clear with you. No I do not know the details of this case.” But unfortunately for David Benson-Pope that is not the way the State Services Commissioner saw it and that is not factually correct. You see David Benson-Pope did know because otherwise what would be the probability of Steve Hurring a political adviser in David Benson-Pope’s office making a phone call off his own bat to the Ministry for the Environment? 
Hon Member 
: Zero. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is right—zero. Why do we know that it is zero? It is because the Prime Minister’s office advised staff in David Benson-Pope’s office not to make that phone call. No political advisers go and do that off their own bat because they will get the boot if they cross the ninth floor unless someone is protecting them. That is why we know that it is not correct. It is because the ninth floor said not to do it and Steve Hurring did it anyway because he was just the messenger for David Benson-Pope.  
David Benson-Pope should get on his feet and stop talking about the things that Steve Hurring has done when he knows that he is the man who issued the riding instructions. If he does not have anything to cover up then maybe just maybe David Benson-Pope should explain to the public of New Zealand why he did not answer factually the question that Duncan Garner asked him. If he had nothing to hide and if he was not worried about the situation then he would have answered that question directly but he did not. He said: “No. I do not understand that situation.” And it is not just the ninth floor that did not agree with it. Last night we saw on Television One that other ministerial staff have made it clear to journalists that that is not the action they expected from that office.  
So we can draw only a few conclusions here. Steve Hurring was not acting alone or if he was David Benson-Pope’s office is running so amok that he does not have a clue what is going on and he is not fit to be a Minister on that account let alone for any other reason. When the Prime Minister came back into the country with the mess erupting around her do members think she rang Hugh Logan and asked him what went on? Did she make inquiries of the State Services Commissioner or the deputy commissioner who undertook the report Iain Rennie? No she looked at David Benson-Pope and she said that she took his word. He is someone who has twice before been caught being economical with the truth but on this occasion for some reason she decided that he was not doing that.  
Well why was that the case? Because as my colleague Bill English quite correctly pointed out today there is a small thing going through the House at the moment called electoral law reform. What it will mean if it passes—Labour Government legislation—is that the only people who will be able to advertise in the 2008 election year will be political parties up to their cap which starts from 1 January not 3 months out from the election and of course Government department communication units spending taxpayer funds like the one at the Ministry for the Environment. The showcase will be carbon neutrality and that will be coming from David Benson-Pope’s office. So one can imagine how inconvenient it would be to have a neutral public servant in charge of communications not a Labour Party lackey. 
Hon Member 
: Who’s going to get the job? 
JOHN KEY 
: Who will get the job and replace Madeleine Setchell who was fired not because she was not good but because— 
Hon Members 
: Steve Hurring. 
JOHN KEY 
: Steve Hurring will probably be the person who gets the job not Madeleine Setchell. So we now understand why this is all happening. It is because the Labour Party thinks the Public Service is an extension of its organisation and that is why Helen Clark has turned a blind eye to this incident.  
The Public Service has served us well. Its employees deserve to know that they are safe in their jobs. We do not live under a regime where all of a sudden there is a change or where people live in fear because their brother sister or partner happens to be somehow associated with a political party that the Labour Party does not like. Now we have a Government in its dark and dying hours that is changing the electoral rules because it cannot win under the current ones. It is changing the public service so that somehow it can do what it wants and all along the way one young woman has lost her job. And nothing has happened about it!  
The Prime Minister who campaigned on accountability does not care and the Minister who has misled her three times now on the record keeps his job. Well I tell members that the Minister is welcome to his job for the next 12 months because when the next election comes around the public of New Zealand will take his job from him they will take the Prime Minister’s job from her and they will take the jobs of all the other Labour Ministers from them because those members are not fit to be running this country. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 The issue of Public Service neutrality is very important. It is a tradition that contrary to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that he cannot accuse another member— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I said: “Spanky’s a liar.” I didn’t accuse any of them; I said: “Spanky’s a liar.”—unless she’s named “Spanky”. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I would just remind the member that he cannot do that. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I start again Madam Assistant Speaker as I only got my first sentence out? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the member can. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. The issue of Public Service neutrality is very important. It is a tradition that contrary to some editorial writers Labour strongly supports. It is the way that Governments regardless of their political colours are able to implement their policies when they take office because they must have a Public Service that services the Government of the day without fear or favour and it is the cornerstone of our political system.  
The employment issue relating to Ms Setchell has led to debate about Public Service neutrality and political interference. From my experience as a Minister chief executives and Ministers work hard to ensure the appropriate protocols are followed. Being a politician means that at times things are political. Not one member in this House would claim to be anything other than a politician—although some I have to say feel uncomfortable about the party they are in and some change their votes and parties at will.  
Chief executives and their staff must be able to raise any issue they believe affects the Government of the day and Ministers and their staff must be able to raise any matter that they believe affects the Government of the day. In fact the State Services Commission issued a fact sheet entitled “Political neutrality” and I think this statement is worth repeating from that document: “Because of the Minister’s political responsibilities and in order to maintain a relationship of confidence between the Minister and chief executive the Minister is entitled to expect to be informed in advance of any issues or difficulties relating to the agency. Providing information to the Minister on a no-surprises basis is not abdicating or transferring responsibility and it does not breach the political neutrality principle.” That is a very important piece of advice to any Ministers now and in the future.  
So the key issue here is how those issues are managed. No one is suggesting that a cone of silence must exist between public servants and Ministers—or MPs for that matter—because there might be some sort of political overtones. If that were the case it could be considered inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition’s chief of staff to have called for a meeting with the Deputy State Services Commissioner to raise the issue of the employment of Ms Setchell in the Ministry for the Environment which occurred on 2 July.  
It could be considered that political pressure was being applied to the independent State Services Commissioner to take some action or other against the chief executive or others. I do not think that is necessarily the case at all but it could be perceived that way. An impartial press may have written up that action as being dubious; I would not have agreed however. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition through his staff has the right to raise such issues with senior public servants. You know sometimes our own behaviour in this place leads to the politicisation of the Public Service—for example recent attacks by National MPs on chief executives saying that National will sack them if it becomes the Government and threatening them about what it will do if it becomes the Government. That sort of behaviour whether from National or anybody else does lead to problems because it is quite obvious that a Minister cannot sack a chief executive. That is the domain of the State Services Commission.  
I would like to give the House another example that I have received of a Parliamentary Service staff member who works part-time in Lianne Dalziel’s electorate office and who works for the Parliamentary Service as a support for out-of-Parliament staff—and has done so for a number of years. She goes into individual offices to teach the basics of the running of an electorate office and to provide information about the support available. But all that changed this year. It changed when National refused to allow her into National out-of-Parliament offices because she worked for Lianne Dalziel. She is not a political appointee but she has been banned from going into National offices not because she is a bad person not because she is incompetent—in fact I am told she is a good person and she is competent—but because she works for a Labour member of Parliament. You see it is this sort of behaviour that leads to some of these problems. I think that everyone needs to be mindful of his or her obligations and not put public servants in such positions. Public servants themselves should also be mindful of their obligations.  
This issue I believe is a timely reminder for everyone that actions regardless of how innocent they may be can be misinterpreted—whether it is a phone call from a Minister’s staffer or a call-up from the Leader of the Opposition’s staff wanting a meeting with the State Services Commissioner. This is not a new issue and I think that it has been captured extremely well in a cartoon from Jim Hubbard that came out a day ago. It shows John Key the Leader of the Opposition stating: “This kind of political partisanship is unprecedented.” while at the same time he is hastily trying to close a cupboard full of skeletons. I say to people to get the cartoon because there is a little bit of hypocrisy being spoken here today— 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No no—please be seated. The member knows that she cannot use that word. I ask her to withdraw it please.  
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I withdraw. A little bit of cant is being spoken here today about this issue and I think that it is important we treat the issue with some seriousness and stop throwing around these sorts of accusations which affect the Public Service and public servants and take a much more grown-up approach to the whole issue.  
As Minister of State Services I was advised by the Deputy State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie on 3 July during my regular fortnightly meeting with him that he had met with the Leader of the Opposition’s chief of staff at Mr Eagleson’s request to discuss a number of issues including an employment issue at the Ministry for the Environment a Ministry for the Environment advertisement and other matters. The purpose of his advice was to advise me as Minister of State Services of the meeting. No further information was sought or given.  
Given the public commentary about the perceived lack of independence of Mr Logan’s employment decisions Mr Rennie agreed to provide a briefing note that summarised the facts as presented to him by Mr Logan. On Friday 20 July I met with the Deputy State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie where he provided me with the briefing note which was subsequently released in its entirety. Today I asked for a short note on the important points as they relate to the State Services Commissioner and the State Services Commission because we have heard on the radio today from National that it intends to pursue the State Services Commissioner and the State Services Commission.  
I wish to read to the House from the report that I have received: “Discussions between Mr Logan and the State Services Commissioner: Hugh Logan met with the State Services Commissioner Dr Mark Prebble after Mr Logan identified a potential conflict of interest. Dr Prebble advised Mr Logan on the framework that he should use in coming to his decision on how to manage that issue. He did not tell Mr Logan how he should resolve the issue. In summary the framework used by Dr Prebble was based on two principles: One that public servants should be considered on their merits and their political loyalties should not normally be questioned. Secondly that senior public servants have an obligation to maintain loyal service to the Government of the day including sometimes discreet support on politically sensitive matters without compromising their ability to serve future Governments. These are the principles that have guided chief executives’ handling of potential conflicts of interest for many years.  
State Services Commission briefing report 20 July: The report to you on 20 July was a briefing to you setting out matters that the State Services Commission were aware of in relation to this matter. Given that public comment has been made about an alleged lack of independence in respect of employment decisions by Mr Logan the Deputy State Services Commissioner provided you with a briefing note outlining my understandings of events. It was not an inquiry or a detailed investigation of the issue. As the briefing makes clear Madeleine Setchell made a disclosure of her personal connections when she applied for the position with the Ministry for the Environment. However Mr Logan did not know of her personal connections and hence was not aware of any potential conflict of interest at the time of her appointment. The responsibility for managing conflicts or potential conflicts of interest lies principally with the chief executive. Chief executives are expected to protect both their employees and their departments from situations that might expose them to conflicts of interest perceived or actual.  
While the previous briefing confirms there was a contact between Mr Logan and the staff from the Minister’s office and the Minister on this matter Mr Logan is very clear that during those contacts the staff member and the Minister stress that staff issues were the responsibility of Mr Logan alone. Mr Logan did not interpret that contact as an attempt to influence employment issues within the ministry. Mr Logan made it clear he made the decision independently and the Minister was not involved in that decision. Whenever a chief executive considers an employee has a potential conflict in a particular task they are obliged to work with that employee to arrive at an appropriate strategy to manage the conflict. Potential approaches include changes in aspects of the staff member’s job or an offer of an alternative position.  
It is my understanding that Mr Logan and Madeleine Setchell did explore options which would have involved the offer to her of an alternative position. Mr Logan believes he should have been made aware of the potential for a conflict of interest prior to Ms Setchell’s appointment. He is in the process of making the changes required for a more formal registration of actual or potential conflicts of interest for senior staff in the ministry and those in recruitment.” 
 That is the advice I received today from Iain Rennie and I know that members opposite know Iain Rennie very well. He is a highly regarded respected public servant— 
Hon Bill English 
: He was. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have just heard Bill English say: “He was”. It is that sort of dirty politics against a man with a reputation for being an upfront straight public servant that brings this House into disrepute. In my view Bill English over the last few months since he became the deputy leader of the National Party has sunk to levels so low that even his wife must be ashamed of him. I say to that member that it is time he got out of the gutter and treated this issue seriously. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a convention in this House about family members from which that member has had huge benefit in recent weeks because her husband has been enmeshed in a scandal that the ministry is reviewing and it is a disgrace for that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. 
Hon Bill English 
: I just want to say to the member— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. [ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated. [ 
Interruption 
] No. It is up to me to finish the point of order. Please be seated. The member will be seated. The member knows quite clearly from the Speaker’s ruling that the point of order does not have to go on. The member has made his point of order. The member did cross the line as far as bringing a member’s family into debate and I will ask her to withdraw and apologise. Just before she does the member was about to go on again and make the same allegation that he had raised the point of order on. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In last Wednesday’s debate in this Chamber Bill English brought my husband into the debate deliberately and in a nasty underhand way and he stands up today demanding that there should not be this sort of behaviour. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove raised the matter at the time and said to Bill English that it was not the track to go down. Bill English chose to go down that track; he broke the convention. I do not like it but he is not going to be able to do that in this House and think there will not be some sort of retaliation. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will rule on that point of order. I am going to make a point to the member. I realise that the member is probably speaking later otherwise he would leave this House now. He spoke about four times during that point of order and he knows that he is not to do that. He will withdraw and apologise for that right now. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I am going to deal with the point of order that the Minister raised. The member did go on to then bring the family of the Minister into the point of order he was making. The member will—[ 
Interruption 
]. No not last week; nothing can be dealt with from last week. The point of order can only be dealt with now. The member did go on to bring the member’s family into the debate and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No I am sorry—[ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated. The member is in danger of leaving the House. I am being very patient. The member did bring the member’s family into the debate when he raised the point of order. I ask him now to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. Just before the point of order I warn the member that I have ruled on that point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: I would ask that you consider—but not give a ruling right now—just where the House could end up over this kind of issue. I raised the point that there is a convention—it is not a Standing Order—about family members and in this case the member brought into the debate a family member who is of no public standing whatsoever. I did not ask for a withdrawal or an apology; you put that to the member and she complied. I did not ask for it and it is not against Standing Orders; it is simply a convention. In the course of that I mentioned the member’s spouse who of course is a public figure and whose name and activities are fully documented in official documents that were released under the Official Information Act.  
I would be concerned if you are now suggesting that a person who is a family member of an MP is immune from any discussion in this House by virtue of his or her relationship; that cannot be the case. A public official is fully accountable regardless of who he or she is related to and other MPs have gone through that process as well. Your ruling seems to suggest that it is against the Standing Orders for us to mention the Minister’s spouse. It is not. There is no Standing Order about mentioning family members and in this case there is no breach of the convention because the person concerned is a public figure covered by a matter about which there have been days of questions and 1500 pages of Official Information Act requests and in that sense there is every legitimate right of a member of Parliament to mention the name. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Speaking to the point of order I ask you Madam Assistant Speaker in relation to that point of order to look back at the  
Hansard 
 of last week when Bill English decided to bring my husband’s name into the debate. It was not just his name but he linked him up to who he is and did that in a very calculating way. My husband is not a public figure—he works for a private company—just as Mr English’s wife is not a public figure. The crossing of the line last week was done by Mr English. I say I will withdraw if he will withdraw but he set the ground rules last week because he decided that he wanted to go on the offensive in a very very unsatisfactory political way. I think it is time if we are going to follow the convention for Mr English to reflect on what he did last week. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I say to the member that I cannot deal with anything in last week’s debate; we are dealing with the debate today and that is the end of the matter. I say to the member that it is up to the Speaker to enforce the convention and that is the decision I made.  
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is the first opportunity I have had to bring this point of order to your attention because of the exchange. On two occasions when these points of order started the Hon Bill English continued to stand on his feet and speak while you were standing as the presiding officer of the Chamber. He knew you were trying to call him to order. He continued to speak over the top of you and showed no respect for the office that you hold. I think in order that we can move on with this debate and get back to the business before the House he should withdraw and apologise for that behaviour. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is lucky to be here; he has transgressed twice. I realise that he probably has a speech later. I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that matter too. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am now concerned about another procedural issue. I was making a point of order and you interrupted as is your right as a Speaker and that is why I have withdrawn and apologised—because I did not immediately sit down. I think you interrupted because of the content of the point of order. You felt—for some reason that is not clear to me yet—that I had gone beyond the bounds of a point of order. I did not happen to agree with that but I accepted your ruling. The Minister then got up and launched into a detailed point of order covering very similar territory and you allowed her to continue until she stopped. I want to be reassured that the Chair understood what was happening and that the judgment that was exercised in sitting me down and allowing the Minister to continue was consistent with the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I say to the member that it certainly was. The member has been given a lot of latitude himself and has spoken to the point of order. I certainly did stand the member down for the first point of order but he has certainly spoken extensively since. We will continue with the debate. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Throughout the speech that I gave— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member from Christchurch used the term “scumbag” which I think she may have been addressing to David Benson-Pope. But whoever she was addressing it to it is unparliamentary and should not be used. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: It is an unparliamentary term and I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Throughout the speech that I was giving in which I was setting out the issues as they have been reported to me I said to the House that we need to be incredibly careful when we raise these issues and that we need to be responsible and I faced a barrage of interjections and just darn right nasty comments at that. But what really got me going I have to say was when Bill English questioned the integrity of the Deputy State Services Commissioner Iain Rennie. I do not know Iain Rennie other than that he is the Deputy State Services Commissioner— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It was a cover-up. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Even as I speak Nick Smith is saying it is a cover-up. I reject and I resent that sort of mad behaviour. Iain Rennie is a man of integrity. He has been a Treasury officer and possibly even worked with some members in this House. He was selected as Deputy State Services Commissioner because of his qualities and integrity and Bill English impugned them in this House today. I take exception to that. The reason why he did that is that he is desperate for political points. If we have sunk to that level then it is a very sad House indeed.  
We have something like another 16 months to the election and I make the prediction that those sorts of comments and comments like that about public servants will get worse from the National Party. I urge other members in this House who are not members of the National Party to think very seriously about indulging in such behaviour. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I will commence by telling the House that in any reference I make to Madeleine Setchell or her circumstances I do not wish to cast any aspersions on her ability competence or integrity. I do not know the lady and I have no doubt she is as top-notch as the National Party in particular asserts. I also do not want to cast any aspersions on the ability or integrity of Kevin Taylor her partner. Equally New Zealand First does not want to cast any aspersions on the Minister for what he said he did. We believe him. We believe that is a convention of this House and we will take his word as gospel I suppose.  
However having said that I say it is exceedingly important that the Public Service is neutral and is seen to be neutral. It is like justice: neutrality must be there and it must be seen to be there. I think the recommendations made by Iain Rennie to the Minister which the Minister relayed to the House seem to be a good starting point in terms of addressing this sort of circumstance.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did she lose her job? 
PETER BROWN 
: That question perhaps should be answered but I am not qualified to answer it. I will say that in my opinion a more appropriate question would be in the circumstances that she found herself in and the circumstances of her personal life: why was she given the job? I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the lady’s integrity but why was she given the job?  
Politics is a very competitive occupation—exceedingly so in this place. I have to say that in recent times the competitive environment in this House has deteriorated. At one time we had humorous differences but they have been replaced by humourless arrogance.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Where is the humour when a young woman loses her job? 
PETER BROWN 
: There is no humour when a young woman loses her job and there was no humour in the exchange that we saw only a few moments ago between the Hon Annette King and the Hon Bill English. I did not find that humorous at all. Whether or not we like it the competitive environment in this House has deteriorated to the extent that personal attacks and personal innuendo are almost a daily fact of life. I think that is sad. It is not what the public of New Zealand require from their MPs. They voted for MMP principally to see more cooperation. But what they are seeing now is more differences between MPs which escalate into personal attacks and petty arguments. By enlarging this debate and carrying it on I do not think we are doing terribly much good for Madeleine Setchell or Kevin Taylor or indeed for anybody else. We may be making life for them a good deal more difficult.  
Furthermore I want to remind members opposite because obviously they are taking a key interest in the employment of public servants that late last year or early this year it was painfully obvious that some emails had been leaked from the National Party into the hands of an author who then wrote a book. What did the National Party do with regard to that? I have every sympathy for National in that area. I have read the book and I know National disposed of its leader probably as a result of that book. But more important National had an internal inquiry and called in the police to investigate the people who were working for the party. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes it did.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No the documents were stolen. 
PETER BROWN 
: The point is that National had people in its camp that it could not trust. It did not know whom they were. There is no way I am suggesting that Madeleine Setchell could not be trusted but if there were a similar set of circumstances within the Labour Party’s ranks where would she be? She would be feeling distinctly uncomfortable.  
It is obligatory on MPs to ensure that the Public Service serves both sides of the House is totally neutral and is seen to be neutral. I feel sorry for Madeleine Setchell for being the centrepiece of this debate because I think that in the long run we are not doing her any good at all. The best thing we can do is to leave it to the arrangements that are being made to satisfy her so that she leaves the Labour Party with her integrity and competence unquestionably intact and is given a job where she will obviously apply her talents much more— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: She works for the Ministry for the Environment not the Labour Party. 
PETER BROWN 
: Never mind whether the Minister— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Are they all the same now? 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister just happens to be from the Labour Party and the member who is making assertions if he were in Government would put a National Party spin on everything exactly as the Labour Party is doing. Labour has been voted into Government. It has the Ministers and— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Nick Smith banned me as a local MP from visiting the Department of Conservation when he was the Minister.  
PETER BROWN 
: Well there we are! I do not want to enlarge on this sort of thing. I just say that as parliamentarians we have to get our act together because it will not be us who will suffer; it will be the people who come to work conscientiously in order to serve the cause of democracy and efficiency.  
I do not think I can add any more to this debate other than simply to say that if the National Party continues to attack in this vein the skeletons will come back to haunt it. I would say that will do National no good will do Parliament no good and will do democracy little good. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party welcomes this debate because we think that every now and again it is important that the House has a debate on the nature of the Civil Service and that we reinforce the fact that the Civil Service should be strong and independent and be a place where people are professionals who have careers and serve their country without fear of political persecution and without fear of being sacked for things that are not of their making which is what has happened in this case.  
