Volume 629 Week 7 - Thursday 23 February 2006 
Volume 629 Week 7 - Thursday 23 February 2006 
[Volume:629;Page:1437] 
Thursday 23 February 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill and the Securities Legislation Bill and to the first readings of the Tariff (Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans’ Pensions (Entitlements of Spouses and Partners of People in Long-term Residential Care and Remedial Matters Bill) and the KiwiSaver Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. I wonder if he might tell us whether the Government has any plans to advance the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill which has now been on the Order Paper for some 7 years. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Indeed the trout are now rather old trout but they are still being protected. 
Points of Order 
Television Sets—Gallery 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just conferred with my colleague who is on the House committee. In respect of the television sets that are up in the gallery behind your person and that are turned on I want to know how they came to be authorised knowing full well that unless they are turned off Rodney Hide will look at nothing else. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I sincerely hope that question time will not follow in a like manner when it comes to points of order. That of course was not a point of order. 
Members’ Bills 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. An issue of increasing concern to rural New Zealand is the requirement to microchip farm dogs. I have a member’s bill in the ballot that I hoped would be selected today. It was not so I therefore seek the leave of the House that the Dog Control (Exemption of Farm Dogs) Amendment Bill in my name be introduced and set down on the Order Paper for its first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Australia and New Zealand—Single Economic Market 
1. MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What progress has been made recently to advance the single economic market agenda between New Zealand and Australia? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yesterday I signed the agreement between New Zealand and Australia on the mutual recognition of securities offerings and I also signed an updated memorandum of understanding on the coordination of business law. Both of those represent major advancements in the single economic market agenda. 
Maryan Street 
: What benefits arise from the mutual recognition of securities offerings? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That will allow an issuer offering securities to extend an offer that is being made in one country to investors in the other country using the same offer documents and offer structure. That will remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to trans-Tasman securities offerings. It will promote investment between New Zealand and Australia enhance competition in capital markets reduce costs to business and increase choice for investors. That is a win-win-win-win. 
John Key 
: To the Minister—what encouraged him to abandon his crazy policy of wanting to tax Australia on foreign-held shares and to adopt National’s policy— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Point of order Trevor Mallard—yes the term “crazy”; is that what the point of order is? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Actually we were going to point out the gender of the Minister in case that member had not noticed that the Minister of Commerce is a woman. I know that it is pretty hard for members opposite to accept that people in important roles can be women but that member should recognise it just by looking across the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the more interesting issue here is that the other day when the Prime Minister was on her feet you asked the Leader of the Opposition to remove himself from the House for inappropriately making a comment. But we have just heard Mr Burton Ms Dalziel and Mr Mallard all speaking out loud with a considerable amount of noise—so much so that the “shadow” Leader of the House and Deputy Prime Minister had to turn round and wave his arm at them in order to contain them. And that was all done while John Key was asking a question. I suggest that for consistency a similar action needs to be taken. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. I thank the member for that. I heard the noise when the point of order was being called for and taken so I think at this stage that everyone is on his or her final warning—and I mean that. But that is when I heard noise being made. My concern with the question was that I was not sure whether it was within the portfolio responsibility. But I think we should allow Mr Key to complete his question without interruption please. 
John Key 
: Is the reason the Government has decided to abandon its crazy policy of trying to tax New Zealanders on their investments offshore in Australia that the Minister has much more sense in those matters than the Minister of Finance who is clearly so “out to lunch” that he thought it was a great idea to tax the millions of dollars’ worth of investments that New Zealanders have in Australia? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I invite you to rule that question out for its use of ironic expressions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes there were two ironic expressions. I would ask members to observe that in future and I ask the Minister now to respond to the question. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not accept the assumption in the question and the member should put his question down to the relevant Minister who has portfolio responsibilities. 
Maryan Street 
: What has been agreed to as part of the ongoing work programme for implementing the Memorandum of Understanding on Coordination of Business Law? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Several areas of work have been agreed to—for example the cross-recognition of companies between Australia and New Zealand cross-border insolvency and information sharing. Another area identified for further work is the adoption of a mechanism that would allow for the disqualification of persons from managing corporations in one jurisdiction to apply in the other jurisdiction. I am sure all parties would welcome further advancements in those areas. 
Justice Corrections and Police Ministers—Confidence 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Ministers of justice corrections and police; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because they are hard-working and conscientious Ministers. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How can the Prime Minister possibly be satisfied with Ministers presiding over a criminal justice system that releases on bail individuals who have imported raw materials for the manufacture of $15 million worth of P so that those criminals can flee the country; and what changes does the Prime Minister propose to make sure that does not happen again? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Ministers are not responsible for individual bail decisions by the courts. Those decisions are made by the courts and as the member ought to know by now Ministers do not criticise court decisions. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Has the Prime Minister heard the comments by a police officer on Radio Live that: “So many criminals now know they are not going to be held in custody while they are on bail and it is so frustrating for us as cops to fight bail oppose bail and then see the courts let them go and reoffend.”; if so has she spoken to her justice Ministers about the genuine concerns raised by that police officer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister heard the Radio Live broadcast; she is normally busy with other matters. I am aware of the claims by an anonymous police officer. I am also aware there has been a substantial increase in the denial of bail; it is one of the reasons for the growth in prison numbers in the corrections system. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not true that the case reported in this morning’s 
 New Zealand Herald  
is the second case in a matter of weeks where two foreign nationals implicated in a very serious methamphetamine charge have fled the country while on bail and why should all foreigners charged with imprisonable offences not be automatically denied bail? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the last move would be an extraordinary and extreme one but I have no doubt that the courts will take into account the frequency in recent times in which that has happened—if it is two cases in recent weeks. Those are matters that the courts do take into account. But it is a bit rich when the Opposition members keep calling for cuts in Government spending in the core public sector to call day after day for increases in both the core public sector and State spending. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister expect people to believe the statement by her colleague Jim Anderton that the emphasis for tougher sentencing has been “on the suppliers manufacturers and importers” of methamphetamine when her justice system is actually letting those people out and can she tell the House today what steps she proposes to take in order to make sure this does not happen again? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that in the case the member refers to the police did not seek to oppose bail. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well it is a matter for the police to make that decision and I have said that before in this House. I have listened to Dr Smith say that we are the Government and we are supposed to tell the police what to do in individual cases. That is called a police State. On this side of the House we do not support that. 