Public servants should not be subject to the sorts of political pressures that Madeleine Setchell has been under. I think we have to trust the integrity of our public servants. That is the key to the functioning of our governmental apparatus and we should judge our public servants on the basis of their own abilities and professionalism. When they are on a career path there is plenty of opportunity over the years—and through their CVs references and everything else—to judge their professionalism on the job and whether they would be some sort of political leaker. Very few public servants in my experience are of a character that means they would run out and politically leak information to some other party.  
 From what has gone on so far it is quite apparent that Madeleine Setchell was the most qualified applicant for the job. In all of the commentary I have seen so far there has been no question about that. She was also open about her relationship with Kevin Taylor who is John Key’s chief press secretary. So it was quite wrong to sack her later on without there being any good reason for doing so that we can see other than the fact that she has a relationship with Kevin Taylor.  
Of course in any partnership situation there is a security risk if one of the parties has access to confidential information and may disclose it to the other party. But in reality in my experience when there is that sort of conflict within a household both partners are quite scrupulous to prevent leaks for the obvious reason that they would be the first to get the blame for any leak. If there had been a leak from the Ministry for the Environment who would have been the first to get the blame? It would have been Madeleine Setchell so she and other people in her position very much protect confidential information and their independence because they do not want to be accused if something happens in the department they work for.  
There is a whole history to this issue. It is ironic that the State Services Commission has gone along with the current sacking and seems to be justifying it when the head of that same commission Mark Prebble has had very senior positions in the Government including one at the top of the Prime Minister’s department at the same time that his brother was the leader of the ACT party which is obviously a party that was rather antagonistic to Labour through that whole period. But Mark Prebble’s professionalism was trusted during that whole period and rightly so.  
I do not want to get into an interpretation of who made a phone call to whom and of how much David Benson-Pope knew; other speakers in this debate are traversing that topic and it was traversed in question time today. I want to deal with the problem that arises out of this case for public servants. All over Wellington in particular and more broadly all over New Zealand public servants will be worried about the sacking of Madeleine Setchell and what is happening here. That is the problem. In hundreds of relationships involving public servants—maybe even thousands—there are conflicts of interest.  
One just needs to look at Steve Hurring himself the person who made the phone call to the Ministry for the Environment. As I understand it from the media he is in a relationship with Helen Kelly the incoming President of the Council of Trade Unions. One might ask where the conflict of interest is there and it is perhaps not a major one. But in fact if the Ministry for the Environment had a particular stance on the pay rises or conditions of employment to give to public servants in that ministry Steve Hurring might be privy to that information. It might be of use to the Public Service Association (PSA) to know that confidential information and the Council of Trade Unions might be involved in working with the PSA on its wage claim and the progress of it. So there is potentially a conflict of interest there too as there is across Wellington. But I would not for a moment think that Steve Hurring would break confidentiality and tell Helen Kelly something or vice versa—that a conflict of interest would come out in practice.  
There are hundreds of other examples of potential conflicts of interest. When Don Brash came into this Parliament and became the leader of the National Party Je Lan his wife was in the Cabinet Office. So I find it upsetting that Madeleine Setchell has been sacked in this situation; that will frighten a lot of public servants.  
Potential conflicts of interest can affect people’s personal relations in a broader sense too. One of the things that happens around New Zealand—around Wellington Auckland and Christchurch in particular—in areas where there are a lot of public servants is that there is a lot of mixing at social functions and everywhere else. That obviously produces some longer-term relationships. There is an interchange of ideas and views and people speak quite openly though not in respect of confidential information. We are not like some bigger countries where people tend to talk only to those who agree with them. In social situations in our smaller country as in Auckland and Wellington one talks to a lot of people with whom one disagrees and that cross-fertilisation of ideas is good for our democracy good for our politics good for our civil society as a whole and beyond that good for the Government. We do not want to interrupt that process. We do not want people to fear talking to a person for too long if he or she is in the Green Party or the National Party or to not go out with a person who is very active in the National Party and may become an MP because to do so may affect their Civil Service careers.  
If people start to think like that and start to worry about their relationships in those terms that will dampen the civil society we want to build. The next thing will be that the State Services Commission issues guidelines on whom people should sleep with or marry if they are to advance their job future in the public sector. That of course may be taking things to the extreme but there are elements of truth in that.  
The mixing up of party politics into the Civil Service in the way that has been done could also lead to biases in our media too because many people our press gallery people like Kevin Taylor himself go on to become press secretaries for Ministers or politicians. In my experience Kevin was a very good and very independent reporter for the  
New Zealand Herald  
when he was there; I certainly did not pick any National Party politics in his reporting. I am not sure whether he is aligned personally to the National Party; he is doing a professional job for the leader of the National Party at the present time. If we suddenly start to define journalists’ political relationships as being important and that mucks up the future career of their partners we may get journalists starting to write more pro-Labour pro-National or pro-Green articles if they see their future as being a press secretary for a Labour National or Green Cabinet Minister. That would start to muddy up the whole situation and it would remove from New Zealand its very creditable tradition of having an independent Civil Service with independent advisers and with people being chosen for their skills and their abilities. That is what the Greens are very strong about and that is why we are so worried about the sacking that has taken place over the last week. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou i tenei wiki te Wiki o te Reo Maori. Kati tenei take he take nui nei ki a matou o te Torangapu Maori. Kua rongo ke matou i te ahuatanga o te whakawhiu o te korero i mua tonu o te poti whanui o te tau 2005; te wa i rongo nei i te whakawhiutanga o nga mea Maori mahi i roto tari kawanatanga na runga i te aha? Na runga i to ratou piringa ki te Torangapu Maori. E ai ki ta wetahi o nga imera i rere haere nei i Te Puni Kokiri i reira tonu te korero e akiaki tonu ana i nga kaimahi o tera tari kia kaua e haere ki nga hui a Pati Maori nei. Kia kaua e mau i nga kara whero ma me te pango me ki nga kara o te Torangapu Maori. E hoa ma! Kia mohio mai tatou koi nei nga kara i runga i tera poti o tawahi o  
Alinghi 
 ko Brad Butterworth te kapene. 
Kei wareware i a tatou a Amokura Panoho. Ka kore te Pati Maori e wareware ki tera ingoa. Na i rongo a Amokura i te ngau o te kupu na te mea i mutu i tana mahi whakahaere i Te Tari Mahi i muri mai i nga korero whakawhiu i a ia na te aha? Na tana piringa ki Te Torangapu Maori. I reira tonu nga mema o Te Ropu Reipa he Minita tonu. Ko John Tamihere tetahi otira ko te Minita o naianei a Trevor Mallard. I taka ki runga i a raua te whakama ka mutu ka tuku aroha mai ki a ia. Na ko te whakatau a te kooti kia mai utua te $7500 ki a ia whai muri i tana hamenetanga i a raua. Ara noa atu wetahi o enei momo tauira. Ka mutu ko te mate ke o te wahanga ki a Ms Panoho ko te ngau ki runga i a ia otira ko wana mahi i muri mai o tera ahuatanga i nga tau kua hipa. 
Ko te mea nui e a ana i a matou o Te Torangapu Maori ko nga uaratanga e whakaputa ana i o matou utanga teitei ki nga matapono pera i te whakamaramatanga mahi te ngakau tapatahi me te marama. A na reira matou pera hoki i te maha o ngai Maori i kaha ai ki te mau pai i nga potae e hia ke nei. I kaha ai hoki ki te wehi ki nga rere ketanga i waenganui i o matou whanau hapu iwi tirohanga torangapu. Ko te whakanui i te wahanga kia tu motuhake nga mema kawanatanga i roto i nga mahi kawanatanga. Engari ko te mea nui kia whakanui te tangata kia kaua ai ia e rongo i te ngau o te tangata engari kia watea ia ki te tu mo nga turanga e tika ana otira ki te tuku i ona korero hei mea wananga ma te katoa. Kei te whakaae matou me eke nga kaimahi Maori ki nga taumata pera i etahi atu kia noho me ki kia watea ratou ki nga ngau o nga mahi torangapu engari kia eke ki nga taumata o era atu e mahi nei i te kawanatanga. Kei te mohio tonu matou ka taea e te tangata kotahi nei te eke hei Komihana Reo Maori otira me te noho ano hoki hei tiamana mo Te Rarawa.  
Kei te hoki nga mahara ki te wa i tu a Haami Piripi hei tiamana me ki aae hei tiamana mo Te Rarawa i te wa i tuku ai a ia i tetahi tapaetanga whakatupato ki te Paremata he pakanga kei te haere na te aha? Na te hanganga ture mo te Takutai Moana. E ai ki ta Haami Piripi ehara tana korero i te mea whakatupato whakararuraru ranei engari he inoi noa ake ki nga mema Paremata kia ata titiro ki te ahuatanga mahi noho wehe otira te noho taupatupatu noho raruraru ranei mena ka pahi taua pire. Engari i kaha nei a Reipa ki te wero i te mana otira te tu o matua Piripi me te kore paku whakaaro ake mo ona hiranga tu roa. Ka mutu ka hoki nga mahara ki te wa i tae mai te pire nei ara Te Pire Takutai Moana ki mua i te aroaro o tenei Whare i te wa Kawanatanga 47. I reira nga mema me ki nga rangatira o te Kawanatanga i rongo nei i etahi kupu whakatupato kia kaua rawa e hikoi i te whenua ki te whakahe i te hohonutanga o tera pire. Ko te mea tika ki te Paremata ko te tuku i tetahi korero. Koi na te huarahi hei whakatakoto i etahi nawe awangawanga ranei. 
Ara noa atu wetahi korero kua puta engari i te timatanga mai o Te Pati Maori nei e mohiotia nei e tatau ara ano tetahi rarangi korero otira e ai ki ta etahi mea Maori noho rangatira nei i roto i te Kawanatanga e ai ki wetahi he panga ano ra ki Te Torangapu Maori tino kaha rawa atu i tukuna i rere haere nei Te Ropu Reipa. Ka mutu he mea korero tera he mea whakaohorere hoki. Ka mutu anei te tino putake o taku korero. Me orite nga taumata i nga topito katoa i nga pakitara katoa o tenei o nga Whare. Kei te mohio tonu tatou katoa ko taua Ropu Reipa ano i puta tika i nga tari kawanatanga hei Minita ake mana tae atu ki a Honore Parekura Horomia o CEG ara o te Community Employment Group a Shane Jones o te Tari Mahi me te Minita o mua a John Tamihere no roto i Te Puni Kokiri. Ka mutu he kaimahi o roto tari kawanatanga a Honore Mita Ririnui me Honore Mahara Okeroa i haere tika mai ki nga pakitara o tenei Whare i o ratou turanga teitei i Te Puni Kokiri. Ara ano tetahi korero tera pea i tae mai a Honore Mita raua ko Honore Mahara tae ra ano ki a Honore Parekura Horomio na runga i te tautoko mai a wetahi o roto i era tari kawanatanga i te wa i a raua e haere nei i te mata o te whenua mo a raua mahi rapu kaipoti. 
Kia kaua tatou e noho kapo ki te ahuatanga o te taenga mai o te ekenga mai o nga mema kawanatanga ki roto i nga torangapu katoa mai ra ano i pera rawa te korero. Ka mutu ehara i te mea he take ano ra ki reira hei whakaporearea hei whakararuraru i tera ahuatanga. Ko tenei take he korero me ki he tino whawhati i tenei kawa tikanga ranei i roto i te tari o te Minita otira te hononga o te Minita ki nga turanga mahi na te aha? Na te kore kitea atu o nga rohe tari kawanatanga me nga mahi torangapu otira ki ta nga purongo hiahia pea kia whakaaro pera tatou. Ki a au nei mena e pai ana mo Honore Parekura ki te whiwhi kaitono o te Ropu Nahinara i roto turanga tino teitei rawa atu o taua tumu whakahaere me te hoatu turanga teitei hoki ki te Perehitini Tuarua Maori o te Ropu Nahinara na he tauira pai pea tera hei whai ma tatau katoa. 
Ko te mea tino nui rawa atu ko ta tatau whiwhi tangata tino pai rawa atu i roto i nga tari kawanatanga. Kare kei te hunga torangapu te tika ki te uiui i te ngakau tapatahi o o tatou tari kawanatanga ahakoa pehea te pohehe te taumata ranei o te whakawhanaunga a-torangapu. Kia ora tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker and to us in this Maori Language Week. This is an issue of great relevance to the Maori Party. We have of course experienced the desperate allegations that were made in the lead-up to the 2005 general election when Maori public servants were accused—and for what reason? For being affiliated to the Maori Party! Allegations such as through emails circulated throughout Te Puni Kokiri instructing staff not to attend Maori Party hui and to avoid wearing red white and black clothing—let us say the colours of the Maori Party. Colleagues should be aware that those are the colours that adorn  
Alinghi 
 the yacht sailed by Brad Butterworth. 
We must never forget Amokura Panoho. For sure the Maori Party has not. Ms Panoho certainly felt the pressure and was forced to resign from a position she held in the Department of Labour. For what reason? Because of her involvement with the Maori Party. Labour was in office then; John Tamihere was a Minister as was current Minister Trevor Mallard. They were forced into an embarrassing back-down and had to apologise to Ms Panaho as well. They also subsequently had to pay court costs of $7500 after she sued them. There were many other examples of people paying costs resulting from such public humiliation. But in respect of Ms Panoho it impacted severely on her well-being and career prospects in the years that followed. 
We in the Maori Party are driven by values that express our highest commitment to principles such as accountability integrity and transparency. So we are able to wear many different hats with ease respecting the need for boundaries between our whanau hapu and iwi politics; respecting the need for an independent Public Service; yet also respecting and valuing the freedom of all people to have political views and to stand for office. We absolutely agree that Maori public servants must meet the same standards of political neutrality and accountability as all other public servants but we also acknowledge that one can be a Maori Language Commissioner and chairman of Te Rarawa. 
We remember the example that was made of Haami Piripi when in his position as chairman of Te Rarawa he made a submission to Parliament warning of the potential civil war over the seabed and foreshore legislation. Haami Piripi said his submission was not meant to be threatening but was more a plea for MPs to recognise the potential for conflict if the bill was passed. Yet Labour was quick to jump to attack the credibility and the reputation of Mr Piripi without a thought for the long-lasting implications. And of course we remember that in the day before the bill to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act came before this House—in the 47th Parliament—senior public servants were warned not to participate in the hikoi protesting against the legislation. Participating in the democratic process through direct submission was therefore the acceptable course of action for concerns to be processed. 
I could go on. There was in fact a rumour at the very establishment of the mighty Maori Party; a possible list of Maori senior public servants affiliated to the Maori Party circulated around the Labour caucus—certainly something that can be debated and is of concern. The point is that we must apply standards consistently across this cluster of buildings. We know that Labour has drawn directly from the Public Service in selecting some of its own Ministers including the current Maori Affairs Minister Mr Parekura Horomia from the Community Employment Group; Mr Shane Jones from the Department of Labour; and the former Minister John Tamihere who had formerly been with Te Puni Kokiri. Mita Ririnui and Mahara Okeroa had also gone into Parliament directly from their Public Service jobs from their management positions in Te Puni Kokiri. And the rumour has been that Mita Mahara and Parekura were supported by the Public Service all through their electoral campaign. 
Let us not be blind to the reality that public servants have always been represented in political parties. As long as boundaries are clear and integrity maintained there has never been any need for intervention. The current debate is in light of a very significant breach of this protocol in the Minister’s office—indeed the Minister being linked to employment positions as a result of boundaries being blurred between the political service and the Public Service or so the reports would lead us to think. If it was good enough for Parekura Horomia to have a National Party candidate employed in the higher senior management levels of that organisation and to also appoint the Maori vice-president of the National Party to a number of senior management positions then perhaps that is an example we could all emulate.  
The key issue is that we must have excellent people in the highest positions in the Public Service. Politicians have absolutely no right to question the integrity of the honour of our Public Service at any level on suspicion of political affiliation. Thank you all. 
 ]  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Last week this House reverberated to charges that the Chief Executive of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board had political associations because he had previously worked in the office of a Labour Minister of Health a decade or so ago. This week we have the Madeleine Setchell affair. The point that arises from both of these is that in a small country like New Zealand with a particularly small political and administrative gene pool the arguments about the political allegiances of those in the Public Service and their partners ought to be above any form of suspicion or public debate. People’s politics like their views on religion and money are their own views and we tread very dangerously when we start to make judgments based upon our perception of other people’s political allegiances.  
As a political scientist and a historian I am well aware of the historical arguments in favour of the separation of the Public Service from active involvement in day-to-day politics. Those arguments are utterly valid today as they have been through the generations. But I add to that that as a Wellington member of Parliament where my constituents and the people who work for me in my office as impartial Public Service advisers may well be my constituents we mesh constantly. This system simply would not work if there were always or even at any point a doubt about the political allegiances of those upon whom we rely for advice and for the support we need to do our jobs properly.  
Where I think the argument has fallen down in this case—and I do not want to trawl through the relevant details because they are murky at best and they are always murky in cases of this type—is at the point we should never depart from and that is the political neutrality of the Public Service the right of all public servants let alone their wider families to hold their own political views and not be penalised for those views.  
The previous speaker drew attention to a number of instances that have affected Maori over the years. New Zealand’s history is rich with examples of these types of events having occurred under Governments of various flavours but the bottom line in every case has been and must be in this case that public servants have to be politically neutral and have to be protected to be politically neutral and that although they cannot be muted in the sense of not being entitled to political views or attitudes like the rest of us they cannot have those held against them in the exercising of their official duties.  
Of course there are occasions where public servants seek to exercise their democratic right to seek office and there are protections in the law for them to do that and also take a stand-down so that they are not compromising their role as public servants. But that was not the case in this instance. This case relates to the conduct of a public servant’s normal activities and the suspicion being brought to bear that because of a political allegiance not actually on her part but on the part of her partner something improper had taken place.  
The only true and acceptable position has to be that the Public Service retains its integrity and independence and in that sense that public servant’s political views and attitudes are no-go areas as far as the scrutiny of members of this House is concerned. Occasionally a public servant may well volunteer—I think quite improperly in the circumstances—whether he or she supports a particular party or policy. But that is his or her call. It is not for politicians to start prying into the affairs and the beliefs of individual public servants. It may be that political allegiances are the most obvious example but if we start down that path we start down a very slippery slope of starting to control the type of society we develop and I do not think anyone in this House whatever his or her views has that particular outcome in mind.  
So when I look at this particular case—and I do not have all the details and I do not want to have all the details—I say that on the face of it Ms Setchell’s comments about her partner’s role should not have been an issue at all. She I think was courageous to volunteer in her interview that there was a question mark. But certainly to get to the point where inquires are being made actively and independently and where a decision is then made that in the best interests of all concerned she is moved on—not for what she has done but for what her partner does day in and day out—I think has gone beyond what is acceptable.  
But as I said at the beginning this is not something unique. It has happened before and I daresay it will happen again. The message we have to take from each of these occurrences is that the only solution can be to reinforce at all points that public servants are neutral have to be treated as neutral and have to be respected for the neutrality of their views. The alternative is that when we have a change of Government we expect all our senior public servants to routinely resign as is the case in the United States and we see political appointments come through at quite low levels of the Public Service and I think that would be reprehensible and unacceptable. It is not the New Zealand way.  
I understand that the Minister is going to make an explanation to the House shortly and that is appropriate. That is entirely as it should be and the House will make a judgment on the adequacy or otherwise of the explanation of these particular circumstances. So as we contemplate a way forward here this incident does serve to remind all of us of the very fine line we tread particularly those of us who interact more frequently than others with the public sector. The public sector is the ongoing rock of stability in the New Zealand political process. Governments come and Governments go but the Public Service remains forever and the strength of its traditional role has been an ability of Ministers of whatever political persuasion to rely on the impartiality of the advice that has been offered and for the public servants in turn to feel that they can offer impartial free and frank advice without being subject to political sanction for the advice they offer.  
Unless we draw a cloak very tightly around those conventions we will end up in a situation not only where there will be an expectation that public servants are really an extension of their Minister and therefore are politically accountable but also where the advice public servants offer upon which policy is based is being presented in such a way as to suit the political arguments.  
I respect the fact that there will always be debate about the extent to which that happens now but it is a pretty open and robust process. It will become tainted damaged and destroyed if what we get from our public servants is public servant advice suited to the needs of a Minister because that is seen as the best way of dealing with the particular issue at hand.  
I do not intend to say very much more at all other than that I think the Minister ought to explain the position to the House. The House will make its own call on the robustness if you like of that judgment. The country will as well. But in time the message we need to reinforce is that New Zealand’s great administrative strength is its impartial Public Service. Once we start to pry into the affairs political or otherwise of public servants we compromise that ability and that is the start not just of a free-for-all in terms of looking into people’s private lives and all of that sort of thing but also of a diminishing of respect for our system of government. I do not think that is what anyone in this House ultimately will seek to achieve. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Here is a simple question for the Labour Party to answer: who is responsible? Who is responsible? You see in order to maintain the principles that the Hon Peter Dunne has just talked about and which he articulated so ably someone needs to take responsibility for enforcing promoting and maintaining those principles. I thank God someone has articulated those principles because none of the people who should have has done so. The Prime Minister has not articulated them. The paranoia starts at the top. It is utterly believable that the Prime Minister’s office was involved in this disgraceful episode.  
I will tell the House a little story about that. It shows how paranoid the Prime Minister is. Meridian Energy which owns large assets in my electorate came to open a wind farm in my local area. I can see the wind farm from my kitchen window; it is on my hill. The Prime Minister and her cronies had it that Meridian Energy could not invite me to be part of the official party. Instead the failed candidate for Clutha-Southland who is now a list MP whom no one has heard of was paraded up the front. Do members know what one of my locals said to me? It was: “She thinks it matters.” It did not matter a damn to me but it mattered to Helen Clark. That is why it mattered that Madeleine Setchell who has a partner who works professionally for another party was in the wrong place at the wrong time. So the Prime Minister is not going to do anything about it!  