Ron Mark 
: Would the Prime Minister not concur that one of the reasons that New Zealand First has negotiated a provision into its governance agreement with the Labour Government to have a complete review of the immigration system of this country is that New Zealand First has long been concerned about the number of foreigners who get into this country only to treat this nation with disrespect by breaking its laws and then fleeing the country untouched? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think that is a perfectly fair comment but I would add of course that the vast majority of crime in this country is committed by New Zealanders born in New Zealand. 
Methamphetamine—Policy 
3.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: He aha te mahere rautaki a nga Tari Ture hai whakaheke haere i te waihangatanga te tohatoha me te ngote mo te ngarara nei te methamphetamine ara P; ka mutu ka whaaro ake te Kawanatanga ki te whakarite i tetahi roopu whanui a-Paremata ki te whakakore i te P? 
[ 
What is the justice sector strategy to reduce methamphetamine manufacture distribution and use and would the Government support a cross-parliamentary party approach to stamp out P? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The justice sector approach to methamphetamine is part of the broader Government response led by the Hon Jim Anderton under the National Drug Policy to combat drugs involving law enforcement customs health and education agencies. Within the justice sector through the Methamphetamine Action Plan the Government has undertaken a range of actions to combat P. Those include changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act including reclassifying P as a class A drug which of course means that the penalty for trafficking in P now carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and improved resourcing of police and Customs Service drug enforcement services to respond to the current and future methamphetamine situation. Of course the Government welcomes the further support of any party that is willing to engage constructively on this issue. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Kua whakaaro ano te Minita mo nga mahi i te taha hauauru o Ahitereiria ara nga mahi muru taonga ara te whare te putea peke te motoka hoki mo era ka mauherehia mo o ratou mahi waihanga tohatoha hoki i te P? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Has the Minister considered the Western Australian experience in which those convicted of manufacturing and distributing P forfeit all assets including house bank accounts and car—a strategy that has proven successful in restricting the incidence of production? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There has indeed already been significant movement in legislation which certainly allows the confiscation of the property of those who are involved in the trafficking of the drug. But I know that the Government would welcome further engagement with the member who clearly has a serious interest in this important issue. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister believe that the victims of the crimes of Trevor Eagle Steven Williams and William Duane Bell and the victims’ families agree that the Government is dealing with the methamphetamine epidemic; and is releasing individuals who are charged with the importation of raw materials to manufacture $15 million worth of P the Government’s idea of dealing with the problem? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I clearly cannot speak for those families. Although the Government has taken a range of actions—and quite decisive actions—there is much more to do. But it is not something that any Government alone can deal with; it is a wide community issue. I want to applaud the people who came to Parliament today—I think every member would—because those people have taken some personal responsibility to try to highlight this blight on our society. I applaud them for their action and will engage with any members in the House who want to look at further effective actions that we can take together. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Can the Minister give some examples of initiatives under way or completed under the Methamphetamine Action Plan? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There are many examples. For the Customs Service new offences and powers have strengthened its ability to investigate the importation of chemicals used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The Ministry of Health has established and is maintaining community action programmes and has increased funding for treatment. The police have established a comprehensive illicit drug monitoring system and are piloting a programme of drug-testing people detained in police cells. There is a range of others. Obviously I cannot go on because of the Standing Orders but there are many such programmes. But as I said before there is much more to do. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister consider that one of the unhelpful trends of managing drug abuse is that there is poor cooperation between the many Government departments and agencies—health justice police and education—and can he assure us that the funding of community projects is not being undermined by the fragmentation and turf wars of those agencies? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the member raises an important question as to the importance of inter-agency cooperation and that indeed is certainly one of the principle reasons why the Hon Jim Anderton is leading a cross-Government approach under the National Drug Policy. One of its objectives is to ensure that we get the maximum cooperation and effectiveness from agencies. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister consider a change in law to introduce a specialist drug court to allow treatment options to be incorporated into sentencing combined with the use of further sanctions for continued abuse of drugs or other reoffending as proposed by United Future’s policy on drugs and the law? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is a matter that along with many of the suggestions that have been usefully made I think is worthy of consideration. I am happy to discuss the matter further with the member. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Kei te mohio kei te marama ranei te Minita ki nga mahi kua kokirihia i roto i te iwi Maori ara te rahui P ki Orakei i Tamaki-makau-rau me te rahui P i Maunganui i Tauranga me te kaupapa “P kore” kua whakaturia i te hapori o Murupara a ka tautokongia e te Tari Ture i nga umanga pai kua timatahia e te iwi Maori ara te pakanga i te P kahore ranei? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Is the Minister aware of the initiatives amongst the Maori people such as the rahui to ban P at Orakei in Auckland; the rahui to ban P in Maunganui in Tauranga; and the “P kore” strategy in Murupara; and how will the justice sector support the ongoing leadership of Maori communities to stamp out P? 
] 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I certainly have some awareness of some of the initiatives the member has referred to and I applaud them. Again I welcome any approach from him to look at how we can give further support to those sorts of positive community initiatives. 
Ron Mark 
: Would the Minister agree with New Zealand First that three areas need to be targeted more stridently: firstly intervention at the borders to prevent foreigners from importing methamphetamine precursors into this country; secondly the crushing of gangs who manufacture and supply P many of them Maori; and thirdly stricter sentencing laws to stop judges from giving 22-month jail sentences with leave to apply for home detention for supplying the drug. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I agree with the member that all three of those areas are important. All three of them are areas where action has already been taken in terms of tougher sentencing stronger border controls and resources for agencies— 
Simon Power 
: They’re running free! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am sorry but the facts do not support the member’s prejudice. 
Roading—State Highway Forecast 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House yesterday that the dates contained in “the projected State highway forecast plan which is the lengthy document” are the correct start dates for Transit New Zealand’s draft 2006-07 to 2015-16 10-year State highway forecast; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does he think it is an appropriate way to run his portfolio when the Chief Executive of Transit said on the radio this morning that the first time he heard that the Government was coming up with the extra $685 million shortfall required to meet the Minister’s statements today was in fact on the radio this morning; and therefore does he think it was fortuitous that Mr van Barneveld had his radio on or is it quite usual for him to communicate with his department via the newswires? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have always made it clear to Mr van Barneveld and the Transit board that they are to allocate only the funding that has been provided to them. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: In addition to the extra money for State highway funding how much has the funding for public transport increased since 1999? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We have increased public transport funding from the derisory $40 million it was in 1999 to $250 million this year. Without that increased funding New Zealanders would be poorer and traffic congestion in our cities would be significantly worse. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that in the document referred to in the primary question 55 of the top 64 projects are listed as being of high priority when it comes to urgency and seriousness and that that reflects a huge lack of funding for many many years which was verified by Transit this morning at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearing; if so will he ensure that the group that is looking into bridging the funding gap is aware of that factor? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes and yes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the New Zealand public have any confidence in the Minister when he knew last November that there was a shortfall in funding but appeared to have been unable to secure that extra financial commitment until we saw yesterday the release of the report with the Associate Minister of Finance putting it in the bin less than an hour later and saying he would find the money; why should he be believed? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I said in answer to one of the earlier questions I have always been very clear that Transit ought to allocate only the funding that is guaranteed to it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How does the Minister reconcile the commitment given on 1 April last year that all of the extra petrol tax would go to the regions with the plan that was announced yesterday that Nelson having paid $32 million a year in petrol taxes and road-user charges would not get a single roading project in the next 7 years—or does last year’s commitment have the same amount of credibility as the Prime Minister’s pledge card? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The commitment made last year was that the additional petrol tax that was collected would be spent regionally. That promise is being kept. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it’s not; tell that to my mayors! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes it is and if people do not think the promise is being kept then they have the transparent process that is provided for them to submit on the draft plan. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister commissioned any reports as to what the funding situation would be if he had not done anything about the regime the National Party left in place; and has he had a chance to reflect on the level of confidence he would have then? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is absolutely no doubt that if that set of policies had been kept and if we had not more than doubled the amount of money going into State highways already Auckland’s traffic congestion Christchurch’s traffic congestion and Wellington’s traffic congestion—every city’s traffic congestion—would be far far worse than it is now. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does Transit’s 10-year plan make any provision at all for extending the motorway north from Puhoi or is the Government happy to see State Highway 1 traffic at a standstill as it tries to get though Warkworth and Wellsford; what will he do about it? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: One of the most expensive highway projects in New Zealand is currently under construction north of Auckland leading towards Puhoi. It is the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 extension. 
Phil Heatley 
: Will the Minister send two critical Northland projects the Snake Hill realignment and stage 2 of the Kamo bypass into the never-never—never expect them because they will never happen—or will the Government commit funding so that construction can start as early as 2007-08 as promised by him? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member will know the answer to that question once the State highway forecast is finalised in June. 