Does that not sound just like what happened in the Liam Ashley case? In that case of course the tragedy was much greater. It happened but no one was there. No one who spent public money or who had a public obligation was anywhere near that death. Even as of today no one has been held accountable for that death.  
In this case the most blatant case of a civil servant being sacked for political reasons no one was there. It is like the ad on TV where the people use their elbows not their hands. People are saying they did not touch it did not know the details and only read the report. That is the disgrace. You see the Labour Party has become so paranoid and so politicised in its relationship with the Civil Service that it does not even know how wrong this sacking is.  
I will tell members how right the relationship can be. When I worked for Roger Douglas as a junior official on his flat-tax package on the Monday I had been knocking on doors as a National Party branch chairman on the Saturday out in Lyall Bay. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: And your brother worked for me. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He did—and I will not go into that because I should not. That is how matters should be. I sat in a Minister’s office—that of Roger Douglas—when a Labour candidate an almost-selected candidate Verna Smith came in and out and up to 6 weeks before the election was giving and taking policy advice and listening to Ministers. And that is how it should be. We would have thought then and we did think as Ministers that no Prime Minister would let us break the rules.  
But Helen Clark “Mrs Paranoia” “Mrs Detail” is driving down on everything and making sure that the local MP for Clutha-Southland does not sit in the wrong seat at the opening of a wind farm on top of a hill covered in snow. Well she knows and they know—those Labour Ministers know—that that is how she runs the Government. That is why David Benson-Pope and his offsider did what they did and now are getting away with it. The Prime Minister will not take responsibility for it. She never has taken responsibility and she never will do so. “Nothing wrong. Move on.” is her chorus. Will the Minister take responsibility? Absolutely no! We should ask Peter Coleman how that man takes responsibility. Maybe Peter Coleman is available for the job Madeleine Setchell has lost. He lost his job in David Benson-Pope’s office because that Minister lied to the public about a police report. David Benson-Pope denied releasing it. Then it turned out that he had authorised his staff to release it—after the staff member had been disciplined. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member knows very well that he cannot accuse a member in this House of lying. He will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I withdraw and apologise. And that is what is happening now. Mr Hurring is so close to Labour that he probably will not be disciplined. So nothing will happen.  
What about the State Services Commission? Well the problem in this kind of environment is that decent competent people behave at a level that is below the standards that they should have. I was very disappointed to see Mark Prebble try to construct a defence of this disgraceful action in the newspaper. He did not have to do that. He could have by his silence condemned what happened and he did not. I think that is a shame. I really think it is a shame that the State Services Commissioner went out of his way to condemn something that every civil servant knows is wrong. Every civil servant knows it is wrong. That is why Peter Dunne got up in this House. He wants to support the Government but he cannot do that on this matter. The reason is that civil servants are his voters and they now know that there is no one to defend them. The State Services Commission is not defending the Civil Service against politicians terminating people’s employment on the basis of presumptions about their politics. No one knows what Ms Setchell’s political views are. Maybe even her partner does not know. She is not being kicked out because of her views; she is being kicked out because of an assumption about the political views of the person she lives with.  
What about those people who are much closer to the National Party? Are they next? The answer Helen Clark has is to not apply for the job. That is what she told  
Morning Report 
. When Sean Plunket asked her she agreed that Madeleine Setchell should not have applied for the job. So there is the new rule of the proud Labour Party: if people have a relation who has anything to do with the National Party then they should not apply for the job and actually they will have to declare the relationship as a conflict of interest. Is that being promulgated now through the Civil Service? That is what Labour has said today—that it is a conflict of interest to apply for a Civil Service job if one has a relation who has anything to do with the National Party. That is a conflict of interest? What a load of rubbish! What a disgrace! What a disgrace it is that a Minister can stand up in the New Zealand Parliament and maintain that that is a conflict of interest.  
I just want to say to the Public Service Association that it will have to crank up its effort. It has come out and said that its membership is uncomfortable about this matter. My gosh if National did what Labour has done there would be a riot on the front steps of Parliament—if we fired a woman because she was in a household with someone who worked for the Labour Party. I think I personally know about 25 people in a situation like that within the Civil Service; I am sure Mr Blumsky can name 200. The message is that when Helen Clark comes after people there is no one to defend them. Members should remember that.  
The nub of the issue is that today a person is without a job because of Labour’s views about that person’s political views and no one is accountable for that—no one. No one was there as usual; it is as though it never happened. The woman was just a casual victim of Labour’s glorious path to power. Labour is taking over the Civil Service. It will use the electoral law to make sure that no one else can spend money while it spends millions. It is a disgrace. I have been around the Civil Service for 25 years and I have never seen anything like this. Steve Maharey who lectured all those students about Labour’s wonderful principles should be ashamed and so should Pete Hodgson.  
David Benson-Pope should be ashamed that with such a bad reputation he is still willing to hold a ministerial warrant. If Helen Clark does not have the honour to sack him why does he not walk? No one believes what he says. He took a job from someone and that is political persecution. David Benson-Pope is in charge of sustainability and the Ministry for the Environment put an ad in the paper that stated basically that anyone who wanted to run the Government’s campaign next year should apply for the job. Labour will use sustainability and the Ministry for the Environment as the front end of its political campaign from hereon in. I say to those civil servants: “Don’t do it. Tell Government members to get stuffed. They cannot shoot you.” 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The first thing I will do in this contribution is to urge Mr English to look at the document that was tabled at question time today. I think that would be of considerable assistance to him in providing him with the facts of the matter. I guess we are not surprised by the nastiness Mr English has brought to the debate this afternoon but even for him the attack on the State Services Commission and on Messrs Rennie and Prebble in particular is pretty extraordinary. But what has really surprised me in the last few hours is the personal nastiness that Mr Key the leader of the National Party has brought to this matter. I am disappointed that he has descended into the same gutter as Mr English and I guess the community will make its own judgment about that.  
As Minister for the Environment it is not appropriate for me to talk about the particular details that led to the State Services Commission report and the decision that Mr Logan made other than to reiterate three of its key findings. Paragraph 8 of that report reads as follows: “Mr Logan is clear that he made— 
Hon Bill English 
: You were there. Why do you need a report? You were there. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Madam Chair it would be helpful if you could— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I have warned members this afternoon for constant barracking and the member knows he cannot do that. He will desist. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Given the inaccurate contribution we have just heard from Mr English it would serve him well to listen to some of the facts here. The report says “Mr Logan is clear that he made the decision independently and that the Minister was not involved in that decision. This is consistent with section 33 of the State Sector Act 1988 which stipulates that a chief executive of a Department must act independently in matters relating to decisions on individual employees. That is there is no Ministerial responsibility for such decisions.” Mr English will make his decision about whether he believes me but to not believe Mr Logan under advice from Mr Prebble and Mr Rennie is an extraordinary position for National to take.  
I want to raise the matters of principle that are raised in the report. As I say the report was tabled today and members are readily able to read it. The key finding appears to be that conflicts of interest are not to be denied; they are to be managed. This is outlined in paragraph 16 which reads as follows: “In maintaining a politically neutral public service we continue to expect that chief executives protect both their employees and their departments from situations that might expose them to conflicts of interest perceived or actual.” I might add that the same principle applies to the operation of a ministerial office.  
It was with that in mind that one of my staff members sought clarification of a rumour of a potential conflict of interest. I repeat that the State Services Commission appears to be saying that conflicts of interest are not to be denied; they are to be managed. This is Wellington and conflicts of interest abound including the ones that have just been mentioned by some of the speakers opposite. There has been a large degree of media interest in this issue as members are only too aware. In one sense that is entirely appropriate. In the words of Dr Prebble there was a reasonable public interest in the principles to justify his writing an opinion piece entitled “Conflicts of interest should be managed” in the  
Dominion Post 
 last Friday. But I am disappointed at a number of media reports that somewhat misrepresent the details of that State Services Commission report. As one example there are media reports making it sound as if I had been fully briefed on the matter. That was simply not the case. As the report said I was informed of the issue not of its detail. I certainly did not receive a full briefing as some media outlets would have the public believe.  
Inherent in the report is the acknowledgment that Madeleine Setchell is not at fault here. I find it unfortunate that her name has been emblazoned over every newspaper and other media outlet in the country through no deed of her own. I must say that although that is unfortunate it is certainly not the doing of the Ministry for the Environment my office or the Government that that has happened. People will make their own conclusions about that matter.  
I would say that I am sure that everyone in this Parliament agrees that we are all focused on making sure that matters of this kind are out in the open so they can be managed properly. In that respect I refer to one further key finding of the report. In the report Mr Rennie makes the comment that the procedures that have transpired “demonstrated that the Ministry for the Environment should have a more formal registration of actual or potential conflicts of interest for senior staff both existing and those in the recruitment process.”—I repeat so that any such conflicts can be properly and positively managed. I welcome that change. I am sure that staff in that ministry and others will welcome that change. I urge all members to take the trouble to acquaint themselves with Mr Rennie’s findings and read the State Services Commission report in its entirety. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Recommittal 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Pursuant to discussions we have had with members of other parties I seek leave for the third reading of the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) to be discharged and the bill set down for recommittal forthwith for consideration of amendments to clauses 105 115A and 138(2) and then for the bill to be set down for third reading together with the third readings of the Sentencing Council Bill the Bail Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Is there any objection? There is no objection. Leave is granted. 
Business of the House 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 In a similar nature to the leave agreed to on that particular matter I seek leave of the House with regard to the third readings of the bills from the Criminal Justice Reform Bill that the Minister mentioned. Presently the Order Paper allows for the five different bills to be taken as one question. I seek leave of the House for the five listed bills to be taken as a separate question each at the third reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that procedure. Is there any objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Does the member want to clarify that? He seeks leave for one debate? 
SIMON POWER 
: Five questions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for the third readings to be taken as five questions in one debate. There is no objection. Leave is granted. 
Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Clauses 105 115A and 138  ( 
recommitted 
)  
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I start by thanking members around the Chamber for agreeing to this accommodation. I think that when the matter that led to our needing to do this was discussed we all described it as MMP in action and this in itself is a continuation of that. 
Simon Power 
: Oh how history is rewritten. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Oh indeed! Heather Roy’s amendments removed the clauses that would have changed the position of the rights of victims in relation to the Parole Board. We had that discussion when the Committee last sat. This involved the deletion of amendments to section 50A which deal with the position of victims whose addresses have not been previously notified. Following the passing of Ms Roy’s amendments further technical and cross-referencing amendments are required. 
Clause 105 concerns the notification of victims and makes consequential amendments on the basis of the deleted amendments to section 50A. These references will now be incorrect. Clauses 115A(2) bars reviews of decisions made under what is now following the deletion of new section 48B something that does not exist after Ms Roy’s amendments and clause 138 also now refers to something that has effectively been removed from the Act. 
My tabled amendment simply amends these clauses to reflect Parliament’s intention when it agreed to Ms Roy’s amendments. I commend them to the Committee. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The National Party was happy to give leave to the Minister to make sure that these consequential amendments were made in a way that would not cause the Government further embarrassment after the Committee stage on Thursday given that only on the Wednesday I had risen in the Chamber to raise concerns about the fact that victims would no longer have the same rights to appear before the Parole Board panels as they previously had. The Minister assured me as his officials had assured the committee that that would not be the case and we were all left wondering. It was not until the  
Close Up 
 programme investigated the issue a little further and Heather Roy tabled amendments on behalf of the ACT party that it all started coming unravelled.  
Despite the best efforts of Charles Chauvel and Lynne Pillay in the Chamber to convince the Committee that they should vote against the amendments their legs were taken out from under them when not 5 minutes later the Minister rose in the Committee and said that the Government would be voting for the amendments. He had taken his socks off done the numbers and worked out that the Government would lose the amendment. At that point I was sitting here listening to the Minister’s comments and they all sounded very reasonable and conciliatory but my how history changes in the space of one sitting day. The Minister said it was a matter of MMP moving forward and other such sorts of conciliatory clichés. It is a shame he did not approach the electoral reform legislation with the same open-mindedness. But no doubt given this Minister’s record on this bill and on the Evidence Bill we will be having a similar conversation about electoral reform matters probably in 3 or 4 months’ time.  
But I want to say that the National Party will not stand in the way of these matters being dealt with sensibly. Instead we take this opportunity to remind the Committee and the Parliament that a good idea is worth consideration by the Government and should not be dismissed out of hand in the first instance. We look forward to voting on each of the separate bills at the third reading stage. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Mark Burton be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (1) to (3) of clause 105; 
to omit subclause (2) of clause 115A; and 
to omit the expression “ 48B(2)” from clause 138(2). 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clauses 105 115A and 138 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Readings 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sentencing Council Bill the Bail Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
.  
These bills together were previously part of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. This legislation gives effect to measures arising from the Effective Interventions initiatives aimed at reducing criminal offending increasing certainty around penalties given to those who break the law and addressing the growth of the New Zealand prison population. The Effective Interventions programme works as three broad themes tilting the balance earlier to prevent crime using alternatives to prison where this is appropriate and adopting smarter uses of prison resources. 
New Zealand finds itself in the anomalous situation of having a rising prison population despite decreasing overall crime rates. The Government is determined to maintain its tough approach with serious and dangerous repeat offending. Let me be clear that serious and dangerous offenders should and will continue to go to prison and for a long time. The safety of the community remains our paramount consideration. However the legislation increases the range of non-custodial sentences available to the courts so that sentences for lower-level offenders can be used to fit the specific circumstances around the offence and the offenders to address the factors that lead to their offending. 
The Sentencing Council Bill will help to build safer communities by providing consistency and transparency in sentencing as well as ensuring that an appropriate range of sentencing options is available to the judiciary. Part 1 provides for the establishment of a Sentencing Council which will be responsible for producing sentencing and parole guidelines. I am confident that the council will increase consistency in decision making in these two important areas. New Zealand will be building on the example of the United Kingdom and several Australian jurisdictions in establishing a Sentencing Council. 
I want to address some of the issues that were raised by Opposition members during the second reading debate and the Committee stage. The positions adopted by these members were frankly contradictory. On the one hand they argued that there was no need for guidelines and on the other hand they said the Court of Appeal was perfectly well qualified to issue sentencing guidelines as it had already done in relation to a number of offences so there was no need for a Sentencing Council. As I say that is a contradictory point of view. First of all the Law Commission report established that there is a clear need for sentencing guidelines. Research carried out for the commission showed wide disparities in sentencing levels for the same types of less serious offending in different parts of New Zealand. Clearly this is unsatisfactory and unfair. The punishment an offender receives should not depend on the locality where she or he happens to appear for sentence. 
Secondly appellate court decisions are issued only in cases that reach the higher courts. They do not cover the full range of offences. Guideline judgments produced to date have been in relation to the most serious offences such as sexual violation and aggravated robbery. However these are not the offences for which the majority of offenders are actually sentenced to imprisonment. There is a need for a comprehensive set of guidelines and an appropriate council is needed to produce them. The argument that sentencing guidelines represent a challenge to judicial independence is in my view misguided. The guidelines will establish a framework for a judge to settle on the sentence in a particular case having given prior consideration to the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. Where the interests of justice require the judge to depart from the recommended sentence the judge will be free to do so but he or she will be required to set out the reasons for this. This is not in my view unreasonable; nor is it an intrusion on judicial independence. 
The council will comprise a mix of judicial and non-judicial members and will be chaired by a judge appointed by the Chief Justice. Again this really makes a nonsense of some of the criticism levelled by some Opposition members as to the membership of this organisation. The non-judicial members further will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House of Representatives. It is my hope that this House will work cooperatively to ensure that suitably qualified people are selected for what is an important role. It is not an area where partisan considerations have any place. 
The legislation provides for the House to scrutinise guidelines produced by the council. It is right that Parliament should play a role in this important area of public policy. Once again I place on record my firmly held view that this House must exercise great care in consideration of the council’s guidelines. They will be the result of much careful work and it is crucial that they form a coherent whole. Accordingly I urge the House to exercise its power to dis-apply guidelines with great care. 
Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill makes important amendments to a number of pieces of legislation: the Sentencing Act the Parole Act the Bail Act and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. The changes to the Sentencing Act will increase the range of non-custodial sentences by introducing three new sentences: home detention community detention and intensive supervision. Home detention is a proven successful measure for selected offenders and I am confident that the courts will in appropriate cases welcome it as a useful alternative to a short sentence of imprisonment. Home detention has low reconviction and low reimprisonment rates when compared with prison sentences and it has high levels of compliance by offenders. Community detention which involves an electronically monitored curfew can be viewed as a truncated version of home detention. The offender will be required to be at a particular address at a specified time. The judiciary has been very supportive of this new sentence and I am sure it will be a very useful addition to its menu of sentencing options. 
The legislation also includes measures to improve the effectiveness of existing community-based sentences. With community work for example probation officers will be able to refuse to treat up to 10 percent of the total hours of the sentence as hours completed where the offender fails to work satisfactorily thus underscoring the obligation imposed on the individual by the courts. 
The Parole Board has a crucial role in protecting the public and the legislation includes a number of measures that will enhance the board’s ability to perform this role. This is an important part of these measures. The Parole Act will be amended to make it clear that release on parole is a privilege not a right. It will state explicitly that consideration for release on parole—and I emphasise “consideration” for release on parole—carries no entitlement to release. The Parole Board will be given the power to summon witnesses and the power to make confidentiality orders that will help to ensure that the Parole Board is in possession of all the relevant information when it is considering a case. In addition the Commissioner of Police will be given the right to apply for the recall of a parolee to prison in limited circumstances. 
The legislation also includes an important change to parole eligibility that will take effect when the sentencing guidelines come into force. Offenders serving determinate sentences will not be eligible to be considered for parole until they have served at least two-thirds of their sentence. This will increase the certainty around sentences imposed in the courts. It will mean that all those involved in cases—the victims the police and of course the offender—will know that the offender will be serving the lion’s share of the sentence from the outset. 
Finally I will comment on the amendments to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 that the Justice and Electoral Committee struck out. I am pleased that the Committee of the whole House saw fit to reinstate this provision as the Government believes that it is essential that the sunset clause as covered by the amendments be extended. This will give the time needed for the select committee inquiry into victims’ rights to report back and for any appropriate response to be made. In addition by 2010 it is anticipated that there will have been a new independent prison complaints regime in place that will both provide for a new complaints resolution forum and further greatly reduce the incidence of issues that currently lead to claims for compensation made by inmates. This should in turn remove the need for legislation such as the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. 
Taken as a whole I am confident that the legislation will significantly improve the operation of the criminal justice system in our country. It will contribute to building safer communities for New Zealanders while helping to stem the growth of New Zealand’s prison population. I commend the legislation to the House. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 We come to what is the last stretch for this legislation. Frankly the delivery of this legislation to its third reading in the House can be described only as a bit of a shambles. We saw at the Justice and Electoral Committee the removal of the Government’s desire to see prisoners’ compensation extended until 2010. The select committee said to the Government that it did not agree with the Government on that provision and that it would remove it. The Government then had to reinsert that provision into the legislation in the Committee stage with the assistance of some of the other political parties that agreed to the reinsertion of that clause and we now find that it is back in the legislation. Then we had the debacle over the ability of victims to appear before Parole Board panels that was played out last Thursday and we saw the Government yet again defeated by a body of Parliament—in that case it was the Committee of the whole House.  
Hon Mark Burton 
: It was unanimous for goodness’ sake! 
SIMON POWER 
: The Minister is quick to now rewrite history about what occurred last Thursday but the reality is that— 
Darren Hughes 
: We were there. 
SIMON POWER 
: The Minister might have been there in one sense but he certainly was not seeing it in the way that everybody else in the House did until he took off his socks and did the numbers. The point is that this has not been an easy path for such fundamental changes to our criminal justice system. One of the crucial reasons for National’s seeking of leave to have the vote divided into five questions so that each of these bills can be considered on a separate vote is that National agreed with some things in the original Criminal Justice Reform Bill. One of those things was the changes to parole. The fact that parole would be seen as a privilege not a right was an important statement to make in legislation. The fact that eligibility for parole had been returned to two-thirds of a sentence and not the stupid one-third of a sentence that the Government introduced in 2002 is something that National agrees with.  
Further as a party we were quick to support the Government’s original Supplementary Order Paper around confidentiality orders and around matters being brought before the Parole Board that may not have been proven but may have gone to behavioural aspects of that particular inmate at a crucial time when that inmate came before the Parole Board.  
Of course the ability to have a warden or the head prison officer on that Parole Board panel was removed in 2002. That was an error but let us hope that this legislation will go some way towards giving all the information to the Parole Board that it needs. I agree with the Government’s view that this is quite a large power and that it should be used only in exceptional circumstances but it would have prevented the Parole Board from not having information relating to Graeme Burton’s behaviour whilst he was incarcerated put before it. That is a positive step so National will support the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2).  
 National members will not support the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill and have made lengthy speeches in this House as to why that is the case. We are concerned that all this bill does is to make victims relive—relive—the pain of the offence that was committed against victims in a situation where compensation has been awarded to prisoners because victims have to reapply to get a share of that compensation which is otherwise held in a trust account on behalf of offenders.  
Other avenues are open to an offender or an inmate who believes that he or she has been wronged in a prison—the criminal justice system leaps to mind the Human Rights Commission leaps to mind—and those are avenues that National believes should be explored by prisoners rather than our having a bill that requires victims to have to relive crimes committed against them in any application to access that compensation that otherwise might have been awarded.  
The Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) which introduces the stand-alone sentence of home detention is something that is to be—tentatively—welcomed. I believe that the ability for the right offender to be able to access this particular sentence is worth looking at. I am concerned of course that public safety remains the No. 1 consideration and like the matters around parole home detention as a separate sentence should be limited only to those minor non-violent and non-repeat offenders. National will be watching carefully as I know that Mr Mark from New Zealand First will be to see exactly how this new sentence is applied.  