David Bennett 
: How does the Minister explain that on the one hand in the upcoming joint officials group process for the Waikato certain projects will be advanced when on the other hand in the middle of negotiations Transit has reduced the priority for all major Waikato roading projects in that 10-year plan such as the Te Rapa bypass which has been delayed another 4 years? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The people of the Waikato are in the fortunate position that they will see progress through both the final State highway forecast plan and more than $100 million from a joint officials group increase. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister had any representations whatsoever from Waikato National MPs with regard to the special Waikato roading package or do they continue to be in a state of amnesia and unconsciousness? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order please. That last comment was unnecessary. It will be withdrawn. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I have not. I suspect they are as confused as both Mr Williamson and Mr Brownlee have shown themselves to be in questions yesterday and today when they still fail to understand that the regional break-out documents are but a subset of the longer document. Transit tries to make those documents foolproof but sometimes it cannot. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave for the Hon David Parker to be able to take some time to explain why a very lengthy document which he himself has described as most authoritative has one— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order. The member knows that he cannot seek leave on behalf of somebody else. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a document that Mr Parker himself describes as a “lengthy document” which has one set of figures and one set of projections for estimated start times on roads and then a bundle of regional pamphlets which have a completely different set of figures and start times for roads—the gap between the two is millions of dollars. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for those documents to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Peter Brown 
: They explained it at select committee if that member had been there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please Mr Brown if you wish to remain with us we will hear the point of order in silence. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I wonder whether you could put that leave again because I believe the Labour members may well have just refused to allow those documents to be tabled in Parliament even though the Minister stood up in question time today to say that he welcomes people’s comments on them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The reason why New Zealand First declined leave was obvious. The matter was clearly explained at the select committee to all those with the sense to understand it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I thank the member. The House expressed its view when the leave was put so that is the end of that matter. If there is a new matter by all means raise it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to ask one further question of the Minister the Hon David Parker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: You can ask a supplementary question. There is no problem with that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker as you know we are on allocations and we would like an extra one. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand now. Yes the member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Is there any objection? I am sorry; it has been declined. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you telling the House that that is the end of question time in respect of supplementary questions for the National Party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Excuse me but Mr Brownlee said that he would seek leave because he had a quota. I understand that he is No. 2 in the National Party. If he cannot get past his quota heaven knows who can! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated. That is not a valid point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Which of the two documents produced yesterday should the public believe? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I have said on three occasions the regional break-out is not inconsistent with the longer document but it is a subset of it. I seek leave to table both the draft State highway forecast and the regional break-outs to show that there is no inconsistency. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will be aware that a member cannot seek leave to table the same document twice on the same day. That is what I asked for leave to table. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I think a member can. You could not ask for leave twice but someone else can ask for leave. A member cannot have two goes at it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Standing Order 265(a) refers to the same question being put to the House. Previous Speakers have said that the same question cannot be put to the House if it has already been put on the day as was correctly pointed out by the shadow Leader of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but he will have noted that it is not a question that is being put. It is leave that is being sought. I will put the leave. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents not tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table a raft of letters and a petition to the Minister of Transport requesting this Government to commit to building a four-lane expressway on State Highway 2 in the northern Waikato—something it has repeatedly failed to make even the tiniest commitment to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
National Parks—Establishment 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Has he been advised of any proposals for a new national park? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes. I am advised that the New Zealand Conservation Authority is not considering any proposals for new national parks. However I understand that Paula Bennett MP proposed in the House last night that the Waitakere Ranges should be designated as a national park. Curiously this is in contrast to suggestions that the Department of Conservation continues to grab more and more land and that it needs to keep its hands off additional land—the first from David Carter and the second from Don Brash. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What additional conservation gains would a national park in the Waitakeres achieve over those conferred by the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: None. A national park proposal covering existing conservation land would not address any of the development issues eroding the margins of this iconic west Auckland landscape. The excellent bill introduced by the member Lynne Pillay will address those issues requiring councils to consider the long-term and cumulative effects of proposals they consider under the Resource Management Act. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does the Minister know of any other mechanism that offers greater protection than a national park; if not why is he not offering this level of protection to the 17000-hectare regional park in the Waitakere Ranges? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member was clearly not listening to my previous answer. Although the conservation land that would be in a national park would have the highest protection it would do nothing for the 10000 hectares of the Waitakere Ranges that are held in private hands. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports to the effect that Paula Bennett cleared that with her leader deputy leader or spokesperson before she made that statement or is it the continuation of a party making policy on the hoof because they are a leaderless rabble? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question—asking for reports if any have been seen—is fine; the second part is not. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No nor of course did we hear from Mr John Key the only National Party electorate member from west Auckland. 
Roading—Funding Shortfall 
6.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with his Associate Finance Minister Hon Trevor Mallard’s assurances that the Government will make up the funding shortfall revealed in Transit New Zealand’s 10-year forecast; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It would be more accurate to say that Mr Mallard agreed with the statements that I made in essence to the Finance and Expenditure Committee last Wednesday. 
John Key 
: Is the Government’s commitment one of funding the $685 million shortfall identified yesterday or is it to fund an open cheque to ensure that Transit’s 10-year plan is completed on time irrelevant of the cost? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is committed to the proposals around the 10-year plan. We are looking of course at ways in which we can get greater efficiency and value for money in that. I am fascinated that the National Party is now saying it is not committed to those proposals for Auckland’s roading network. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Does the Minister agree with the Auckland Regional Council’s statement yesterday indicating that one of the challenges in funding Transit New Zealand’s 10-year forecast is the decades of under-investment in the Auckland region’s transport system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In 2005 the value of transport projects under way or just completed in the Auckland region was some $1.35 billion. That contrasts with $130 million in the last year of the previous National Government. They are all wind and no puff. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please sit down. I will inform the Leader of the House that in his absence the decision was made to take a stricter approach to ironical statements. So in future there are to be no ironical statements in questions or in answers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect I do not think you should destroy unconsciously the character of this place because some lily-livered lounge lizards just do not like people talking about them. For goodness’ sake if one goes around the Western World there is some give and take. What is going on here is that members simply cannot take it but they can dish it out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not a point of order as the member knows. I will endeavour to interpret the Standing Orders to enable a free debate in this House but it has been apparent that members do wish a stricter approach to be taken. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With respect I do not believe that the majority of members of Parliament in this House would want you to take that course. Some do but I think if you were to poll the members you would find that the majority want a bit of give and take in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do appreciate the member’s comment on that and I will certainly bear it in mind in my future rulings. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister also make up the shortfall in funding for the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee’s public transport plan which if fully implemented would reduce or delay the need for some of Transit’s roading ambitions and does he agree that the financial assistance rate which funds 100 percent of State highways but only around half of public transport capital expenditure creates serious distortions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not agree on the last point. We are certainly not prepared to write an open cheque for whatever plans the Auckland Regional Council comes up with in respect of subsidisation of local Auckland matters. That includes for example matters such as electrification of the railway system which I do not believe at this stage has been demonstrated to have sufficient benefits in relation to the cost. 