This particular bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) was a bit more difficult for us because part of the sentencing guidelines was included in it. We in National are opposed to the Sentencing Council and we will be opposing the Sentencing Council Bill today. I will come to that in one moment. We will be watching with interest to see how the sentences of community detention and the electronic monitoring of those sentences play out but we acknowledge that intense supervision in both these cases where the risk of reoffending is low and the risk of victims to crime is low is worth some—and I emphasise some—consideration. So we will be voting for the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3).  
We do not believe that the Bail Amendment Bill in many respects does a whole lot and we will be watching with interest if it passes to see how matters progress on that. I have done too much work over the last 18 months on the issue of bail to be convinced that it is being applied in anything other than a random and haphazard way. National will oppose the bail amendment portion of this legislation.  
That brings me to the Sentencing Council Bill itself. My colleague Chris Finlayson— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Yawn! 
SIMON POWER 
: Well Minister Hodgson might want to yawn in the House when we are dealing with matters of the criminal justice system and sentencing. One of the issues that this Government has been consumed with has been reducing the prison population. I thought the issue was dear to its members’ hearts but it is obviously boring one of its senior ministers. I apologise if that is the case I tell the Minister but I say that this is actually pretty serious legislation.  
The Sentencing Council Bill which brings about the establishment of the Sentencing Council and the membership of the new Sentencing Council will be opposed by National. National members have said on many occasions that we believe that the Sentencing Council will do one of three things. Firstly it will provide a buffer between Parliament and the public on issues of sentencing. A fundamental role for the Government or executive of the day is to allow citizens to feel safe at the time that an offender has a sentence passed down. We object to the concept of a buffer being put between the people and the accountability of Parliament when it comes to the delivery of that sentence.  
I have said all the way through the progress of this bill and I will say it again now that the Sentencing Council will become the district health board of the justice sector. When an issue of sentencing concerns the public the Minister of the day will be able to stand on his or her feet in this House and say that it has nothing to do with the Government; it is all to do with the Sentencing Council. And that worries me deeply as does any impingement on the independence of the judiciary and the way in which the council could be formed differently—matters that Christopher Finlayson will go into in some detail in his contribution.  
One thing the Minister did not cover in his third reading speech and one thing I will be monitoring very closely— 
Hon Members 
: Oh!  
SIMON POWER 
:—well we have taken lesser scalps than those of the members opposite—is that if we see the length of sentences being reduced to accommodate the changes in the provisions around parole and the sentencing guidelines members can rest assured that the Government will be held to account by the Opposition for that particular manoeuvre. The length of sentences is not something the Minister has addressed in his third reading speech or at the Committee stage and we are yet to be convinced that this Sentencing Council will do anything other than separate the people from Parliament on such an important issue in our criminal justice system as sentencing. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise in the third readings of the legislation arising from the Criminal Justice Reform Bill as this legislation was titled when it began its life. As the Minister observed and as the previous speaker also noted that bill has been split into five bills: the Sentencing Council Bill the Bail Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill.  
It is a pleasure to be a member of a Labour-led Government committed to a society where all families young and old can be safe and secure. Of course central to this commitment is having a criminal justice system that protects our communities by more effectively rehabilitating offenders and by making better use of our prisons. It is great to see Mr Ardern on the opposite benches nodding his agreement because even he can see that this is bold and enlightened legislation based on the evidence and on the careful reports and research of the Law Commission.  
Clearly the recent increase in prison inmate numbers in New Zealand is no longer sustainable financially or socially. New Zealand’s prison population has increased sharply over the last decade and it is forecast to increase further over the next 5 years. This peak has been reached even though—and this is an important point—the rate of recorded crime is at its lowest level in over 20 years. That is an achievement of which I and members on this side of the House are extremely proud. None the less we do have to do something about these increasing prison numbers. So it was that the Law Commission in its report  
Sentencing Guidelines and Parole Reform 
 recommended significant changes to our justice system not only to cut inmate numbers but to make sentencing more transparent and more effective in rehabilitating and punishing inmates.  
The Government as the Minister noted based its Effective Interventions package announced last August on the commission’s recommendations. This legislation—this series of bills—puts the Effective Interventions programme in place. That package contains measures that are significant and far-reaching and once passed the bills under consideration will create a much better justice and corrections system in New Zealand.  
I want to concentrate my remarks on the Sentencing Council. I know that the headlines will be all about the other bills which are more sensational in the short term—and probably many of the speeches will be about them as well—but I think that the Sentencing Council will be the most important and far-reaching of the reforms that we are considering in the House today. The legislation that constitutes the council is similar in fact to the legislation that constitutes similar entities in comparable jurisdictions such as England and Victoria. The prime reason that it has been deemed necessary to introduce a creature such as the Sentencing Council is the extremely regrettable situation we have in New Zealand at the moment whereby people with similar situations who come before different courts in different parts of the country or before different judges can actually receive different types of sentences. In the District Court in particular where 90 percent of all criminal sentencing occurs there simply are no guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal to those inferior courts for many of the offences they are required to adjudicate on. 
 So the judges try to do their best. We saw the trend as revealed in the Law Commission research that when people charged with car theft come before judges in Hamilton they are very likely to go to jail whereas similar offenders in other parts of the country are very likely at the moment not to receive a custodial sentence. How can anybody defend that position? It is scandalous that people who commit crimes of a similar nature and who have broadly similar circumstances should receive radically different measures of justice in terms of the punishment meted out to them simply because they come before different courts or different judges in New Zealand. The excellent thing about this legislation is that it will put an end to that practice and it ought to guarantee that all New Zealanders in all parts of New Zealand coming before all courts receive broadly similar justice. That is something that all New Zealanders should be pleased and proud about.  
The legislation is excellent. It is welcomed by a clear majority of the senior judiciary and also by the judges in the District Courts and by reputable commentators in the criminal justice sector. Finally as I have said we will have a consistency of sentencing in like cases across New Zealand.  
Christopher Finlayson 
: Who? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: It is interesting to hear one of the members opposite asking who those commentators are. I would have thought he listened to the evidence that came before the Justice and Electoral Committee where judges and commentators—[ 
Interruption 
] It is a shame if he did not because the evidence before the select committee was overwhelming from those who knew what they were talking about—particularly the practitioners and the deliverers of justice; the judges themselves—as to the overwhelming need for this measure.  
It is interesting to look at this legislation in some detail. I listened with some interest to Simon Power’s contribution. He told us that he would outline the three objections that the National Party has to the Sentencing Council; I heard him outline only two. One of them was that in his words the council would become the “district health board of sentencing in New Zealand”—that somehow this Parliament would lose its accountability for sentencing. That is just not right. Clause 6 of the bill is very clear that the Sentencing Council is to be “an independent statutory body” and there is a very careful process set out in the legislation by which this House and its organs have the ability to scrutinise the work of the council as it goes forward.  
The Law Commission is making sure that the Sentencing Council has a corpus of jurisdiction before it right from the start in the form of the inaugural guidelines. Those inaugural guidelines will like the other guidelines and groups of guidelines that come before the House be subject to what will be called a disapplication procedure. Standing Orders will have to rise to the challenge of meeting this procedure but essentially what it envisages is that after wide consultation by the Sentencing Council a guideline or a group of guidelines will come before a subject select committee of the Parliament and be subject to further consideration in the—hopefully—calm and less partisan environment of a select committee. If that subject select committee is not impressed with the guidelines or part of the guidelines it will be able to recommend to this House that they be disapplied in whole or in part. That actually enhances parliamentary scrutiny of the way in which sentencing is to occur. It also enhances public input into the process. So if anything the public ought to be more satisfied rather than less satisfied with the sentencing process once we have this process in place.  
The other criticism voiced by Mr Power was that somehow there would be an impingement on the independence of the judiciary. That is just not right either. Not only is the council to be an independent statutory body but it is to have a majority of judges on its membership—five of them. Those judges will be a Court of Appeal judge a High Court judge two District Court judges and the chair of the Parole Board—by convention a judge—all appointed on the nomination of the respective head of bench by the Chief Justice of New Zealand and the chair who is to be a judicial member will have a casting vote. So there can be no impingement on the independence of the judiciary given the clear scheme of the legislation.  
This is excellent legislation. As I have said it provides for proper consistency and transparency in sentencing guidelines and parole guidelines. There are procedures in place to guarantee the independence of the body but at the same time on a complementary basis to enhance the participation of this Parliament in the formation of sentencing guidelines that will be fair and consistent across the country.  
In conclusion I would like to pay tribute to the Law Commission—in particular to the president Sir Geoffrey Palmer and the deputy president Dr Warren Young—for its hard work in coming up with the report; to the officials who advised the select committee; and to the chair of the committee who ensured that there was a careful but expeditious consideration of the provisions of this legislation. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 National has reservations about this legislation and has not concealed right from the outset its deep dislike of it. It is not really a case of an Homeric nod by the Law Commission; rather it is the case of a massive blunder. I simply cannot agree with the earlier speaker who made comments about the attractiveness and excellence of this legislation. I would rather say that there is no place for sophistry in this legislation and that this legislation is unfailingly bad. 
It started off life of course as the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. I would like to emphasise that word “reform” because reform can have two meanings. Reform can simply mean change or it can mean change that has an element of added benefit and it is that latter sense we generally understand the word “reform” to refer to. But here in this criminal justice reform legislation there is no element of added benefit. I make three general comments about this legislation as it proceeds through its final stages and is split up into four or five parts. In that splitting up all pretence of reform is abandoned; in fact in these divided parts there is no mention of reform at all—none at all. 
I respond to some comments made by the previous speaker Charles Chauvel in relation to the Sentencing Council and the word “guidelines”. Guidelines are intended to be markers providing assistance but these are not guidelines in that same sense that we see in this legislation. Clause 40 of the original Criminal Justice Reform Bill introduces new section 21A which is headed: “Court must adhere to sentencing guidelines”. There is something very odd in the use of that form of the words “Court must adhere to sentencing guidelines” when guidelines are simply guidelines. The provision in fact reads: “When sentencing an offender a court must impose a sentence that is consistent with any sentencing guidelines that are relevant in the offender’s case unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.” 
I was intrigued when the Minister spoke by the view he propagated and that presumably we were asked to accept—because he is not legally qualified—that what was occurring with this legislation was something that was consistent with what is occurring in other common law jurisdictions. That is wholly wrong. Although others have a greater knowledge of this than I have I ask members to look at three jurisdictions—and I take New South Wales as a starting point. We find there that the role of the New South Wales Sentencing Council is starkly limited. It is not into the world that this legislation is involved in; it is more concerned with reporting to the Minister on sentencing trends and practices— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: And advising. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: —yes—and advising as Mr Finlayson has said. I also made the point at the Committee stage that in the United Kingdom the structure and pattern of what exists there is completely different. I spoke about the Sentencing Advisory Panel. There is also the Sentencing Guidelines Council. In that jurisdiction there truly are guidelines that the judge is required to have regard to but it is not the case that the judge must follow those guidelines as is the case here. 
I look at what goes on in the United States with the United States Sentencing Commission. But of course that commission is a judicial branch of Government. In this legislation we have a very queer mix that constitutionally offends the separation of powers doctrine where the role of the Sentencing Council has aspects of the executive of the legislative and of the judicial. All of that is quite wrong and that is why I say that the Law Commission has made a massive blunder. 
Of course the sentence must fit the crime. Of course there must be broad-based consistency in sentencing. That is why we have an appellate structure; that is why we have a system of rules in place at the moment and the doctrine of precedent which is concerned with consistency. But let us not ever be blinded by the fact that cases are very similar. Each case so often turns on its own particular facts and on the particular circumstances touching the offender. But that is to be swept away. In fact I understand that much work has already been done on these guidelines. In discussions I have had with certainly one member of the commission I have been told that the guidelines are highly prescriptive. There is no room in many cases for any movement at all. So these are much more than guidelines. That is the first point. 
The second point which I believe is probably even more appalling is that there is an agenda in this legislation that is related to controlling prison numbers. And why does the Government want to control prison numbers? It is because of the costs of containment: the costs of building jails and the costs of keeping prisoners in prisons. That should never be a factor to be considered by judges in imposing appropriate sentences. That agenda is driven by a whole lot of things. The cost of building prisons—the cost of containment—is substantially about a view that prisoners should be separately housed in conditions of high creature comfort. I believe that to be quite wrong. Why is it that the military have to share barracks? Why is it that the navy have to sleep on mess decks? Why is it that prisoners are somehow deserving of treatment that is in every sense superadded? 
That is why I think it is very important just to focus for a moment on three provisions in the original bill that underscore the point I am making. The first concerns clause 9 which states in part: “The purposes of the Council are—(a) by producing guidelines about sentencing … to—(iv) facilitate the provision of reliable information to enable penal resources to be effectively managed:”. Sentencing is a discrete concept. It is the event that occurs after the finding of guilt; it has nothing to do with penal resources. Then in clause 15 where there is provision made about the “guideline or group of guidelines” this statutory directive occurs: “A draft guideline or group of guidelines that is available for inspection must be accompanied by a statement of the guidelines’ likely effect on the prison population.” Further in the provisions relating to parliamentary scrutiny there is comment about the fact that the Minister must present each guideline together with a statement of the guidelines’ likely effect on the prison population. All of that is constitutionally very very wrong but it seems the Government does not really care about those issues. 
So I criticise the concept of the guidelines and the way the Government has picked up that concept. I criticise substantially the fact that this bill has an indirect and perverse purpose—that is it proceeds on the basis of setting guidelines in the way the previous speaker has endeavoured to exhort to us but the reality is that there is this oblique and wrongful purpose. 
I would just like to say in the short time available something about parole. We have sat in this House since the time the Sentencing Act was passed and heard from Labour members opposite of how magnificent that legislation is on the issue of parole. As others have said in earlier speeches the deal in that legislation—much vaunted much praised by the Government—was that the rapist sentenced to 9 years’ jail could get out in 3. That is to be marginally moved so that under this legislation that same person will get out in 6 years. Truth in sentencing is the claim; I say “Not so!”. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I have to start by saying that the Criminal Justice Reform Bill was a rather hefty piece of legislation that has now been broken up into five bills. New Zealand First although it has not had anyone on the Justice and Electoral Committee has played some part in some pieces of the legislation. We support some of the provisions. We will support the legislation through its third reading as we have told the Government we will do but I signal very clearly and very loudly that we have some grave reservations about some of its aspects. We are putting the House and the Government on notice that we will monitor and watch very closely how this legislation actually rolls out in practice. 
Our observations of amendments to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act in the past since I came to the House 11 years ago have been those of dismay and dissatisfaction generally. I must say to the House that there have been many occasions in select committees where we have sat and listened to criticism of bills being put through—be they members’ bills or Government bills and whether of a Government led by a blue party or of a Government led by a red party—and where citizens have expressed dissatisfaction and dismay at the legislation. 
What people sometimes fail to realise is that behind the legislation is a key number of advisers—advisers from ministries and advisory organisations be they the Law Commission the Law Society or whatever. It does not go without noting by New Zealand First that the wonderful advice many people gave about the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002—which the Hon Phil Goff trumpeted would be the be-all and end-all of all our sentencing and parole problems for ever amen and which were enacted to serve the interests of the people who campaigned so hard in support of Norm Withers’ referendum for longer and harsher sentences—has proved to be contrary to the advice given by officials to the Minister and the Government of the day wholly lacking. This legislation has not been the be-all and end-all; it has not been the panacea. The very fact that we are standing here today and debating and amending those Acts is proof of that. 
It was interesting to hear Bill English in his great speech earlier this afternoon on a different topic asking where the accountability was. Well on behalf of New Zealand First I ask: where is the accountability for this? Here we are again amending legislation on the advice without a doubt of the very same people who advised the previous time 5 years ago. So what are we doing here? 
One of the bills we are amending is the reversion of the move that reduced the qualifying period of time for parole from two-thirds of a sentence down to one-third. New Zealand First opposed that move on the day. New Zealand First supports the reinstatement of the longer provision now. But we ask the question as to why the provision was ever changed.  
We are now supporting the reversion of some of the things regarding periodic detention that were repealed in 2002. New Zealand First opposed those changes. Let me give the House a couple of examples. Periodic detention was thought by some politically correct people both in this House and outside it to be too harsh too prescriptive and too imposing on the poor offenders who were having their poor little lives turned upside down by virtue of having to report at a time they were told and to do work and complete that work when they were told. So the Government went ahead in 2002 and repealed those provisions. 
What did we find? We have had probations officers and Department of Corrections staff tearing their hair out and saying: “We don’t know on any one day how many people are going to turn up to do their community work. We don’t know whether we’re going to have one or 101. We can’t staff for it. With this provision to allow them to complete their community work within 12 months they hold out hold out and hold out; they have got all the excuses in the world why they can’t attend. Then when the 11th month comes along they are rushing and panicking to try to get their community work done. They can’t and they end up back before the courts and it ends up being remitted.” 
Well this legislation seeks to overturn some of those stupid changes that were implemented in 2002. When we look at clause 58 and clause 59 of the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) we start to see a little bit of common sense coming back in. That is why I say to Shane Ardern in answer to his question that that is why I am voting for this bill. It ain’t perfect Shane not by a long margin. Let me tell you Shane— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RON MARK 
: I say to Shane— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that he cannot use the single name of a person. 
RON MARK 
: Point of order! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is not challenging my ruling? 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The  
Hansard  
will record that I said: “Shane Ardern let me tell you …”. That is very clear Mr Assistant Speaker; I was not addressing the Chair. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member will be seated. I was of the impression that the member said “Shane Ardern” once but that the second time he said “Shane”. If I am incorrect then I stand to be corrected. But it was my impression that the member used the member’s first name only. I will take the member’s word for it. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker; forgive me. I say to Shane Ardern that we definitely opposed those changes and that we support these changes back. But we are watching very closely and I tell Mr Ardern that if I find myself in the position where I have to work with him in the future and if there is a view that this needs to be further altered he should have no doubt whatsoever that I will be working to make these clauses even tighter still. It is a rather ludicrous little situation when an offender who is given a community sentence starts dictating the date and time at which he or she will actually complete it. It is even more ludicrous when offenders who fail to do the sentence within the time frame then end up pleading a case to have an extension or to have the sentence remitted. But this legislation seems fine. We now have a hierarchy of sentences there and we have laid out a smorgasbord from which the learned judge can pick and choose a sentence. 
Let us be clear about fines. Fines are effective only if they are paid. We have $550 million worth of outstanding fines. We have cases on the West Coast of the South Island where three boys had $240000 worth of fines remitted because they could not pay them. New Zealand First is gravely concerned that that straightaway undermines the authority of the justice system undermines the authority of the police and undermines everything that this bill says it seeks to do. 
We welcome the conversion of home detention into a sentence in its own right but our jury is firmly out. New Zealand First supported the National Government when it introduced home detention. We had no idea whatsoever that it was bringing in back-end home detention for violent offenders. We fought against that. We now see a move to wind that back. We will give our support towards home detention continuing as a sentence in its own right to be given by the judge who hears the case and hears the evidence at the time not by some Parole Board later on down the road whose members may not have been present to see the effect on the witnesses in the court hearing. Our jury is still out on home detention because the evidence is clear. One man took a girl’s pet dog hung it on the clothesline cut its throat in front of her and said: “That’s what will happen to you.” while he was on home detention. That sort of violent offender should never get home detention and New Zealand First will be watching to see that such offenders do not in future. 
Members should look at the controversy about the Sentencing Council. We note National’s concerns and we have heard the arguments. We actually feel a little bit comfortable because we have heard a lot of people out in the arena saying they are sick and tired of inconsistency in the judiciary’s responses to crime through sentencing. Some things are worth a shot. New Zealand First believes this council is worth a shot; that is why we will give it our support. But I say again to the honourable member Chris Finlayson that we have heard the debates heard the arguments and they are not lost on us. If at some time in the future there is a view that the Sentencing Council has not proved to be what it was said to be and there is a move to repeal it or look at it again then we will look at the evidence that has been produced as a result of its performance. I give the member New Zealand First’s assurance on that. 
In terms of the other issues in respect of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill I say that unfortunately a debacle is a debacle is a debacle and there is nothing that can be done to change that. With regard to inmates who have been assaulted by guards we should be clear that New Zealand First was the party that brought the focus to bear on the gangsterism that existed in Christchurch prisons and acted on prisoners through the activities of the “goon squad” and on the blind eyes of management who did not see hear or act. New Zealand First fought that issue for 4 years because it was right to do so. Let us be clear: if it is wrong and not appropriate to give compensation to a person who is assaulted on the street then it is clearly not appropriate to give compensation to the person who made the assault when that person is in jail and gets assaulted. Clearly there is a court and a judicial process that that person can go through but unfortunately we have the situation we have now. It is New Zealand First’s fear that if this legislation is not passed someone will get compensation tomorrow but victims will not get the chance to access that. 
We are not happy that this legislation is back here again. We would have preferred to see the necessary amendments made over the last 2 years but they have not been. The Government is on notice: we will not support this legislation or such amendments again. The Government now has a period of time to get its act together and to bring forth legislation to correct this situation. I hope it does so before the next election. That is our desire. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 In the very few minutes remaining before the dinner break I begin my speech on this series of bills by saying that the New Zealand prison rate is simply too high. I think this is something that is widely recognised. We have the second-highest prison rate in at least the Western World—second after that of the United States of America. It is to our continuing shame that this is the figure we have to face the rest of the world with. 
It is interesting that some would have us follow the United States’ model as an appropriate way of dealing with criminals and of amending our criminal justice system. That seems strange because what is the example we would be following? It is simply a dead end. What we have in the United States and what we have all around the world is a self-perpetuating criminal justice system.  