John Key 
: If we are to accept the commitment he just gave to the House which was one of completing Transit’s 10-year plan albeit he gave a caveat by saying he would look to minimise the cost; can he tell us now what ways he would be looking at to minimise the cost if that does not include either building fewer roads or building those roads over a longer period of time? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I also indicated to the select committee last week one of the things we are looking at is the ways in which Transit constructs its tender programme to ensure that there is the maximum level of competition and the maximum capacity for the private sector to take a more creative—at times—approach to the building of roads as opposed to very small contracts that are predetermined in terms of the way in which they are constructed. 
John Key 
: Does he harbour a suspicion that road contractors are engaging in unwarranted price escalation as he seemed to imply at the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week; if not does he think that all of the anticipated price inflation now built into Transit’s new proposals is warranted? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point at this stage I do not have sufficient technical advice to comment. I have been away on somewhat more important business in the last couple of days. On the former point I made no such assertion to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. In a tight labour market given costs driven by things like oil prices it is not unnatural that there has been some cost escalation in the construction sector. 
John Key 
: When he said at the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week that borrowing is possible for transport decongestion but “I would prefer to see that against an assured income stream” does this indicate that any borrowing required to make up the shortfall will result in tolls; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because as I said “I would prefer”. 
Air Force—Air Combat Wing 
7.  
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What is the monthly cost of keeping the Skyhawk and Aermacchi fleet airworthy and ready for sale since Nos 2 14 and 75 squadron were disbanded on 13 December 2001 and how much has been saved as a result of the scrapping of the air combat wing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Pending finalisation of the sales process the current monthly cost is approximately $130000. By contrast the cost of operating the air combat wing including capital charge and overheads was over $16 million a month or $207 million a year. Retaining an air combat wing would have required over $1 billion in capital expenditure and increases in the Defence Force operating baseline of over $1.2 billion over the next 10 years. As the member can see the savings on selling obsolete aircraft that have never been used in a combat situation are considerable and will continue to be. 
Heather Roy 
: Has the Government received any money for the sale of the Skyhawks and Aermacchis which was triumphantly announced on 12 September 2005; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I recall it was leaked rather than announced. The short answer is no the money has not yet been received. But the member and other members of the House will be delighted to know that considerable progress is being made in the sales negotiations. The process through the State Department required to get approval of the State Department has commenced and we have every confidence that that will occur when Congress resumes sometime in March. 
Dianne Yates 
: Given the savings on the air combat force what alternative investment of that money has been made in other areas of the air and defence forces? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The savings I referred to plus of course the unprecedented investment of $3.3 billion in the long-term development plan have enabled the Air Force to purchase two 757s have enabled the progressive upgrading of the C130s and the P3 Orions have enabled the planned purchase of replacement helicopters for the 40-year-old helicopters we inherited from the National Government and have enabled us to purchase seven new ships over the next 2 years for the Navy 321 Pinzgauer vehicles 105 light-armoured vehicles new tactical mobile radio equipment and much else besides. 
Heather Roy 
: How many Skyhawks and how many Aermacchis have already been shipped to the United States following Minister Burton’s announcement on 12 September 2005 that: “Both fleets will be progressively shipped to the US over the next few months.”; if none why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Because it would be naive to expect to ship those planes until they are paid for. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports were received by the Government on the utility of the A4s which led to the decision to scrap the force? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The former National Government was advised as far back as 1998 in an air combat review that was chaired by Sir Wilson Whineray that the A4 Skyhawks were a marginal asset to any multinational coalition and that their operational ability would continue to decline. Advice since then has confirmed that finding. 
Heather Roy 
: Did the Minister ask the Prime Minister to seek assistance from the head of the US Central Command General John Abizaid when she meets with him today with the disposal of the Skyhawks and Aermacchis or is his Government not the very very good friends with the United States that the Prime Minister claims? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It would be very naive to expect a general—even a four-star general in the American armed forces—to try to instruct Congress how it should proceed with its approval process. I am amazed at that question. 
Heather Roy 
: Will the Minister confirm that the Air Force Beechcraft King Airs have been grounded for a month and could he please tell the House what aircraft the Air Force under Labour has left to fly? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I flew in a King Air last Saturday. 
Universal College of Learning—Chief Executives 
8.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Did the ministerial appointees to the council of the Universal College of Learning approve the appointment of two full-time chief executives in December 2005; if so what were their reasons for this unprecedented decision? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I am advised that the answer is no. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the reasons the Universal College of Learning in Palmerston North has given for having two chief executives are that it needs one of them to be in Wellington every week “negotiating our future” and that the chairman says his management now has to weave their way through a set of unpredictable and ridiculous regulations churned out by ideologues in Wellington? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I am not in part because the college does not have two chief executives. It has a chief executive. When he is absent on other duties which include of course looking after the situation in Wanganui which is quite a pressing one for the college the college has decided to make it clear that Clare Crawley is the acting chief executive in that situation—a situation that I might say I am not entirely unused to myself. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Government intend to extend this policy of one chief executive for the price of two to all Crown entities where chief executives are struggling to implement bad Government policies? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think it is important that any organisation that is going to be credible in the public eye has one effective outstanding chief executive or leader and I recommend it to the members opposite. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Universal College Of Learning believes that it has two chief executives even if he does not believe it; and what proportion of the $3 million bail-out to the college 2 weeks ago or of the 5 percent fee increase for all students is going towards paying the salaries of two chief executives when there used to be one? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If I may I quote the council resolution of the Universal College of Learning to assist the member—the second part of the resolution: “Where the chief executive is absent from duty from whatever cause arising from time to time all or any of the functions powers and duties of the chief executive or pertaining to the position of the chief executive may be exercised and performed by Clare Crawley for the time being as acting chief executive.” 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that Paul McElroy the chief executive has described the two positions as “joint chief executives” and that Mr McElroy has opened an office in Wellington full time when his polytechnic is in Palmerston North; and can he confirm that this is a sweetheart deal for the chief executive of the Universal College of Learning—who is a very close friend of senior Ministers in his Government—whereby Mr McElroy is now paid to sit in Wellington doing nothing while another chief executive is paid to sit in Palmerston North running a polytech? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can certainly confirm that he is not a very close friend of mine. I actually had to find out what his name was when I was told about the question today. I repeat that there is one chief executive— 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s rubbish! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Pardon? 
Hon Bill English 
: That’s rubbish! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What is? 
Hon Bill English 
: You just signed off a bail-out deal with him. How come you didn’t know his name? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and he has not been in my office for weeks. I am afraid not Madam Speaker. The member is getting totally confused on that matter. I invite him to present any evidence in that particular regard. It is true to say that the previous Government’s policy of a total “bums on seats; don’t mind about the quality approach to polytechnics” got a number of polytechnics into financial difficulties. The guilty man is sitting right over there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question the Hon Bill English. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can that be in order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have called the question but someone else who obviously does not want to stay in the Chamber too long called out after I called. So would the Hon Bill English please address his supplementary question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The reason why I said “How can that— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not know it was you I am sorry. I just heard someone call. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Regardless the comment that was made at the end of Dr Cullen’s answer was completely out of order with your previous rulings about Standing Order 377 with regard to ministerial answers. I was asking whether you were ever going to bother enforcing the Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: As a former Minister with some experience in this area I can make it clear to the House that Dr McElroy has done an enormous amount of work in Wanganui and in the Wairarapa in order to clean up the mess that was left by the previous Government’s policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Thank you but that was not relevant to the point of order that has been raised. I listened to the debate that was going on and lots of ironical comments were being tossed across the Chamber in that particular debate. I therefore rule that we should proceed with the supplementary question of the Hon Bill English. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm what he has just said— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I just heard a comment from Mr Brownlee that the Speaker was one-sided. If that was correct Mr Brownlee I want you to withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is most certainly not correct Madam Speaker. I was speaking to my colleague here on another matter. It was a rare occasion that the House was so quiet and I do not appreciate being named like that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I asked you to withdraw and apologise if in fact you had said it. There was no need after you had given your explanation to add that other comment— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
:—so I thank you for your explanation. Would the Hon Bill English please ask his supplementary question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm a couple of things he has just said to the House: first that he has written out a cheque for $3 million of public money to a man he has never met and whose name he does not know and second despite the fact that the Universal College of Learning is paying Paul McElroy full time as a chief executive to be in Wellington Mr McElroy has never met the Minister for Tertiary Education? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are many people in the tertiary education sector I have yet to meet. There are a rather large number of them—probably too many as a result of previous policies. Firstly I do not write out cheques. Secondly the payment is to the Universal College of Learning not to an individual within it. It is possible that National Governments used to write personal cheques to chief executives—to their mates. Maybe that is how Dr Wetere did rather well at Te Wananga o Aotearoa but it is not my practice as Minister for Tertiary Education. 
United Nations Commission on Human Rights—Guantanamo Bay  Detention Centre 
9.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will he be calling for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre following the recent United Nations Commission on Human Rights’ report issued 15 February 2006 which highlights the systematic practice of torture and the indefinite detention without trial of detainees; if not why not? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 For many years now New Zealand has condemned human rights abuses where they have been proven to have occurred. The issue therefore is not the existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre but rather the treatment of detainees there or elsewhere. The Government’s position is that all persons detained at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere should be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights law. 
Keith Locke 
: Why is the Government such a wimp as to not call for the Guantanamo Bay facility to be closed when the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows better in the light of the discussions that have been going on in this House than to use the word “wimp”. Would the member please just ask the question straight; otherwise we will have continual points of order. 
Keith Locke 
: Why is the Government lacking such fortitude as to not call for the Guantanamo— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That term has been ruled out on many occasions. That member has been here for some time and I think it is about time that he caught up with the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not in this context rule that out of order. “Fortitude” is perfectly all right. Has the member finished his question? 