Members may have been quite interested to attend the speech by Angela Davis when she came to speak in this country recently. I do not think I saw any other members of Parliament there. Were you there Charles? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows he must use the member’s full name. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: My apologies Mr Assistant Speaker. Members would have found the speech to be very interesting and thought-provoking because Angela Davis challenged us to think about the possibility of abolishing prisons. That is quite a radical challenge in this day and age when the demand seems to be to continually build more of them. She said that we have to start thinking about how we would develop a criminal justice policy that was not simply based around the few most extreme violent offenders but that was based around the majority of offenders. The majority of people who are currently in prison are non-violent offenders and most people in New Zealand prisons like people in prisons in the United States and I imagine in most countries in the Western World are in for non-violent offences. Of course that is exacerbated by the fact that even whether an offence is classified as violent depends a great deal on how the police lay their charges and that is another area of some concern to the Greens. 
I hasten to add that the Greens’ policy is not to abolish prisons but it is to start getting honest about our prisons and to start getting honest about what they do and what they perpetuate. We have to recognise that in most cases prisons are actually counter-productive. We know that by and large they do not reduce reoffending. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Before the dinner break I was speaking of the talk that Angela Davis recently gave in this country in both Auckland and Wellington. She talked about the prison industrial complex and pointed out that not only is it incapable of addressing issues like rehabilitation but it actually becomes a self-perpetuating system in its own right. We can question whether as a system it has an interest in rehabilitating at all because she argues the prison industrial complex is rather more about using the deprivation of rights as a punishment—as a way of reinforcing the rights of those of us who are not in custody and of reinforcing control and compliance—than it is about reducing crime at all. I think there is something to be said for that argument because when we look at it we see that prisons do not reduce crime and prisons do not rehabilitate. We have to start to wonder why we have an enormous dependency on prisons as a solution for criminal justice problems when they are so entirely and dramatically ineffective. 
The Green Party supports most of these bills before us now that the Criminal Justice Reform Bill has been split because we see them as part of a package aimed at reducing the prison population. We know that the early intervention package although not legislative comprises part of this package of policies and we support that. We support the use of early intervention and effective ways of stopping people becoming criminals in the first place. The bills before us introduce a new suite of non-custodial sentences and that is something we are very supportive of. They also ensure greater sentence consistency through the use of the Sentencing Council. 
In terms of the non-custodial sentences—and I have spoken on this in previous debates on this legislation—the move to establish a very clear hierarchy of sentences and to put in place some new tools that the judiciary will have available to its members to be able to sentence effectively at a lower level than imprisonment is something we hugely welcome. When we consider that more than half of the people in prison are in for non-violent offences we have to start by saying there have to be some better and more effective ways of dealing with that kind of offending and so we strongly welcome this move. 
This brings to mind the discussion in the Law and Order Committee just the other day with Judge Becroft who gave some very useful information about patterns of offending particularly for young people and the kinds of initiatives that are most useful in reducing their offending. He pointed out that a lot of young people who offend stop offending in their early 20s even if we do nothing and just leave them alone. He was not suggesting we do nothing but he was pointing out that taking those people and putting them in prison actually puts them on a path to greater crime and more serious offending and that using non-custodial sentences is much more effective as is using other kinds of methods. That is where family group conferencing has such a lot to recommend it as have things like restorative justice education and work—decent work that is fulfilling and that earns people a living. Some of those basic things are possibly some of the strongest tools we have in order to deal with offending. 
The other thing is sentence consistency. Mr Chauvel talked about that at some length and we agree that there is a problem with inconsistency particularly at those lower levels of offences. We support the idea of having something that will promote greater consistency. In fact we would like to see greater consistency in things like the use of police diversion as well. We know that for example in Porirua people cannot get diversion for cannabis possession charges yet they can in Wellington Central. We have to raise the question of why that is so given that Porirua is predominantly poor and brown and Wellington Central has a different demographic. Why do we have these kinds of structural differences in the use of police diversion? That was a concern of one of the recommendations of the Health Committee when it did its inquiry and I have yet to see any response from either the police or the Government in relation to that. 
Before I finish I want to talk about a couple of things that we oppose. The first one is in relation to the parole legislation and particularly to the making of confidentiality orders. This legislation will allow the Parole Board to consider evidence that is secret. Not only can the person applying for parole not hear that evidence but the person’s lawyer cannot get access to that information. This is extraordinary; it is an entirely inappropriate extension of anti-terrorism legislation which is itself flawed in principle. We just have to look at the Ahmed Zaoui case to see how problematic those kinds of considerations are. But to extend that provision to parole is just extraordinary. I know that some members are starting to develop the habit of referring to criminals as domestic terrorists but we think that that is a rather strange approach to take. If we are going to do away with the basic principles of justice then on that basis I think that this House has to take a serious look at itself. We could apply the arguments in favour of that to the arguments in favour of torture but the rebuttal is the same. First of all it is abhorrent to the basic principles of justice; secondly any evidence thus obtained is unreliable. That is why we have these principles as much as anything else because if the evidence is secret and the defendant and his or her lawyer cannot have access to what the defendant is being accused of how can we have any confidence that the evidence will actually stand up to any scrutiny? 
Finally I say that the amendments to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill and the extension of the sunset clause are something we also strongly oppose. We think that the original legislation was a very poor piece of legislation and we think that it is time it came to an end. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Kua tau marika te wa kia tirohia nga huringa o te punaha ture taihara. Hei tera wiki hei tenei wa tonu ka kati nga tapaetanga mo tetahi arotakenga whanui i nga kaupapa here ma Aotearoa whanui. Ko ta te Komihana mo nga Tamariki i a ia e whakahe ana i ta Aotearoa Tuatahi pire tera e whakawakia ai e nga kooti nga tamariki i te wa e tino tamariki ana te hunga taiohi kia ata tautohetohetia nga take e pa ana ki Te Whai Ture mo nga Rangatahi. Kua whakautua e Te Komiti Uiui mo nga Take Maori ta Te Pati Maori kia kokiritia te rangahau e pa ana ki nga kaupapa katoa e hangai ana ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi a e whiriwhiri ana taua komiti i te rarangi o nga uiuitanga i tenei wa tonu. E uiui ana te katoa o te motu me pewhea nga kenge. I oti i Te Reo Irirangi Waatea he rangahau e whakaatu ana e 46 orau o te hunga i uiuitia e whakaaro ana me whakarongo tatau ki nga kenge ake kia taea e tatau te mahi tahi ki te whakakore i tenei mea tukinotanga. 
I waenga i te whakarongotanga i era tapaetanga me era arotakenga i tau mai a Angela Davis ki Aotearoa. I roto i tana pukapuka whakamutunga  
Kua kore he Take o nga Whareherehere? 
 ka kokiri mai a Ahorangi Davis i nga take hei tautoko i te mauheretanga kore—e akiaki ana i nga whenua o te ao ki te whakakore i te takahi i nga matatika tangata i roto i nga momo whareherehere kei reira te 9 miriona tangata e tukinotia ana. Ko tana e wero ana: “Kua whakahoahoatia nga momo whareherehere ki te whawhati i nga tangata kia huri ratau kia rite ki nga momo o tetahi whare kararehe—e tupou noa ana ki nga kaipupuri i nga ki engari ka noho tonu he mea tukino tetahi mauhere ki tetahi.” 
Heoi he aha te urupare e tika ana kia rere puta noa i Aotearoa mo te panga ki nga iwi katoa o te motu o te nui o te mauherehere? Ko nga pire e rima e tautohetohetia ana e tatau i te ra nei he huri i nga tikanga e pa ana ki nga whiu a-hapori ki te mauhere a-kainga ki te utu here ki nga ritenga tuku whakamatau me te whakatu Kaunihera Whakatau Whiu. Ko a matau i te wa e tere ana nga pire i te Whare Paremata he whakau i to matau hiahia kia matapakitia whanuitia e tatau katoa me mutu ta tatau whirinaki nui ki te mauheretanga ki te whakautu i nga hara. Na matau hoki i hura i te tauaki whakahurihuri tera i whakapaohotia e Te Tari Ture i roto i tana mahere mahi: Ehara i te te mea he tangata hara mehemea he tangata Maori.” 
Heoi ko te wero kei mua tonu i a tatau kia whakatauria enei pire hei ture ka pehea ka noho tonu ai enei matapono matua. Ka pehea tatau e noho nei hai whenua kotahi e aro ana ki te huarahi e kitea nei e tatau te maha rawa o te mahi hara o te whiu o te whakamauhere o te mahi hara ano? Ka pehea tatau e whakarite ai i tetehi punaha ture e whakakaupapatia ana ki te whakatika me te whakahoa kaua ki te whakawhiunga me te whai utu? Me pehea tatau e whakaohooho ai i nga iwi kia kitea ai ko nga kura me nga hapori ke nga kowhiringa mana kaua ko nga whareherehere me nga herenga pirihimana? Kia whakaturia he tahuhu rautaki e whakaritea ai ko te hauora me te painga o nga tangata katoa e noho matua ana kaua ko te pakanga hokeka ki te mauherehere i nga tangata ki ro rore? A i te wa e kaha tautohetohe ana ka pehea te wahi ki nga whanau ki nga hapu ki nga iwi e whakatakoto i te huarahi anga whakamua? 
Kua tautoko Te Pati Maori i nga huringa o nga ture punaha taihara hei whakau i ta matau e hiahia ana kia wehe tatau i te huarahi whiu aupehi kia huri ke ki nga kowhiringa whai tikanga whakahou. I pohiri matau ki te whakahoutanga tera i puta i te wahi ki nga whiriwhiringa a te komiti i enei pire e pa ana ki nga matatika o nga marurenga—he whakatauiratanga i ta te punaha whirirua whakatinahia ana. I whakaorangia o matau ngakau ki te kite i nga ropu katoa e whakaae ana me mau tonu i nga marurenga o ratau matatika o te wa nei. Ko te whakau i nga matatika o nga marurenga ki te puta i mua i te Poari Tuku Whakamatau he mea nui i roto i ta tatau tikanga kawantanga whai poti. 
E whakamaumahara ana matau i te Whare Paremata i nga whakaaro o te Kaiwhakawa a David Carruthers—ko te tiamana o te Poari Tuku Whakamatau o Aotearoa—ko ta te tupu tauirakore o nga mauhere e whakaatu mai ana ko te panga ki nga whanau kua noho hoki ko ratau he marurenga o nga hara i te wa kua ngaro tetahi o ratau i roto i nga whareherehere. 
Ko te rongoa matua e huri ai te punaha ture e whakamanahia ana e nga Pire e rima nei ko te Kaunihera Whakatau Whiu. E tautoko ana Te Pati Maori i te whakatunga o tenei taiwhanga hou e rite tonu ai te panga o te tika ahakoa ka whiua tetahi i Whangarei i Otepoti i Te Tonga o Tamaki-makau-rau i Te Wai Pounamu. E kaha nei ta matau whakahau ko te tohungatanga o te tangata whenua me noho matua i te wa e whiriwhirihia ana nga mema mo te Kaunihera nei. 
E hoki nei au ki oku whakaaro ki ta Ahorangi Davis i ki  
Kua kore he Take o nga Whareherehere? 
. E whakaarangia ake ana e ia te wero kua pera te tere o te tupu o te tauporitanga o nga whareherehere o Amerika kia penei ai tana korero: “Ka nui ake te tuponotanga he tokomaha nga tangata o nga hapori mangumangu Paniora tangata whenua ka mauheretia i era ka whai i te matauranga pai.” E toko ake ana te whakaaro e tere nei ta tatau whakaeke ki tera tuahuatanga i konei. I roto i te toru tau iti iho i peke te tokomaha o nga mauherehere Maori mai i te 2883 i te tau 2002 ki te 3481 i te tau 2005. Engari i taua wa tonu i roto i te purongo a-tau 2005-06 a Te Ara Poutama i kumea kia toru o nga kaupapa e rima i taea ai e nga whanau te whai panga ki nga mahi kia tautokohia ketia ko “etehi kaupapa nui ake”.  
Ko te uruparetanga te mea nui ko te whai wahi o te katoa i roto i taua uruparetanga ano hoki. Ki te piki haere te tokomaha o tetahi hapori e mauheretia ana he aha tatau e kore ai e patai ki taua hapori me pehea e kaupare atu ai te waipuke? Me matua whakarite te uruparetanga mo nga huarahi pai ake e whakaitia ai te maha o nga Maori e tukinotia ana e nga mahi hara. Me matua matapaki e tatau kia whiriwhiritia ai nga rautaki whai hua ki te whakaiti i te tokomaha o nga Maori e mauheretia ana e whiua ana e tukuna ana ki nga whareherehere i roto i te punaha ture. 
E tautoko marika ana matau i nga whakaaro o Ahorangi Davis e wero ana i te ahu mahi wharehere - te hangaanga e pupuri ana i te tokomaha o o tatau iwi ki te whai i te oranga wawata kore. Ko te whakahou i te Ture Taihara he mea me whai i nga tuahuatanga hou rawa kia hou ai o tatau whakaaro kia kaua nga ritenga mo te ture a-hapori e whakakaupapatia ki nga wharehere hei whakahaere hei whakatikatika ranei. 
E wawata ana matau ko nga amenamana ki te Ture Whakarite Whiu ma reira e tika ake ai te wahi ki te mauhere a-kainga ki nga whiunga a-hapori e heke iho ai te maha o nga mauheretanga. E kaha nei ta matau tautoko i te aronga ketanga ki te whakatupu o nga pukenga mahi tuapapa o nga pukenga whai oranga hei wahanga o te mauhere a-hapori me te tikanga mo te tino matakitakitanga. Tena koe Mr Speaker. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The time is absolutely right for looking at the reform of the criminal justice system. This time next week submissions close on a wide-scale review of the policing directions for New Zealand. The Children’s Commissioner in speaking of her opposition to New Zealand First’s bill to prosecute younger and younger children before the courts has called for a debate on youth justice. The Maori Affairs Committee has picked up the call from the Maori Party to initiate an inquiry into all aspects of the Treaty process and is currently considering the terms of reference. New Zealanders up and down the country are asking what we should do about gangs. A recent poll conducted on Radio Waatea concluded that 46 percent of those polled believed we should listen to gangs themselves to ensure that we can all work together to make the changes necessary for eliminating violence. 
In the midst of all these submissions and reviews Angela Davis walked into Aotearoa. In her recent book Is the Prison Obsolete? Professor Davis argues for “decarceration”—urging nations to confront the human rights catastrophe in our jails and prisons that is being experienced currently by some 9 million inmates. Her challenge is: “Jails and prisons are designed to break human beings to convert the population into specimens in a zoo—obedient to our keepers but dangerous to each other.” 
So what should be the conversation that we have in Aotearoa about the impact of mass incarceration on the populace? The suite of five bills we are debating today change procedures around community sentences home detention bail and parole conditions as well as the establishment of a Sentencing Council. Our contributions as the bills have proceeded through the House have emphasised our preference for instigating a wide-ranging discussion about how we can increase our over-reliance on the use of imprisonment as a response to crime. We also exposed the revolutionary statement issued by the Ministry of Justice in their programme of action: “Being Maori does not make a person an offender”. 
The challenge that remains therefore once this bill is passed and made into law is how to ensure that these two central principles are retained. How do we as a nation address the staggering rates of offending conviction incarceration and reoffending? How do we achieve a justice system based on reparation and reconciliation rather than retribution and vengeance? How do we actively inspire the people to hold a vision in which schools and communities are the most powerful alternative to jails and police cells—an overarching strategy in which the health and well-being of all citizens is our ultimate priority instead of the frenzied battle to lock people away in cages? And through all these debates what involvement will whanau hapu and iwi have in helping to set our direction forward? 
The Maori Party has supported the reform of criminal justice legislation in our commitment to move from a punitive and repressive regime towards restorative justice alternatives. We welcomed the innovation that took place at the committee stage of this Bill regarding victims rights—a model of MMP in action. It was heartening to see all parties agree to enable victims to attain their current rights. The endorsement of victims' rights to appear before the Parole Board is an important tenet of democracy. 
We remind the House too of the views of Judge David Carruthers the chair of the New Zealand Parole Board that the unprecedented growth in imprisonment numbers has also seen increasing impacts on family members who become in themselves victims of crime through losing one of their members to jail. 
The key measure to bring about change in the justice system as mandated by these five bills is the Sentencing Council. The Maori Party supports the establishment of this new forum to ensure a consistent application of justice whether one is sentenced in Whangarei or Dunedin; south Auckland or the South Island. But we hasten to suggest that tangata whenua expertise must be considered a core priority in considering the appointment of membership to the council. 
I return to the thoughts of Professor Davis in Are Prisons Obsolete?. She throws up the challenge that the population of the United States prisons has increased with such rapidity that “Many people in black Latino and Native American communities now have a far greater chance of going to prison than of getting a decent education.” I have to wonder whether we are fast approaching a similar situation here. In less than 3 years the total number of Maori inmates leapt from 2883 in 2002 to 3481 in 2005. Yet in this same time period the 2005-06 annual report for the Department of Corrections withdrew three of the five initiatives for whanau involvement projects due to a “shift in focus” for “initiatives of a higher priority” 
So what should be the conversation that we have in Aotearoa about the impact of mass incarceration on the populace? It is all about having the debate—and making sure that we are all part of that debate. If numbers are rising from a particular community why not ask that community for ideas about how to stem the tide? We need to see the debate take place about the best ways to rapidly reduce the number of Maori who are victimised by offending behaviour. We need to see the debate happen about the most effective strategies to reduce the number of Maori who are arrested convicted and imprisoned through the criminal justice system. 
We absolutely endorse the sentiments of Professor Davis in confronting the prison industrial complex—the structure that is restricting so many of our people into lives without hope. Criminal justice reform should include radical reforms of our thinking wherein the notion of social justice is not reliant on the institution of the jail for methods of control and punishment. Criminal justice reform should include radical reforms of our thinking wherein the notion of social justice is not reliant on the institution of the jail for methods of control and punishment. 
We are hopeful that the amendments to the Sentencing Act around home detention and community-based sentences may provide greater incentive for reducing the incarceration rate over time. We strongly support the increased emphasis accorded to the acquisition of basic work and life skills as part of community detention and intensive supervision. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 Mr Chauvel Mr Tanczos and just now Dr Sharples have all praised the ideal of greater consistency in sentencing and so does the National Party. Indeed the National Party takes on board what Mr Tanczos said about the unacceptability of different sentences for essentially the same criminal offence depending on whether one is sentenced in Porirua or in Wellington Central. But it is in our submission no answer to endorse the proposed Sentencing Council as it is set out in this legislation in such an un-inquiring manner because one has to look at the detail of the legislation and when one does one can see that what is proposed is unconstitutional and odious. As a young person I used to sit in the public gallery in the months and years after Sir Geoffrey Palmer was elected in the by-election for Christchurch Central after Bruce Barclay’s death and I remember him time and time again caning the Muldoon administration for alleged unconstitutionality. But it seems that Sir Geoffrey in his later years has gone over to the dark side and what is proposed by the Law Commission and followed through by this Government in this legislation is as I have said unconstitutional.  
From the time of the first reading of this legislation I have focused on the wording of the bill and the structure of the council. The concerns I raised in my first reading speech still remain because in the Justice and Electoral Committee I took a good look at foreign precedents to see whether there was some way in which we could reach a middle ground that would be acceptable to all parties. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Was there a way? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There was. The National Party moved a great deal from complete opposition at the outset to offering a model that would have achieved the Law Commission’s aims while still being constitutional. So we did look at some of the foreign precedents. Mr Chauvel said that the model we have is like overseas models but that is a superficial analysis. In fact that statement is wrong because there are three classes of sentencing councils as I apprehend it. The first comes from the Australian model—for example the New South Wales Sentencing Council which was established under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act of 1999. And as Dr Worth said— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What did they do? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is a body I say to Mr Auchinvole that is essentially advisory and consultative. It consults with the Minister in relation to the kinds of offences that are suitable for example for standard non-parole periods; it monitors; and it reports annually to the Minister on sentencing trends and practices.  
The other models from Australia are very much the same and I refer honourable members to the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council and the proposal by the Tasmania Law Reform Institute to set up a modest sentencing advisory council. Then we have the model that I focused on mainly in the second reading and Committee stages—the English Sentencing Guidelines Council—which proposes a number of guidelines that are in fact designed to help judges to achieve the desirable goal of consistency. But more important the judges are required to have regard to the guidelines rather than to slavishly follow them as is set out in this model.  
The third model which was referred to by Dr Worth is the American model but the United States Sentencing Commission is an independent rule-making agency in the judicial branch of the Government. So Mr Chauvel is right when he says that there are other sentencing bodies but he is completely wrong when he says that what is proposed here is consistent with those models. That is superficial. That is wrong.  
The second point I wish to make is that when I proposed my sentencing council and expressed concerns about the judiciary Mr Chauvel selectively quoted from a letter to the select committee from the Chief Justice then tabled it. The evidence given by the judges was in private but not secret so as we know after that evidence had been given it may indeed be referred to. But whether the member exercised good judgment in doing so is debatable. I thought that what he did was disrespectful to the judges. Moreover it is apparent that Mr Chauvel failed to read the entire letter and to read the entirety of the judicial concerns. Rather than read from that letter I suggest that members get hold of it and read it for themselves. They will see that the judges were proceeding on the basis that if this body is to come into existence then at least these things need to be done.  