Keith Locke 
: Why is the Government lacking such fortitude as to not call for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility when the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan did so last week and when the European Parliament voted 80 to 1 last week for closure insisting to the US administration that: “Every prisoner should be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and tried without delay in a fair and public hearing by a competent independent tribunal.”? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I think I answered that question substantially in the primary answer but I will say that we have taken several opportunities to publicly underline the fundamental importance of respecting all human rights and fundamental freedoms including in the context of countering terrorism. I note also that the United States Government has provided an interim response to the Special Rapporteur on Mercenaries group on Guantanamo Bay and we would encourage it to carry on the dialogue. It is a fact that for years we have railed against human rights abuses particularly against events during the regime of Pol Pot. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the Minister say that the question of closing Guantanamo Bay is separate from what goes on within it when the  
Dominion Post 
 stated on Monday: “It has been clear to most since the camp was set up that it was nothing more than an attempt to get around applying to others the protections against the power of the state that American citizens demand for themselves.”; and when the Government does as the Minister says speak out on human rights abuses torture and detention in Zimbabwe Burma and elsewhere why will he not stand up to the United States as the world’s superpower when it sets such a bad example? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I will just remind the member that this is question time. It is not the time for debate. So would the member confine his questions and ask them tersely without long speeches being attached to them. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: There is an interim report to the Special Rapporteur on Mercenaries group from the United States. There is a dialogue going on which we encourage. But I want to say this very clearly. The day I set my guidelines based on the views of the  
Dominion Post 
 I will be giving up politics. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Government ask the US Government and visiting General John Abizaid to show the same moral leadership in the world that the Minister has said this week that New Zealand shows in the Pacific and tell the US that it cannot continue with the torture which as stated in the UN report includes beating drugging force-feeding the use of dogs exposure to extreme temperatures sleep deprivation inducing stress and prolonged isolation? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Let me say that I do share Mr Locke’s view that in the Pacific New Zealand is a shining light. I just want to say it is not appropriate for me or I believe for any other member of Parliament to lecture to a highly placed military person on a matter in which he has no authority or control and when the responsibility lies with someone else. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister said in his answer that the visiting general does not have any power or control. In fact General John Abizaid is in charge of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. That is a point of debate and information. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table a map of the world showing where Iraq and Guantanamo Bay are. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table documentation showing that General John Abizaid is in charge of troops in Afghanistan which does produce prisoners for Guantanamo Bay. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the UN Commission on Human Rights’ report on Guantanamo Bay. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection; it will not be tabled. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the motion passed in the European Parliament last Thursday calling for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which New Zealand is a signatory to and should be advocating. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One is a document in support of Pol Pot and the other is in support of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Both are by one Keith Locke now Keith Locke MP. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Prisons—Regional Prison Costs 
10.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What were the original costs approved by Cabinet for each of the four new regional prisons and does he agree with then Department of Corrections Chief Executive Mark Byers who said in October 2002 that the four new prisons would reportedly “cost about $400 million to house 1400 inmates”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Cabinet approved the Regional Prisons Development Project in a series of decisions over a number of years. A full and final cost was confirmed last year for the first time. 
Simon Power 
: Has the Minister sought an explanation from his officials regarding the $57 million omission from earlier estimates for prisons in Springhill and Otago; and what specific maintenance will be deferred in existing prisons? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The $50 million that the member is referring to was there because designs could not be finalised until consultation with the community had been completed. Omissions in design relating to about $50 million were identified for the finalisation of designs following that process. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree that going from $285714 per prison bed to $549043 per prison bed is a shameful illustration of the Government’s incompetence; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The building of prisons is unlike the building of houses. The facilities are not the average home; they require the highest level of security in order to keep the public safe. The reality is that the economy has been growing strongly and the costs of steel and concrete have increased considerably. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister now guarantee that his department will not spend $1 extra over the $890 million total on the four new regional prisons; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The costs have been reviewed both internally and by independent quantity surveyors. Based on that work the department believes that it can complete construction on time and within budget. 
Simon Power 
: Will the Government or the Minister be considering greater use of public-private partnerships in an attempt to use taxpayers’ funds more efficiently and more effectively; if not why on earth not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Private prisons have proven not to be less costly. The previous National Government considered whether the Northland prison project should be constructed and managed by the private sector. It rejected that proposal which was the last sensible decision that the National Government ever made. 
Ron Mark 
: Could the cost of constructing prisons not be made immediately cheaper if instead of funding the purchase of new real estate—as the Government has done at Kaharoa where it has spent approximately $2 million buying 19 hectares for a youth prison—it simply used land that is currently in its ownership with the Department of Corrections or the Ministry of Defence end of story? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The Department of Corrections like any other Government department or private organisation has to go through an extensive resource consent process. It endeavours to find the best place to construct the right facilities. We do that at the least cost available. 
Year of the Veteran—Funding 
11.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Veterans' Affairs 
: What funding has he made available to local community groups to enable them to undertake projects and activities to celebrate the Year of the Veteran? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Veterans’ Affairs 
: I have established a $1 million contestable fund called the Year of the Veteran Community Grants Fund to assist community groups and local authorities to undertake locally focused activities. Submissions to the fund will be assessed by a ministerial working party that consists of membership from Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand the New Zealand Defence Force and the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What is the purpose of the Year of the Veteran Community Grants Fund? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The purpose of the Year of the Veteran Community Grants Fund will be to assist community groups and local authorities to refurbish and redecorate local war memorials and honours rolls to hold local veterans’ appreciation days to collect veterans’ stories to hold local concerts and exhibitions and the like. In addition I am making $200000 available to assist with national-level events for the Year of the Veteran. 
Judith Collins 
: In the light of the fact that 2006 is the Year of the Veteran will the Minister support the call of the National Party and the Maori Party and the petition of Harvey Dalton and 540 others for New Zealand - born war hero Nancy Wake finally to be honoured by her country or does she agree with her colleague Jim Anderton that: “being famous and born in New Zealand are not of themselves sufficient reasons for her to be considered for that honour however heroic her history.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I understand that a submission for such recognition has been made to the relevant Cabinet committee and I know that that will be given fair consideration at the appropriate time. 