On my Supplementary Order Paper 126 which I put a lot of effort into the proposal was that the Sentencing Council be a body of the judiciary. Mr Chauvel ridiculed that suggestion and my submission that the body should be more like the Rules Committee. He said that the Rules Committee did not itself conform in respect of the separation of powers. Well he has only recently gone on to the Rules Committee as the Attorney-General’s representative. He is a true johnny-come-lately who has attended a few meetings and suddenly now he is an instant expert on the subject. But he fails to understand that regulating the practice and procedure of the courts has always been the exclusive and legitimate province of the judges. A guidelines panel along the lines of what I suggested is consistent with that.  
So the Sentencing Council comes into existence as the Law Commission advocated. It is unconstitutional. It is an affront to the separation of powers. It is unacceptable that we should have such a tame debate from the Government on this important issue. Indeed we have been told and it is consistent with the way the Government treats the Opposition—witness the election finance legislation—that guidelines are being produced by the Law Commission at the rate of two to three a week— 
Hon Member 
: In anticipation! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
:—in anticipation of this legislation coming into force. No one on this side of the House has been shown any courtesy by being given a copy of the guidelines to read. As I say that is the way Labour operates in Government and I am sure that it is not the way that we will operate; a Minister of Justice of the calibre of Mr Power will ensure that opposition parties are given this material so that there can be an informed and a principled debate.  
Dr Worth touched on clause 40 of the original Criminal Justice Reform Bill which inserts new section 21A in the Bail Act. Again it is totally unrealistic and totally wrong that the “Court must adhere to sentencing guidelines … must impose a sentence that is consistent with any sentencing guidelines … unless the court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.” That is not the way sentencing takes place and that is why I proposed that the court should have regard to the sentencing guidelines.  
The other point that I object to is the retrospectivity something particularly raised by some of the submitters. That has not even been addressed. Clause 35 provides that the court will be able to sentence after the date on which the guideline comes into force “whether or not the guideline was in force when the offence was committed.” That is unacceptable.  
What we have in this Government is a group of people who consciously and in a determined way are undermining our constitution. A fully independent judiciary is fundamental to any free and democratic society but this Government does not care about an independent judiciary. In this as in other areas it only wants control. This lot pollute everything they touch. Members should look at what Government members are doing to the Civil Service. They are in the process of destroying an independent apolitical Civil Service. Members should look at the odious election finance legislation introduced on 23 July. There was never any consultation with the major opposition parties on that. This is the way the Government operates. It is unsatisfactory and it is unconstitutional and I believe that before long we will once again need to look at this vile creature this new Sentencing Council which regrettably is shortly to come into existence. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of these five bills on behalf of ACT New Zealand. I am pleased to see that the legislation that started off life as the Criminal Justice Reform Bill has been broken down into five separate bills because ACT will be opposing three and supporting two of the bills.  
Many of the comments I would ordinarily stand up and make at these third readings have already been made while I was listening to the debate on my radio in my office. ACT is opposing the Sentencing Council Bill the Bail Amendment Bill and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill and is supporting the other two bills. I will confine myself to the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and I will just revisit for a moment if I may the amendments that I put in the Committee stage last week with regard to victims’ rights when it comes to making a presentation to the Parole Board.  
ACT feels very strongly about victims’ rights as I know some of my other colleagues in this House do and there seemed to be a lot of confusion. ACT members did not have the joy of being on the Justice and Electoral Committee—we do not have a position on this particular committee—but I know that many victims and many victims’ rights groups presented submissions to the select committee on this portion of the combined legislation. It seems from my having talked to many of those people and from reading the commentary that most of their concerns were completely ignored by the select committee. Certainly there is no mention of their submissions in the commentary and very good submissions they were too. One is left thinking that very little credence was given by the committee to any thoughts or worries that those submitters may have had as a result of its hearing their submissions.  
My former ACT MP colleague Stephen Franks needs to be mentioned in this debate. He played a large hand in having the amendments come forward. He spoke to me about the victims’ rights that he felt were about to be lost. As a result of that conversation with him I put forward the six amendments last week. The situation in the legislation as it stood on Thursday when I came to participate in the Committee stage of the bill was that perhaps victims would be invited to appear before the Parole Board when their offenders came before it. There would have been no automatic right for them to appear as currently exists but they would be invited to appear. My amendments were intended to remove those invitation clauses—for want of a better word. I think that is very important.  
Victims certainly feel very strongly about this matter. They feel that they have been wronged. In many cases far too often they feel they are hung out to dry although the rights of the offenders are given paramount importance. So I was delighted when the Committee voted to support my amendments so that the status quo would be retained in this instance. Victims now automatically have the right to appear before the Parole Board when the parole of offenders comes up for consideration. My thanks go to Mr Ron Mark of New Zealand First and ultimately every other member in the Committee for voting for these amendments.  
The other reason I am pleased to support this Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) is that the legislation talks about the privilege of coming before the Parole Board because that is exactly what it is. These offenders these criminals have been sentenced. They have been given a sentence but before that sentence is fully served they receive the privilege of appearing before the Parole Board and having a cut in their sentence considered. That is indeed a privilege; it is not a right. I am pleased to see that at least in this case the right wording has come before this House.  
I will support the Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) and I am very happy to do so. Victims play a very important role in this whole procedure and their concerns and worries are very often paid little heed. I think that is a sad indictment on our society and we as legislators have a core role in leading and promoting victims’ rights.  
The Criminal Justice Reform Bill was very wide-ranging legislation and quite rightly it has been divided into five separate bills. I will not talk about any of the other bills. As I mentioned when I stood up to speak I think all the comments I could have made about those bills have been reflected in other speeches particularly in those made by National members. I share their concerns particularly with regard to the three bills we oppose.  
When it comes to the voting I think that ACT can be proud of the fact that it has always been consistent on the issue of crime and justice. No one I think will be surprised at the voting when that happens. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing Council Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Bail Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time. 
Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 3) read a third time. 
Parole Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time. 
Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1General provisions  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We should remind ourselves at the beginning of this Committee stage of what this bill is about. Thousands of homeowners for years have been waiting for some justice and some sensible response from the Government to get a solution to the plight of their leaky homes. 
It is almost like Groundhog Day again in Parliament. In 2002 Labour put legislation through this Parliament in a mad rush to provide for the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service. That was a shambles. It did not resolve the problem. Then in 2006 the Minister in the chair Clayton Cosgrove again introduced a bill. There was a review period of about 12 months before that introduction during which owners of leaky homes were told to wait and see because Clayton Cosgrove would have the solution. We then passed that bill in 2006 and here we are not much more than a year later at the Labour Government’s third attempt to find a bill that will solve the problem for those thousands of homeowners.  
I will highlight the statistics of the Government’s record on this issue. Five years down the track the Government has spent $96.4 million on the bureaucracy of what was the leaky home resolution service—which is now the tribunal—yet over those 5 years less than one in six of the lodged claims has been resolved. What we find out is that it is actually costing the taxpayer $131000 for each claim to be resolved—not to fix the house but to pay for the Minister’s bureaucracy. It is madness particularly when we read the figures that show the average settlement is $80000.  
I tell the Minister that it would have been better value for the taxpayer to send the damn cheque to the builder and get the house fixed rather than fund his bloated bureaucracy. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Are you proposing that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What I am saying to the Minister is that I would be happy to. Maybe the chirpy Minister would like to tell the Committee whether he thinks taxpayers are getting good value for their money. Oh well the Minister has suddenly gone silent. It is a perfectly reasonable question. We know that he has spent $96.4 million. I ask him whether he thinks taxpayers got value for money.  
Let us look at the figures even for the last month that he has been in charge. If we look at the number of successful claims—and the vote for this year is 23 million bucks so we are looking at about $2 million a month—we see that the official figures on the website show that in the last month he has resolved 10 cases. Ten cases in a month is $200000 a pop I tell the Minister. Over 2 years ago the Minister told the House: “Clayton to the rescue! Now that I am in charge this will all be fixed.” and the situation has got worse.  
Then if we look at the specific provisions in this part of this bill we see that they are to fix up the mess that the Minister was advised of at the time of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act which was passed in 2006. The arrogant Minister who is so typical of this Government’s Ministers said in 2006 that in terms of damages the legislation included general damages claims. He was wrong. He refused to take on board the submissions that were made at that time and that is why we are back in the pickle back in the House—third time round—trying to amend this legislation.  
So National simply says that the legislation has been a failure. If we reflect on the struggle it has been for those thousands and thousands of homeowners— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Keep calm keep calm. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister sarcastically chips in. I ask him again whether he thinks it is good progress to have resolved less than one-sixth of claims 5 years on. And on that basis I tell the Minister it will take us about 26 years to resolve this problem. By anybody’s interpretation that is a failure. That is not good enough. Although National supports the extension for general damages that is in this bill we say that anybody who thinks that this will resolve the problem for owners of leaky homes is simply dreaming. We know this from the record and we know from the poor progress that has been made. Just to revise there have been 4432 claims and 5 years on the Government has resolved 734 of them. This is the issue that the Prime Minister said in 2001 was a non-issue. This is the issue that George Hawkins when he was Minister said would be all over in 12 months. Five years down the track it is not.  
So National is saying that this bill should be passed. It should be passed quickly because it is holding up the process further. I know that both adjudications and other hearings are being held back until this legislation is passed. But I just think we should see a little bit of humbleness from the Minister. He should acknowledge that this bill is before the House only because he got it wrong in 2006; that when he got it wrong in 2006 he ignored submitters to the select committee who claimed that the provision did not include compensation for general damages; and that if he had listened at that time the owners of leaky homes would not now be held up further—waiting for legislation waiting into the never-never for some sort of solution to this problem.  
It has been a failure; $96 million has been spent on a very poor process. This bill patches up bad legislation. We want to see the Minister take some responsibility and we are keen to get this law on to the statute book as soon as possible. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I will take just a short call because that speech from Nick Smith has been registered in this Committee by that member. He has only one speech and that is to moan carp and complain. Nowhere in that speech did he tell members what he would have done. He got close to saying that he might write a cheque but he will not say that given the other election promises that he is about to embark on.  
What this bill does and I am sad that the member does not have an understanding of it is to reconfirm a clause that was placed in the new legislation that was transplanted across and that was tested and upheld by two District Court decisions. Normally when one writes a clause it is unlikely that one has any sort of anticipatory caution when that clause has been tested by a court not only once but twice. It was reconfirmed tested and upheld and it was transplanted therefore into the new legislation.  
Unless the member is clairvoyant—we know that he has some issues but I do not know whether he is a clairvoyant—he would not have known that after the provision had been tested by two District Court decisions found and confirmed to be correct and transplanted into the new legislation a High Court judge’s decision would overturn Parliament’s intent even though the law had been tested by two District Court judges and upheld. Maybe the member can see into the future; the rest of us cannot. It was out of the blue.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So was the High Court wrong? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes the High Court was wrong. That is why we are here today. Maybe the member needs to take note read the Standing Orders and find out why we are here. We are here to correct what the High Court did indeed get wrong. The High Court did not reflect Parliament’s intention as confirmed by two District Court decisions. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Your law was wrong. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well that is not what the District Court said—twice. But of course the member has a selective memory. I have a bit of a psychological hold over that member. No I am wrong; actually I have not. The whole House has a bit of a psychological hold over that member. The point is this— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take some offence at the remarks from the Minister in the chair. In my speech yes I did give the Government a hard time about this issue but I could make all sorts of personally derogatory comments too. I think the sorts of comments that Mr Cosgrove has made are outside the bounds and I take offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I was considering them to be personal reflections and the member will desist. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. As I have said to the member the reason we are here is to correct what the High Court judge did what the High Court did which was contrary to Parliament’s intent. I say again for the member and I will use small words that that intent in that clause was tested by two District Court judges in two cases and it was upheld. [ 
Interruption 
] And the “tweeties” at the back there would do well to learn by this.  
I would also point out that it is interesting that one of the victims the member talks about is a guy called John Gray. John Gray is head of the Leaky Homes Action Group which represents claimants every day for no cash and no salary—unlike that mob over there. What did John Gray say about this correction? He acknowledged that it could not have been anticipated. Unlike the member for Nelson he does not have a crystal ball. He supports this move because Parliament has moved swiftly to reconfirm what Parliament’s intention in both pieces of legislation was and is—that is to provide for general damages particularly for mental anxiety. So this is actually about assisting people. 
I say to the member that the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service—and I am on record as saying this—was yes a rush; yes a call to arms to try to assist people. I have said on record and publicly many times that when we move to try to assist people swiftly sometimes we miss things. The service though it resolved cases did not perform in the way we wanted. So we reviewed it we revamped it and now it is about 2 months old and it is resolving cases.  
I cite the case publicly because I have permission to do so of the Rev. David Moore of Christchurch. I cannot say because I do not know what he got in his resolution claim—it is confidential. But I know that in that claim he represented himself he did not require lawyers and he told me that he got swift justice under the new service and 100 percent of what he wanted.  
So I say to the Committee tonight that we can as Dr Smith has done play politics. Tonight we can as Dr Smith has choose to put the boot in but we cannot as Dr Smith does not propose another solution to the problem. We have our solution out there. Yep we have revamped the system I tell Dr Smith. Yep he was right—the first one was not as good as it could have been. That is why we have revamped it that is why we listened to every submitter whom we came across and that is why we have spent a lot of time with people like John Gray from the Leaky Homes Action Group. He is a person I hold in high esteem—more so than that member—because John Gray has no axe to grind and he does not get paid for his services. John Gray won his case under the old system under his own steam. In addition to doing his job and being with his family he spends every day representing and assisting claimants and I might say assisting the department and giving advice— as he did when we revamped the second bill and now as we correct a court decision that did not reflect Parliament’s intent.  
We have a choice here tonight. We can as the member says expedite this bill or we can hear other proposals. The member could rise and tell us exactly what he would do and what his proposal is. If my proposal is wrong I would love to hear his. If my proposal is not cutting the mustard I would love to hear his. The only thing that has come out of the mouth of that National member Dr Nick Smith is the boot going in and politics. And Bob Clarkson has said—I believe that he said this to the select committee—that we should write a big cheque. Well that would of course be the easiest thing for Parliament to do; let us be plain about it. But if we wrote a big cheque as National wants us to do every builder who ripped somebody off every designer who ripped somebody off every architect who ripped somebody off and every council that did not cut the mustard and inspect buildings correctly—all the people who did the wrong—would be let off the hook by the taxpayer who was not responsible. Or we can provide an alternative resolution service for those who cannot go to court and cannot afford it. We can provide an alternative resolution service let those claims be examined and drill in to the liable parties and get the money from them. But if tonight it is National’s policy to write a big cheque let all the dodgy builders and all the cowboy developers off the hook and have the general taxpayer pay for the lot then I would be grateful if Dr Smith and his colleagues would place that on the record. I would like to go out and tell communities that that is what their policy is.  
In conclusion I say that this bill simply reconfirms Parliament’s intent in the previous legislation as tested and upheld by two District Court decisions. Two District Court decisions said that the provision was valid and that the intent was right—that general damages can be allowed and awarded. But then out of the blue a High Court judge made a judgment. Well I am afraid that this is the highest court in the land—it is called Parliament—and Parliament’s intent was not reflected by that judgment. John Gray agrees with that the victims who have written to me agree with that and tonight we have a change to correct that situation and to allow those claims to proceed.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Committee stage of Part 1 of this bill. Clause 4 which is the main provision confirms the purpose of the bill. Any claim may include a claim for general damages for mental anxiety and distress and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal may award such general damages for any eligible claim.  
My colleague Bob Clarkson told the Social Services Committee many times that we would not need this clause if homes were simply fixed in a timely manner to begin with. Homeowners become stressed anxious and upset only when they have a leaky home and are in dispute as to who is responsible and who should fix it. This is what causes the stress and anxiety—the leaky home itself. All this bill does is create a law to allow homeowners to be compensated for the stress of having a leaky home.  
A submission to the Social Services Committee from Local Government New Zealand dated June 2003 raised this very issue. It stated: “The explanation for the bill states that it will return the law to what was intended by Parliament and the Government. We know that there are several aspects of the current Act that do not seem to be consistent with what Parliament and the Government intended. It is unfortunate that the Government has moved first to fix a matter of current profile in respect of claimant and cost awards when there are other fundamental matters where the act does not perform as intended. For example we had previously submitted to the select committee that the Act needs amending to ensure that homes are actually getting fixed at the conclusion of the resolution process. We would agree that getting homes fixed is the intention of the Act and yet this matter was not addressed in the latest amendments to the Act. We have also previously submitted on cost-sharing and liability issues where we believe the implementation of the Act in practice is not as intended by Parliament.”  
This situation still has not changed in this 2007 amendment bill. The homes are still not getting fixed. It has been stated in this debate already that in many instances homeowners never receive a dollar in compensation even though the courts award compensation to them. Even the Minister in the second reading debate confirmed that general damages for mental anxiety and distress would not add an extra dollar to the compensation received by some homeowners but he did say that claimants valued these awards as an acknowledgment of the stress they have suffered. That is interesting—they value these awards as an acknowledgment of the stress that they have suffered.  
I am sure the claimants who have not received any compensation who are out of pocket and who still live in homes that leak like a sieve would not agree with him—especially the elderly couple who have no additional money to fix their leaky home. They poured their money their savings into their dream final home but they have a leaky home. It leaks like a sieve and they have to live in it day in day out. They are now suffering from high blood pressure and sleepless nights. The stress and pressure on this elderly couple are incredible. This legislation has failed to produce a practical remedy for them. Will they value these awards as acknowledgment of the stress they have suffered? I do not think so.  
As with the 2006 legislation this amendment bill has been rushed through Parliament. It whizzed through the select committee yet still will not deliver to homeowners its true intention. Once again rushed legislation has been brought on through the case of  
Hartley v Balemi and others 
. We have just heard from the Minister that it was the High Court that was at fault. That is an interesting comment. So the judges in the High Court got it wrong— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Not the Minister’s fault; never the Minister’s fault.  
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Never the Minister’s fault. One of the issues that this bill is trying to fix is an error in the law—an error that was pointed out to the select committee in 2006 by the National Party in a minority report which was ignored. So here we are again fixing this legislation again; fixing an error and wasting Parliament’s time when the legislation could have been drafted correctly the first time. But no this is another whiz bit of legislation being whizzed through Parliament whizzed through the select committee.  
No submissions were asked for but we were allowed to get the Law Commission in to have a look at this new draft. The commission came up with suggested amendments so it is lucky that we got it in. The Law Commission said that it should be simple and that it should be concise. It took out references to the case of  
Hartley v Balemi and others 
 and made the legislation simple because the intention was that lay people could read it for themselves understand it and go into a tribunal to represent themselves.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I have quite a simple question to ask the Minister—if he got it so right and if it was only the judges’ fault then why are we here? If the Minister had clearly stated his intent and there was no question in the bill as it was written we would not be here fixing this mistake. He can prosper and he can make personal attacks on members in this Chamber as he stands there but the reality is that yet again we are here trying to fix a mistake that has been made in this legislation.  
I was thinking that it is not unlike the community sector which I have a personal interest in and am very passionate about. Often we hear people say they will accept a contract that will not quite work for them but they do so because they want to make some sort of difference—it is better than doing nothing. That is a bit how National Party members feel yet again on this legislation. We do not think this legislation will fix the problem; there is no way it is fixing people’s homes but it is a little bit of something and it is something that we have to do. As a consequence we will go through this charade and actually make the Minister’s intentions clear to the judges whose job it is to administer it yet again.  
But there are questions that are not being addressed. The Minister can bandy around popular names like John Gray who is doing a fantastic job in Auckland and I have spoken to him a few times and think that will get him off the hook when the job is not being done correctly. But the reality is that people’s homes are not being fixed and they are in the same situation that they have been in for many years. This is probably when I should stand up and confess to a conflict of interest because I think that is only fair. I have a leaky home in Auckland and I am currently in the process of getting it fixed and it is one of many. So I stand here with some personal experience but my experience is nothing compared to others in Auckland—and other places in New Zealand but it is probably Auckland that I know better—who are dealing with far worse problems than I am. It is a home that I do not live in so it is more as a homeowner that I am dealing with the situation but I already have an understanding of the hours that are put in and the anguish.  
When I look at my neighbours and think about the fact that they cannot afford to pay for repairs and are having to take out extra loans I am incredibly grateful for the salary that I have that means I can pay my extra bits each week. But if members look at the financial burden and the health burden on many people and the effect those burdens are having on their lives through and through this patch-up is of course necessary because of the botch-up before but it is not fixing the problem.  
The Minister can stand up and ask if the National Party will write a big cheque and will it do this and will it do that but he is in Government and it has been nearly 8 years. It is time something was done—something that is going to make a difference for these people. National members looked at the legislation that went through. I was on the Social Services Committee at the end of last year when it considered this bill. It felt rushed. It felt like we were not getting through everything like we should. It felt like those people who submitted to us and pointed out to us some of these problems which we are now fixing were rushed through and were not listened to as clearly and as well as we would have liked them to be.  
The reality was that the Minister had put such a tight deadline on this bill being reported back and in that select committee which is run by Labour National members did not have the power to slow it down and make sure that we got it right. As a consequence we see us going backwards. Yet again in that select committee prior to Christmas there was that point where we did not agree and thought that the legislation was not everything that we wanted. However we felt that something had to be done and this small step was way better than no steps which had been happening pretty much previously.  
So we will start looking at the money. I might stand to be corrected but I was looking at a figure of $96.4 million going in. How does that relate to people and their homes that they are trying to get fixed? That is the key question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I was not going to take an additional call but after the speech from the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove I feel compelled to respond on two important points. The first of those is that the Minister told the Committee that neither he nor his department had any idea that there was a problem with the provision in respect of general damages. I was accused of being clairvoyant and all sorts of other derogatory things. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: “Clairvoyant” is not right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the Minister made other claims.  
I would like to read this submission on the Minister’s original bill from the now-retired chair of the Leaky Homes Action Group. It said: “In the past there have been grey areas over what a mediator an adjudicator will allow in claims and there have been a number of inconsistent decisions in this regard. It is recommended that this bill is specific on this matter to avoid confusion. Claims of stress should be allowed by specifically providing for general damages.”  
Well hello hello! I say to the Minister that that is a very specific submission from an organisation that only earlier in his debate he said was a respected organisation. Why did he not listen to that submission? Why did he not listen at that time? Leaky home owners would not be in this period of uncertainty and we would not have had the decision of the High Court if the Minister had made the law clear.  
It is all very well for the Minister to stand up in the Committee and say it is all the High Court’s fault and Parliament’s intent was quite clear. Parliament’s intent cannot have been quite clear or the problem would not have occurred. What is more I say to the Minister that he knew that the law was unclear because that had been made very plain in the submissions.  
So I ask the Minister in the chair again if he bothered to read the Leaky Home Action Group’s submission on the 2006 bill he was in charge of. I put the question to the Minister again—and I think the silence says it all. He did not bother to read the Leaky Homes Action Group’s submission. If he did he would have known in 2006 that his bill was flawed he would have fixed it and we would not have had the High Court decision because Parliament’s intent was unclear.  
The Minister then asked what National’s policy was. I am very keen to answer that. National thinks it is better to spend the $100 million - odd on fixing homes than on bureaucracy. National does not think it is smart to be spending more money on the adjudication process than it actually takes to fix the houses. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So you’d abolish it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I said we will spend the money on fixing the houses and that makes pretty good sense. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So you’d abolish it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister seems to disagree with that. I tell him that I look forward to debating all over New Zealand the fact that the 96 million bucks would have been far better spent on fixing some houses rather than spending it on his 200 or 300-plus bureaucrats that he has expanded the department by.  
The further point is that I also believe it is quite flawed for the Minister not to allow leaky home claimants to claim for legal expenses. I say to the Minister that it is totally unrealistic for him to line up a leaky home owner with sometimes as many as a dozen lawyers for other parties and expect that owner to get a fair deal. So a further part of National’s policy as we indicated previously in 2006 is that we will allow leaky home owners to claim the reasonable legal costs of going through the tribunal process because we think what the Government has done is grossly unfair to leaky home owners in that regard.  
I come back again though to the real point on the minds of New Zealanders in respect of the tribunal and that is the question of whether the Minister believes we are getting value for money having spent $96 million and having resolved over 5 years less than one in six of the claims. I ask the Minister: when will we get some performance how many claims will we resolve in the next year and when can New Zealand’s leaky home owners finally expect to get some justice out of this tired repeatedly mistaken Labour Government? 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2  agreed to.  
Schedule  agreed to.  
Clauses 1 to 3  
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question now is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part. There will be three votes. We will take clause 1 first.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I just want to take a call on the title of this bill. I think it should be called the “Government’s Third Attempt at Trying to Provide Justice for Leaky Home Owners Bill”. This is a Groundhog Day sort of bill and we have seen a series of Government Ministers in this portfolio. In fact there have been seven Ministers in just 7 years so it is no wonder there has been a series of debacles in this area. I could go through and list all of those Ministers. We started with the Minister in charge of this portfolio Mark Burton. Then he passed it on to George Hawkins. We then had John Tamihere—he had a go. The hot potato was then passed on to Margaret Wilson our dear Speaker. Then it was handed to Chris Carter and then to Clayton Cosgrove who had it from 2005.  
The really interesting thing is that when Clayton Cosgrove took over the portfolio he said that the record was not good. So he was prepared to damn his previous Ministers. He said there would now be far more progress. I just remind the Committee of the figures for the last month. Ten claims were resolved and there were 18 new claims going backwards at a rate of almost 2:1.  
I would love to hear from the Minister in the chair Clayton Cosgrove as to when he thinks this process might be complete. Otherwise this bill should properly be labelled the “Weathertight Homes Into the Never-never Bill” or the “Weathertight Homes (Repeated Efforts and Failures by Clayton Cosgrove to Fix this Issue) Bill” or “Another Labour Arrogance Problem Bill”. Lots of labels would be suitable given the very sad history that has occurred around leaky homes. It is inevitable also that the title could be “Pass the Hot Potato Bill” in the sense that this portfolio has been passed around among so many— 
Craig Foss 
: Kumara. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am sorry; the member suggests it should be “Pass the Hot Kumara Bill” given the number of Ministers in this portfolio. The number of changes is unsatisfactory; it makes it so much more difficult for both homeowners and this Parliament to hold Ministers accountable for the lack of performance. Every one of these Ministers has said: “It’s not my fault; it’s the last one’s fault” and then we get another Minister and another mess.  
So lots of other names could be given to this bill. But it cannot be given the name “Justice for Leaky Home Owners Bill” because justice for leaky home owners will come only when there is a change of Government. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the title of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. The bill amends the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006. A recent High Court decision means that neither the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 nor the 2006 Act permits adjudicators or the Weathertight Homes Tribunal to award damages for mental stress and anxiety. The amendments are to give the adjudicators and tribunal the same ability as the courts to make awards for general damages for relevant mental distress. Earlier on I covered Part 1 and I would now like to touch on Part 2 which was not touched on and which talks about amendments to the principal Act.  
Basically Part 2 covers the definition of “damages” which means “any form of monetary compensation”. The definition “mental distress” is an adjustment for emotional or mental anxiety or for distress or stress. I stated earlier that the “mental distress” definition would not be necessary if the leaky homes situation simply was fixed in a timely manner. But this bill fails to address that matter. The issue is more than simple: we should not allow homes to be built in such a way that they become leaky homes. We understand about putting battens between walls and about putting sills underneath window fixtures so we should not get leaky homes—it is as simple as that. But no we are building leaky homes and are continuing to build them which is the scary thing.  
If we look at copper piping we see we are bringing in copper piping from Australia which is certified for 50 years. We are bringing in copper piping from England which is certified for 50 years. But we are also bringing in copper piping from Asia which is not certified at all. More and more spec homes have Asian copper piping. Builders are expecting that copper piping to last for approximately 7 years. So all the piping that is going into those homes will eventually cause leaky homes. I would not want to flush my toilet and have the water go up through the tap in my kitchen. That is for sure! So leaky homes are still being built. If we just stopped creating them we would not have leaky homes. If we just solved the issue of leaky homes to begin with instead of dragging it out and with nobody taking responsibility for building them then— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When did it start to happen? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: 1987. It should be noted that in the definition “relevant mental distress” the reference to “claimant” is changed to “claim”. That change widens the definition from the claimant to anybody who may have incurred mental distress from having a leaky home. That is quite fundamental because not only can the homeowner claim now but it is much wider. It could be a relative a neighbour or a builder who has received mental stress from just being related to or near the person who has the leaky home.  
Part 2 also includes new section 50 in clause 10 dealing with the remedies that may be claimed. They include general damages. The remedies should cover all fixing of the leaky home needed to make it a liveable weathertight home and damages for mental stress. We all know that is relevant only if the homeowner receives the compensation and in many cases as Ministers have already stated the homeowner does not always receive that compensation even though it has been awarded. So the Act in effect is not even helping those homeowners to fix their home and get a resolution.  
It must be noted the New Zealand Law Society has been extremely helpful in its submission on the bill ensuring that the legislation is kept simple and easy for the layperson to understand. It must also be noted that the Law Society was the only organisation called upon to comment on this bill—not that it commented on the title.  
If we are to talk about the title that could take all night. In effect the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill could be the “Remedies Only if You Get Compensation Bill” because homeowners are not getting any remedies. Who is paying the money? Lots of these homeowners are not getting remedies. Should we remove the word “(Remedies)” from the title should we say “Leaky Homes Continuing Bill or should the title be “Remedies but Only if the Person has the Money to Pay for Them” meaning that the money has not been put through a trust or company or hidden? What should we call the bill? Should it be the “Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Remedies (Sometimes) Amendment Bill”? Maybe we should call it that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I just remind members that this is a debate on clauses 1 2 and 3 which deal with the title commencement and an amendment to the principal Act. In addition this can be a wide-ranging debate summarising everything that has been discussed this evening.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I rise not only to talk about the title of this bill but also to give a bit of a wind-up of what has been going on this evening in this debate. Obviously the bill should not be called the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill because that is just confusing. There have been so many amendments to this bill that the public are confused and this title will just confuse them more. So we need to come up with a new title.  
Perhaps we could call the bill the “Minister Cosgrove Got It Wrong Again and Needs Parliament to Spend More Time On It Amendment Bill”. While we are doing a round-up of what this bill actually means I say that the Minister while we were doing the “Weathertight (The Minister Got It Wrong Yet Again and We Are Having to Come Back to Parliament to Fix It) Bill” talked about the fact that we should not let off the builders the architects and the people who got it wrong. He is right in so many respects. But who can find them?  
What ends up happening is that taxpayers pay for it perhaps via their rates because it is the councils that are left holding the can. That is obvious and the Minister knows it if he has heard any of the submissions and has spoken to any councils around the country. That is where real concerns come into it. It raises real concerns to do with the insurance companies that are insuring the councils. Councils are in the situation where they will not be insured to the same level or they will have to pay in so much more money to become insured and their rates will have to go up to fix this problem. As a consequence people in their homes should be very concerned.  
The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill is not an accurate title and it is not what we in the National Party think it should be called. In fact we are quite appalled that members are back here in the Committee having to take the time to fix this situation. The Minister is constantly saying that it was the High Court judge’s fault and that the judge got the intention of the legislation wrong. Well I say to the Minister that his intentions were not clear. If the intentions were clear then we would not have to be back making amendments yet again and wasting Parliament’s time Parliament’s money and yet again taxpayers’ money.  
Should we call this bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Bill? No we should not. I have real concerns and my colleagues share them and we have been discussing them in some detail about the confusion that will be out there when people look at this bill with that title. Our concern is that people will not know which amendment it is because there have been so many of them.  
Earlier I heard someone yell out: “Resign!” to the Minister. What a concern that would be in talking about the title of this bill. If this Minister was to be taken off this portfolio we would be on Minister No. 8 for it. So we could call this bill the “Weathertight Homes Resolution (We Have Been Through Seven Ministers; Here is Another One) Amendment Bill”. 
Hon Member 
: Better Ministers or worse Ministers? 
PAULA BENNETT 
: We have had better Ministers and worse Ministers. The truth is that the Government is running out of Ministers. 
Craig Foss 
: Shadow Ministers. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: We could pop in some shadow Ministers. I cannot actually think of anyone who could take on the role. 
Craig Foss 
: Religious ministers—it needs a miracle. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: It does need a miracle and it is of huge concern.  
The Weathertight Homes Resolutions Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill by its title is of huge concern to the National Party and it is something that we think does not truly reflect the problem. The title of this bill is not reflective of the bill itself and of the magnitude of the issue out there for the New Zealand public—not just in terms of the cost but obviously in terms of the emotional and physical trauma people are having to go through. This bill and more important its title do not reflect what is actually happening out there in the communities yet again.  
So I say: “Shame!” that we have to be back here discussing the title of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill. 
Craig Foss 
: It’s a Clayton’s bill. It’s a bill you have when you don’t have a bill. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: It is a Clayton’s bill. It is a bill you have when one does not have a bill. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It took an hour! 
PAULA BENNETT 
: It did take an hour. It came from Craig Foss. I would say that it is probably not the first time that this Minister has heard that comment. It would not be the first time that this Minister has put up a Clayton’s bill and it is probably not the first time that this Parliament has wasted huge amounts of time and huge amounts of taxpayers’ money having to do this. I personally find that to be disgraceful and so do my colleagues. Thank you. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 19 July. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill this evening. When we adjourned on Thursday I was in the middle of talking about a recent experience of attending the opening of Waiatarau which is the new acute mental health unit of the Waitemata District Health Board. It was a wonderful experience. I was very familiar with the conditions in which people worked and patients were treated in the former acute unit in my previous occupation. It was interesting to see a brand new acute unit established by the Waitemata District Health Board to accommodate those people who from time to time require residential acute facilities. 
During the course of the hearing of submissions and also in the course of the health estimates this year it became apparent that a great deal has happened over the last few years in respect of the provision of mental health services. On questioning it became apparent that there are twice as many psychiatrists now than there were 10 years ago—a fact mentioned in the Health Committee’s report. There has been a huge improvement in the services provided.  
One of the significant things that I learnt at the opening of the Waiatarau centre was in response to my question about staff retention. Sometimes there has been difficulty in applying all the mental health blueprint money to mental health services because of a lack of staff. I was delighted to be informed by the Waitemata District Health Board that—in large measure because of the Public Service Association’s multi-employer collective agreement that was reached in the last year or two—the board has the lowest turnover rate of mental health nursing staff in years. People are getting jobs staying there and enjoying them because the pay rates are better and much more satisfactory. But more than that the direction of mental health services provision is becoming increasingly satisfying for those mental health professionals who are committed to their work. 
 I want to talk about a couple of things in particular. First of all I want to talk about a couple of the Mental Health Commission’s new functions. The first new function of the commission as outlined in the amendment bill is service-user and family advocacy. The commission has articulated the voice of service users particularly well since its inception in 1996. The service-user advocacy role that the commission has taken on is not a function of the commission under the current Mental Health Commission Act. Submitters to the policy consultation process expressed very strong support for this role and some felt that the commission represented service users of mental health services in a way that had not occurred before the commission was established. The bill before us tonight now makes this role transparent. 
Some submitters to the policy consultation process expressed concerns that in the commission’s advocacy for service users the voice of the families and whanau of mental health service users had been lost. There was a sense of alienation in some of the submissions—not only those to the ministry I believe but also those to the Health Committee—of those representing the families and whanau of mental health service users in the policy consultation process and as noted in our report in submissions to the committee. I am pleased to say that I believe that the bill addresses that problem by extending the commission’s advocacy role to the families and whanau of mental health service users. The commission will be able to identify and articulate the needs and aspirations of mental health service users and their whanau. This will often be a difficult balancing act as not all interests will align smoothly. However it is vital to the future cohesion of the sector that the commission works to promote a balanced view of the issues facing the sector. In carrying out its advocacy roles the commission will work at a systemic level; that is it will identify and articulate the needs and aspirations of mental health service users as a whole and of their whanau as a whole.  
The second new role of the commission is to foster collaboration and dialogue in the mental health sector. Much of the commission’s work over the last decade has been well-received. For example the commission’s work on the recovery model of care and the blueprint for mental health services come to mind as being highly significant in the development of the sector. However submissions to the Health Committee indicated that not all stakeholders believe that the commission engaged with them appropriately. We believe that an inclusive approach to mental health is very important and will be particularly so in the future. Te Kokiri emphasises this inclusive approach. The collaboration of district health boards providers whanau caregivers non-governmental organisations and clinicians will be critical in achieving the Government’s broader objectives in mental health. The commission can play an important role in supporting collaboration by engaging with stakeholders and facilitating dialogue over issues facing mental health. Although an important focus of the commission will be to identify the needs and aspirations of users and their families it is important that the commission engage collaboratively with all relevant interest groups and endeavour to reflect a broad range of perspectives in their work. This includes those engaged in the planning and delivery of mental health services and those engaged in the research community. 
There is a lot that can be said about this bill. One of the things that I want to touch on briefly as well is that in this bill the Mental Health Commission retains its role of addressing the stigma associated with mental illness. I think this House needs to commend the Mental Health Commission for its consistent work through public advertising in reversing people’s attitudes towards mental illness. I commend all of those famous New Zealanders who have allowed themselves to be used in the process of de-stigmatising mental illness and I congratulate them and the Mental Health Commission on that work.  
Finally I say two things. Firstly there was an announcement earlier this year of a funding boost of $21 million over the next 4 years for mental health primary care and this is critically important. It is really essential that there are more developments that support people’s mental health in primary health care settings. Secondly I pay tribute to another change to the Mental Health Commission and that is the appointment of a new commissioner Ray Watson who is here in the public gallery tonight. Mr Watson is a former chief executive of the Ngai Tahu Development Corporation and Lakeland Health. He has an extensive clinical and management background in mental health services and I wish him all the very best on behalf of the members here for his new role with the Mental Health Commission. Kia ora koutou. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that the National Party moved an amendment to the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill at the Health Committee which I will talk about a bit later on. As our mental health spokesperson Dr Jonathan Coleman has made clear it is the National Party view that the principal Act should expire 3 years after the bill receives the Royal assent. It is our view that Parliament should reassess the role and performance of the Mental Health Commission before granting a further extension in another 3 years and we moved an amendment to make that change.  
National sees that the Mental Health Commission has a role in monitoring and improving New Zealanders’ mental health system and we think that mental illness has a significant impact on the lives of many New Zealanders. The burden is in fact growing not decreasing. According to the New Zealand Mental Health Survey released in September nearly half of New Zealanders will meet the criteria for having a mental illness at some time during their lives. One in five New Zealanders experienced a mental illness in the previous year and that does not take into account the small portion of the population that suffers from mental illnesses with psychotic features. The survey also found that 16 percent of New Zealanders had thought seriously about suicide about 5 percent had made a suicide plan and a further 4 percent had attempted suicide. These are serious statistics indeed and they are worthy of the consideration of the House as they make us realise how important it is that the nearly $1 billion a year now being spent on mental health should in fact be delivering measurable improvements in the mental health of the nation. In fact unfortunately many mental health statistics seem to be deteriorating despite the substantial increase in additional funding.  
One area in particular to look at is the hospitalisations for attempted suicides. They have actually gone up by almost 20 percent in the last 8 years. If one looks at the hospitalisation rate for suicide attempts by young women since 1999 one sees that they have risen by 45 percent. These suicide-attempt statistics represent the measurable outcome of spending on mental health and by those criteria I think many people would say that spending—that investment by the Government—is failing to make the impact it should have.  
During the select committee process we heard from many submitters who were dissatisfied with the way the public investment in mental health is being spent. A number who came forward criticised the rather large amounts of unspent blueprint money in many parts of the mental health service—money that should be providing much-needed services. I know that in my own constituency on Sunday I received a rather desperate call from a man who had obviously come to the realisation that he was alcoholic. He was in desperate need of getting in touch with addiction support services and had real trouble doing that on the weekend. I was somewhat despairing of him over the remaining 18 hours before I could get my office to get on the phone to arrange some support from for example the Hanmer Clinic. That identifies a need for services to be able to respond quickly when people with addiction issues identify themselves as being in need of care. Unfortunately in that case I am not sure that the Bay of Plenty services were as swift as one would like them to be.  
It also became clear in our discussions with submitters to the select committee that primary care could be doing much more to provide mental health services for New Zealanders. In fact earlier this week I met with people from a Mount Maunganui general practice to talk about the mental health care services they provide. It is one of the few general practices in the country to be quite upfront about being keen to be involved in mental health services. I make that point because a recent Commonwealth Fund report on primary care in seven OECD countries surveyed the views of primary care doctors. It asked them a number of questions and very interesting results came out. For example New Zealand general practitioners report that their patients wait longer for surgery and emergency care than the patients of any other group of doctors in the survey. There was a very good question on mental health that showed that when it came to the ability to care for patients with mental health problems less than half of New Zealand practices said that they felt they were prepared. That was one of the lowest ratings. What that indicates is that even though there is extra spending of a billion dollars on the mental health service we are not getting the gains in the quality of the service provided by primary care that we should be getting.  
General practices need support to operate effectively in providing mental health services. We hope the Mental Health Commission will be pushing the Government and general practice to play a major role in the monitoring and support of patients with mental illness. People in general practice are able to provide faster more convenient health care for New Zealanders and we think there could be significant gains if primary care were to realise the vision of the Primary Health Care Strategy and play a much greater role in providing mental health support services.  
That leads on to one of the most significant pressure points in the entire health sector and that is workforce development. That is a major issue in mental health. Many of those problems I think were witnessed in a number of high-profile cases we have seen recently. For example enrolled nurses can no longer have a role in this form of care. That is an issue that the health service needs to grapple with. Why have 3000 or 4000 people who could be trained to have an active role in providing support in these areas not— 
Steve Chadwick 
: That was never the training of enrolled nurses. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We have some chirping across the road from the outgoing member for Rotorua but what I do not think she— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You cancelled the enrolled nurse training. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh National cancelled enrolled nurses! It was Labour that wanted to take that name off them. Under this Government enrolled nurses have had their scope of practice so limited that there is not even a future for those people. The National Party respects the work of enrolled nurses and a National Government will bring back enrolled nursing and we will give those nurses a role in the health service. When New Zealand is so desperate for people to help in our hospital system for Labour and its cronies to disenfranchise enrolled nurses and give them some sort of Labour Party bureaucratic name such as nurse assistant is we think demeaning to the work they are doing. [ 
Interruption 
] We think that all is not well in the area of mental health and the members opposite show us that. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh it was a bad caucus this morning—it is showing.  
We do not believe that the community is getting the returns it should be getting for the extra spending that has gone into mental health. The hospitalisations the suicide statistics and the feedback from patients and their families show that most of that money is being wasted. I bet the next member of the Labour Party will stand up and say: “We have put double the amount of money into mental heath.” I bet that is what the member says. Labour measures its success only by how much it spends and not by the quality of the service or the amount of people getting care. What those members would know if they listened to the submissioners is that families and those most affected do not think they are getting the quality of service they should be getting from our district health boards’ mental health services.  
Steve Chadwick 
: No we’re building it up. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh the member says the Government is building it up. It has been throwing money at it for 8 years and suicide statistics have got worse. And those members say they are doing a good job! Actually it is not the case. They can chirp as much as they like because in 8 9 or 10 months’ time those folks opposite will have no input whatsoever and the people who are padding their way to our corridors will be working with National members as we improve the quality of mental health services for New Zealand families and patients. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the second reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. One of the purposes of this bill is to amend the Mental Health Commission Act to extend the term of the commission until 2015. It also makes a number of other amendments to the Act and previous speakers have already outlined those amendments. I must say that in New Zealand First we are very pleased with the increased amount of dollars invested in mental health. We believe that investment in mental health is critical. We are very aware that there is still a shortage of professionals in the mental health area especially for children and teenagers and we were assured when we considered the estimates that the Mental Health Commission and the Ministry of Health are working through this very issue.  
In New Zealand First we believe that the concept of a Mental Health Commission is sound as there does need to be a reporting function to the Minister. Of course we do need a body to ensure that the national mental health strategy is being implemented in order to improve mental health services overall and destigmatise mental illness. So we believe that the role is quite a vital one.  
In New Zealand First we believe that in order to give certainty to the commission members the role of this body does need to be for far longer than the 3 years that was initially granted to it. It is definitely difficult for the commission to develop a strategy implement parts of that strategy and monitor and report on progress with a 3-year deadline looming. In reality that means that for the third year its focus is elsewhere and results can be minimal due to that little bit of uncertainty. The fact that the term of the commission has now been extended to 2015 means that improved strategy and improved operational results should become apparent fairly quickly. We believe that the commission should report to the Minister regularly as well as when the Minister requests a report on a specific aspect of mental illness.  
We in New Zealand First would have liked to see the issue of addiction emphasised in the commission’s role throughout the bill. We believe that the commission should be obliged to obtain expert advice on addiction issues to the extent that perhaps one commissioner would be primarily responsible for addiction issues. But we were told throughout the select committee process that addiction issues are already implicit in the work of the Mental Health Commission and that addiction is already recognised as an aspect of mental illness so there is not really a need to have a separate commissioner for addiction issues.  
However we would have liked to ensure that an addiction advisory group was established to provide some expert advice to the commission. We all know that addiction issues are increasing and the types of addiction issues that are increasing now are ones we would never have normally identified. We know that drugs is one issue. We know that gambling is one. We know that computer-game addiction is definitely on the increase. More recently we heard that even telephoning psychics was fast becoming an addiction—women regularly telephone psychics at 99c a minute. So we have a lot of challenges in the addiction area that families have to cope with and positive steps need to be taken to deal with these challenges.  
But I must admit that throughout the select committee process we heard some very real concerns from submitters about the Mental Health Commission and its mode of operation and these do need to be solved in the short term. These problems revolve principally around family members of people with mental illness who generally express opposition to this bill. We were rather concerned in the select committee when we heard that less-than-positive report from some of the submitters.  
Later I was quite astonished when someone rang me personally. This person had been unable to take part in the select committee submission process or even to be involved in the hearings and she wanted to discuss her opposition to the continuation of the Mental Health Commission in its present form. She said that parents of mental health patients believe that the bill requires a number of very significant amendments if the commission is ever to be successful. She said that many parents believe that the commission is ideologically captured to the extent that it actually believes that everyone with a mental illness can recover and live successfully in the community or at home with the rest of the family.  
Some of the examples that we heard from people during the submission process—and one that I heard personally afterwards—were very sad. The one I heard was very sad and it was a very real example of mental illness. Quite frankly one’s heart went out to some of these people. Basically they could get nowhere with the commission. Their lives were altered totally by one family member having a mental illness to the extent that some of them were living in real fear for their lives.  
The lady who rang me told me that her son who lived at home had set the house on fire three times. She said that he could not help himself that he could not even remember having set the house on fire and that basically her son would never recover from his illness. It could be managed by drugs as long as the drugs were regularly taken but sometimes despite her very best efforts her son absolutely refused to take them. To her the commission’s statement that recovery from mental illness is possible is totally wrong.  
We also heard of the Mental Health Commission stating at public meetings that a person known to the commission had stopped taking their medication and was managing quite well without it. We were told that as a result of this other people also decided to stop taking their medication without the advice of their doctor and generally wreaked havoc in the community and—again—at home. Some of these people have been picked up and charged by the police and some of them consequently go to prison because of the trouble they create. Unfortunately prison is one of the few places in which they feel secure. Their medication is given to them very regularly and they cannot really refuse to take it. These people cannot live in the community and need the strict regime of an institution. In this case it is prison. It is sad that prison actually provides a secure environment for these mentally ill people. That is not really what prison is all about.  
So there does appear to be a need to have a provision for long-term care that protects patients families and the police. We all know there have been very tragic examples of this need for protection; for instance the Mark Burton case in Queenstown where mental illness was involved.  
We believe that there are some challenges ahead for the Mental Health Commission. Now with this bill it will have time to assess its mode of operation and practices and to put them right. New Zealand First definitely has some concerns after hearing the submissions and we look forward to the commission rectifying those concerns. In 2015 we believe that Parliament needs to reassess the role and the performance of the commission before any further extensions can be granted.  
Perhaps the commission needs to involve a parent representative—someone who has the responsibility of looking after a person with mental illness; someone who understands the stresses and strains of parents coping at home. The rights of the family need to be considered. If the Mental Health Commission is to assist parents and be on the same track as parents which we would like to see then that does need to be considered.  
We believe that the credibility of the Mental Health Commission is absolutely paramount. Perhaps someone like John Kirwan who has done an outstanding job in bringing to depression the understanding that it needs does need to have an active role in the commission. But whatever it does the commission cannot afford to isolate parent groups as it appears to have done. Some very constructive work is needed so that parents and the Mental Health Commission are at least working together for the future of mental health patients. The commission cannot afford to work in isolation and go off on a totally different tangent.  
In New Zealand First we look forward to this challenge being resolved. As I said New Zealand First supports this bill and we look forward to improved feedback in 2015 on this very important commission. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party strongly supports the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill and the extension of the term of the Mental Health Commission until 2015. Overall we have been very impressed by the Mental Health Commission and its functioning. We strongly support the idea of having an independent body that has a key role in monitoring the implementation of the national mental health strategy the so-called blueprint; that has a role in working to reduce the stigma associated with mental health; and that has a strong monitoring role generally. We think that the model of an independent Mental Health Commission is an excellent one and we strongly support its extension to other areas; we think it provides something of a role model. 
 Certainly there were submitters who expressed concerns about certain aspects of the commission’s work in particular the unspent blueprint money—basically the underspending on mental health in some district health boards—and also as the previous speaker has said there were some family members concerned that the commission did not sufficiently represent family members but rather advocated principally for people with mental illness. But overall there was strong support for the commission. This support was echoed very widely and I think will be found in this House because the commission does have an extremely important advocacy role for people with mental illness. Our success in dealing with mental illness in New Zealand would be undermined if we did not have the Mental Health Commission.  
As other speakers have said mental health is a huge problem in our community. Mental illness is the cause of a huge amount of suffering. It is a very painful issue it is draining our human resources and it is very traumatic for families with members who experience illness. The fact that one in five New Zealanders has mental illness is a shocking statistic and one would have to ask what is going wrong in New Zealand that causes so many of us to have mental health problems. It is all very well for National to say that the Government has thrown all this extra money at mental health but mental illness and suicide rates have not declined over the last year or whatever; the truth is that many of the underlying issues in our society produce mental illness including poverty powerlessness hopelessness the widening gap between rich and poor dysfunctional families abuse and poor nutrition. The factors that cause mental illness are very deep-seated and are exacerbated by in particular the growing gap between rich and poor in New Zealand and the feelings of helplessness and hopelessness that many in our community suffer from.  
Those sorts of underlying causes will not be resolved simply by throwing a bit of money at the problem. We will not find that in 6 months’ time mental illness in New Zealand has suddenly declined by 10 percent or whatever because the causes are often very long-term underlying issues. If someone is suffering from abuse for example it is not easy to suddenly resolve the mental health issues that result from that abuse. We need to focus on enabling people who have mental health issues to get the best possible assistance and support that they can. Clearly there is a lack of adequate counselling in New Zealand. One issue that we have concern about is that there is a tendency to look very much for what we might call psychiatric solutions—giving pills to people to manage their illness rather than being able to offer the underlying counselling that is needed and that can actually help individuals to deal with and in some cases recover from mental illness.  
One of the concerns expressed by submitters was that the monitoring role of the Mental Health Commission could be undermined by a provision that the commission would monitor at intervals agreed to by the Minister of the Health and the commission. Select committee members were assured that this was not the intention of those drafting this bill but we added in a new clause that said that the Mental Health Commission could report from time to time whenever it saw fit to do so. In our view that certainly gets round those concerns that were expressed and we look forward to the Mental Health Commission being able to report whenever it wishes on any matter relevant to mental illness.  
Like others the Green Party thinks the commission has done wonderful work in reducing the stigma associated with mental illness. The recent television advertising campaign has been an incredible success—it has won awards and so forth—and is having a significant effect on changing attitudes towards mental illness. This is yet another example of the success of the Mental Health Commission. The commission is being given certain additional functions—to act as an advocate not only for people with mental illness but for their families generally—and those additional functions should take care of some of the other concerns that were expressed by submitters. The commission is also being asked to facilitate collaboration and communication about mental health issues amongst stakeholders.  
So we think that the very valuable work of the Mental Health Commission will be strengthened by this bill. We are delighted that its independence will be preserved we are delighted that it will have its remit extended until 2015 and we are very pleased that it will have this independent monitoring role and can report to the Minister whenever it thinks there is a concern that needs to be addressed. We are pleased that the commission can undertake research on any matter relevant to mental illness and that it will be able to continue to advocate as it has done for the interests of people with mental health issues.  
The Green Party is very very pleased to support this bill. We are quite confident that the extension until 2015 will be supported by the House and that there will not be support for the National amendment to simply extend the commission’s term for a couple of years. That would be very unsatisfactory and would not be recognition of the incredibly valuable work that the Mental Health Commission carries out. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Hoi ano hei timatangia i taku korero me mihi matou o Te Pati Maori ki te matua a Denis Simpson mo tona maia whakaaro nui tohutohu hoki ki te Komihana Oranga Hinengaro. He kaumatua o te Komihana he rangatira ano hoki o Ngati Awa o Ngai Taiwhakaaea. 
He pukumahi a Denis mai i te timatanga o te Komihana i te tau 1996. Ko tana he huaki kuaha ki te ao Maori ki te ao Pakeha na tona tautoko whakapono hoki. Ka noho tonu tana wairua ki roto i te kaha o te Komihana Oranga Hinengaro me te kaupapa mahi nana i waihanga.  
Kotahi te kupu whakahirahira mo tenei Pire ma tenei kupu kotahi e mohiotia ai ka taka pehea te poti o Te Pati Maori i nga kauhau ka whai ake. He kupu e kore e kitea e tenei Kawanatanga he kupu me ona ahuatanga katoa hei hirau i tenei Kawanatanga. He kupu ko tana tohu ko te kapo o te Kawanatanga ki te kite i te whakaaro hou me te tirohanga rere ke 
.  
Na i runga i nga whakapaho atu i oku nei kupu i nga ra tata nei i whakaaro au kia huri ki te pukapuka kupu a Oxford i mua noa atu o taku whakaputa kupu i tenei wa.  
Ko tetahi o nga whakamarama i tenei kupu e penei ana “he ngarara paruru no te ao tawhito he roa te kaki he tinana poto. E ai ki nga korero ko tana he whakatupato kei te haere mai te kumi ihuroa”. Tera pea he kupu ake hei korerotanga i a tatau e wananga ana i tenei pire. Kia titiro tonu i nga wa katoa kia whakatupato kia ata tirohia. Ko taua kupu motuhake ko “tirotiro”.  
Ko te tino kaupapa o tenei Pire he aukati he whakakapi i nga mahi tirotiro a te Komihana 
.  
Ko te mahi a te Komihana Oranga Hinengaro i tenei wa he tirotiro i te pai i te kuare ranei o nga mahi kua tukua e Te Manatu Hauora mo nga turoro wairangi. Ko te ahua o te kaupapa whakapumau he kaupapa whakahirahira mo te mana tuku iho mo te tangata he pou tokomanawa mo te mana motuhake o te Komihana a  he pou reo korero hoki mo nga turoro me wa ratau whanau. He aha hoki ta tenei kawanatanga e mataku ana ki te tirohanga a wetahi ki ana mahi a na tera ka waimehatia e ratau te mana o Te Puni Kokiri ki te tirotiro na kua huri ratau ki te whakawaimeha i nga mahi tirotiro a te Komihana Oranga Hinengaro. He aha ratau i tino mataku ai ki nga kumi ihuroa e haere mai ana ki te uhi i te rangai kawanatanga. 
Na te wahanga 5 o te Ture a Te Puni Kokiri o te tau 1991 i tino whakamarama na tenei ture i whakatakoto ma Te Puni Kokiri e toro ki wetahi atu Tari te ahua kia tuku wa ratau kaupapa ki te Maori kia mohiotia nga painga ka riro i aua ratonga mahi. Na i te 16 o nga ra o Maehe i tera tau kare i taea e te tumuaki o Te Puni Kokiri te whakamarama atu he aha ai i kitea he moumou taima noa iho nga mahi tirotiro i wetahi atu tari a he aha i kahore wa ratau mahi i whakaritea i raro i te ture. A anei tenei pire hou. He tohutohu na te Minita o te Manatu Hauora kia kaupare atu tona titiro ki nga mahi kua whakaritea kia mahia i raro i te Ture Oranga Hinengaro.  
E orite ana Te Pati Maori ki nga ropu he hohonu wo ratau whakaaro ara matau kua titiro ki te Komihana Oranga Hinengaro kia whakaatu mai mena kua tutuki e te kaupapa 
o Te Tahuhu nga mahi i whakaritea kia tutuki i a ratau. Na te Komihana i whakaatu mai te poharatanga o te wahanga mo nga tamariki me nga rangatahi hakoa e mohiotia ana te taumaha o nga hiahia. Ko ta te whakatakotoranga kaupapa 26 o-rau te putea kia tuku ki aua ratonga engari 11 o-rau anake i tukuna atu. Ko te 15 o-rau te tarepa e kore e tae atu ki nga tamariki me nga rangatahi aue! 
E te Kaihautu e mohio ana tatau katoa ehara tenei Kawanatanga i te whakatutuki i nga hiahia a nga tamariki. Koi nei te Kawanatanga i panui i tera wiki te ripoata o tona ake Tari ara Te Manatu Whakahiato Ora kua whanui kua rahi ake te rawakoretanga i waenganui tamariki “he nui ake tenei tu ahuatanga mo te tini”. Kei a tatau tetahi Kawanatanga kahore i te aro ki nga taumahatanga kei runga i wa tatau tamariki. Kei a tatau he Kawanatanga e kore e aro ana ki te titiro ki te ahua o nga ratonga ki te Maori hakoa ko ia a ra te whakatau a te ture; a he Kawanatanga e mea ana ehara ma matau hei tirotiro i nga mahi a nga Poari Hauora a-Rohe Te Manatu Hauora hoki e pa ana ki te oranga hinengaro 
.  
E te Kaihautu ehara i te mea ko Te Pati Maori anake te ropu e awangawanga ana kei hea ra te kumi ihuroa. Ko te nuinga o nga kaitapae kaupapa ki te Komiti Hauora o te Paremata e mea ana kia tinihia te Pire kia mau e te Komihana tona mana motuhake hei tirotiro i nga mahi a-kawanatanga nei. A ko ta te Kaunihera Mana Tangata kia whanui ake te mana tirotiro kia kaua e whakawhaiti. Ko ta te Komihana awangawanga kahore i orite nga rere ketanga ki nga whakatau tika i puta mai i te tutohutanga o nga Patapatai a Mason o te tau 1996. Tera pea ka mau mahara tenei Whare ki ta Tiati Mason i taunaki ma nga momo ropu whakariterite pera i te Komihana Oranga Hinengaro hei parau i te ara kia pai ake nga mahi a kia rewa ake he tino take hoki nga mahi e pa ana ki te oranga hinengaro i Aotearoa. 
Tini ana nga ropu i karanga kia kaha te whakatinana i te turanga o te Komihana Oranga Hinengaro mo ona kaupapa tirotiro i nga Ropu Hauora a-Rohe me Te Manatu Hauora. 
He waimarie kua kitea he ara kia puta i tenei poharu. Ko nga wahanga o te ture ka kati i te mana o te Komihana kia kore e taea e ia nga mahi i whakaritea mana. Ka tu te tau otinga mena ka takawiri nga aho te ngawari hoki engari ko te mate ke ko te wahanga ka pa ki tenei Pire. 
Kei te whakaaro nui matau o Te Pati Maori ki te tirohanga motuhake o te Komihana Oranga Hinengaro na ratau i whakamohio kei te raru nga ratonga a kahore i pai te kite a nga rangatahi i aua ratonga. Ko wa matau rangatahi te reanga kei a ratau te moemoea mo nga ra kei te tu mai. I te ao Maori e marama ana matau ka tae atu ki te tau 2050 50 o-rau nga Maori kei raro tonu i te 27 tau. No reira atawhaitia taua reanga kia pai ai to tatau iwi. 
Ko tetahi atu take mo matau he iti tonu nga kaimahi Maori Pasifika ranei e matau ana ki nga mahi oranga hinengaro mo nga rangatahi 
. 
Na nga pehanga o nga kaupapa kua puta nga turoro i nga wahi nohonga tangata ara nga wahi hauora a-kainga.  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Indeed as a way of starting my address we of the Maori Party acknowledge the death of the fatherly figure Denis Simpson and his compassion wisdom and gentle advice to the Mental Health Commission as its elder and respected leader of both Ngati Awa and Ngai Taiwhakaaea. 
Denis worked tirelessly from the first days of the commission in 1996 opening doorways to both Maori and Pakeha worlds through his staunch support as well as his belief. His presence will remain through the energy of the Mental Health Commission and the work programme he created. 
There is one word that is pivotal to this bill one word that will determine the way in which the Maori Party votes in subsequent debates a word that this Government fails to find—all guises of it trip up this Government. It is a word symbolising the Government’s blindness to fresh perspectives and other viewpoints. Given recent publicity around my use of particular words I thought I had better just check the Oxford Dictionary before uttering it.  
One of the definitions for this word was “a large tropical Old World lizard with a long neck and a short body formerly believed to warn of the approach of crocodiles”. That is a word perhaps for us to mull over as we debate this bill; to look over at all times to be cautious over and to check over carefully. Indeed that special word is “monitor”. 
The significant feature of this bill is the change it proposes to constrain and curtail the monitoring roles of the commission. The Mental Health Commission currently monitors the adequacy of the Ministry of Health in its delivery of the national mental health strategy. This emphasis on accountability is central to the upholding of human rights; it is central to the independence of the commission; it is central to the advocacy of the mentally ill and their families. Why is this Government so afraid of the power of a monitoring role that it has weakened the capacity of Te Puni Kokiri the Ministry of Maori Development to do exactly that and it has now moved on to the Mental Health Commission to dilute and weaken its monitoring rol as well? What is it that leaves those across the State sector in such fear of being warned of the approach of crocodiles? 
Section 5 of the Ministry of Maori Development Act 1991 makes it absolutely explicit that Te Puni Kokiri has a statutory function to monitor and liaise with each department that provides services to or for Ma 
ori for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of those services. Yet on 16 March last year the head of the Ministry of Maori Development in response to the claim that auditing and monitoring of other agencies was a waste of time was unable to explain why they were ignoring their legal responsibilities. And here is this new bill with its direction from the health Minister for the key agency in the mental health sector to avert its gaze away from its statutory role in the Mental Health Act. 
The Maori Party like other collectives has depended on the birds-eye view of the Mental Health Commission to advise us how Te Tahuhu the mental health strategy has set out targets to achieve. We have learnt from the commission that Child and Youth Services remain significantly underfunded in relation to known needs. According to the blueprint 26 percent of mental health funding should be allocated to those services for children and young people yet only 11 percent is getting to them. A shortfall of 15 percent—how disconcerting! 
We all know about the Government’s poor performance in responding to children’s needs. This is the same Government that just last week issued its own report from the Ministry of Social Development that records that  
both poverty rates and poverty depth are “substantially higher for children than for the population as a whole”. So we have a Government that is prepared to disregard the needs of children; we have a Government prepared to ignore the statutory function of monitoring the quality of services provided to or for Maori; and a Government that is prepared to absolve itself of any responsibility of monitoring the performance of key agencies including district health boards and the Ministry of Health regarding mental health. 
The Maori Party is not the only group concerned about where the crocodile is. 
The majority of submitters to the Health Committee recommended amendments to the bill in order that the commission should retain its independent monitoring role. The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties recommended that the monitoring powers should be broadened not limited. The Human Rights Commission was concerned that the changes were incompatible with the accountability that emerged from the recommendation of the Mason inquiry of 1996. This House may recall that Judge Mason recommended that the creation of an organisation such as the Mental Health Commission would act as a catalyst to improve performance in regard to and lift the priority given to mental health in New Zealand.  
So it went on many groups reiterating the need for the commission’s role to be strengthened in monitoring and reporting on the performance of both the district health boards and the Ministry of Health. 
Fortunately there is a way through this quagmire. Clauses of the bill serve to constrain the capacity of the commission to maintain its watchdog role in areas set aside for it. So the solution lies in tweaking the clauses—which sounds so simple but the problem is the sector that this bill applies to. 
We of the Maori Party have given much thought to the unique perspective offered by the Mental Health Commission in alerting us to the crisis state of our acute services and the largely negative experiences of adolescents in such services. Our young people are the generation with aspirations for the future. In Maoridom we are particularly aware that by 2050 50 percent of Maori will be 27 years old or under. So we should foster that generation as a salvation for our people. 
Another matter for us is the particular shortage of Maori or Pasifika skilled mental health workers for adolescents. 
Because policies are so restrictive patients are leaving residential and home institutions designed especially to meet their needs 
.]  
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.