Tariana Turia 
: At what point will the Government fund the health needs of veterans who fought in Viet Nam and of their families and compensate them so that they will have something to celebrate too in the Year of the Veteran? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have been advised that a report is due to be completed by the chair of the joint working-group on Agent Orange soon and it would be inappropriate for me to comment prior to the release of that report. After its completion it would be appropriate to direct any such questions to the Minister of Defence. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a press release from my colleague Sandra Goudie MP for Coromandel asking for Nancy Wake to be honoured. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of my letter to the Prime Minister requesting that Nancy Wake be honoured and the reply from her office. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of an article published in  
Justices Quarterly 
 in December 2005 entitled “Why no gong for Nancy?”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of an Internet article from the “Heroes” page of the New Zealand Edge website entitled “Warriors: Nancy Wake”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of a letter from the Hon Jim Anderton to the Rev. Harvey Dalton dated 20 February 2006 in which he— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to list for the House the honours awarded to Nancy Wake by the people and Governments of the following countries: Great Britain France the United States of America and Australia. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Kyoto Protocol—Deforestation 
12.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Will the Government drop the policy of a 10 percent cap on deforestation; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No decision has been made. We have 15 comprehensive work programmes to be reported back to Cabinet within a month. As I have said previously I am not prepared to pre-empt decisions on those. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it any wonder that New Zealand’s fourth-largest export industry the forestry industry is in crisis and that Weyerhaeuser which is one of the world’s largest forestry companies announced last week that it will abandon New Zealand and sell all its forests when this Government’s Kyoto policies involve taking billions of dollars of carbon credits from those forest owners but through the 10 percent cap on deforestation making them responsible for the debits; why does he not just biff this stupid policy in the same bin that the carbon tax and the “fart tax” went into? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I said last week there is no doubt that the overall state of the forestry industry is more attributable to the state of international commodity prices and the level of our dollar than it is to Kyoto policies. But having said that I point out that the Government has clearly signalled that addressing both deforestation and new forest planting is amongst its priorities for future climate change policy. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What guarantees can the Minister give that the Government’s intended policy settings will lead to afforestation and investment not deforestation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I have already indicated we have signalled that we are concerned to address both deforestation and new plantings as part of our future climate change policy. I would say that these issues are both complex and interlinked with other broader climate change policy and I do not think we should make decisions on individual parts of that policy without considering the full suite of policies. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Which report is correct from Tuesday’s crisis meeting of the forest sector with the Government: the report by Jim Anderton that the meeting was positive and that talks between the forestry industry and the Government would be resumed or the report by the forestry industry that Mr Anderton had not accurately reflected what occurred at the meeting and that there would be no resumption of talks with officials; who is telling the truth? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There would be no stronger supporter of the forestry industry including the forest-processing industry in New Zealand than the Hon Jim Anderton. He has shown that over many years. He knows as I do that the forestry sector has raised concerns about the deforestation cap issues but he agrees with me that we cannot resolve these issues without resolving the wider climate change issues at the same time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister stand by his answer yesterday: “Climate change policy is in a state of flux” noting that the  
Oxford English Dictionary 
 defines “flux” as “constant change and instability”; if so how can those in the forest sector the energy sector and the agricultural sector make any sorts of investment decisions when in his own words the policy is in constant change and instability? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What I said yesterday was that climate change policy worldwide is in a state of flux in no small part because there is not unanimity worldwide as to what is the appropriate policy way to address it. That statement is true. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the  
Hansard 
 of yesterday in which Mr Parker said that it was the New Zealand policy that was in a state of flux. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How is the 10 percent cap on deforestation fair when the Government’s own State-owned enterprise Landcorp is proposing to clear 25000 hectares of forest in the Waikato and replace it with dairy farms; and how can he expect anybody else to take a lead from the Government when it is in fact leading the deforestation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Policy settings as they are currently allow State-owned enterprises and departments like the one the member mentioned to take their own decisions without interference from me. 
Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time. 
New Zealand Sign Language Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Sign Language Bill be now read a second time 
. The purpose of this bill is to promote and maintain the use of New Zealand Sign Language. To achieve this the bill declares New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of our country. It provides for the use of New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings and it enables the making of regulations to set competency standards for the interpretation in legal proceedings of New Zealand Sign Language. The bill sets out principles to guide Government departments in the use they should make of New Zealand Sign Language. 
New Zealand Sign Language is used by approximately 28000 people. An estimated 7000 of those people are deaf. It is a language with a unique linguistic structure and it includes signs that express concepts from Maori culture. Deaf Maori describe New Zealand Sign Language as a tool for accessing their Maori language and culture. Deaf people comprise a distinct and dynamic cultural group. New Zealand Sign Language is central to their culture with its rich body of distinct customs mannerisms art humour and history. 
This bill is necessary. Consultation with the Deaf community has highlighted that a lack of recognition of New Zealand Sign Language leads to serious barriers to information and services which can result in injustices for deaf people. The bill will improve Deaf people’s access to information and services that hearing people take for granted and it will provide acknowledgment of Deaf people’s language and culture. 
The bill had its first reading on 22 June 2004 and it was then referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee which reported back to the House on 18 July last year. Before I outline the select committee’s findings I would like to acknowledge and commend the committee’s efforts to make the select committee process inclusive of Deaf people. For the first time videotape submissions of Deaf people using New Zealand Sign Language were accepted in place of written submissions because for many Deaf people English is a second language. New Zealand Sign Language interpreters were accommodated throughout the select committee’s processes. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee’s effective accommodation of Deaf people has set precedents for the use of New Zealand Sign Language in our parliamentary processes. I thank all members of the select committee and the clerks for their work. The committee received 189 written submissions on the bill. It also received six videotapes that recorded a further 104 Deaf people signing their individual submission on the bill. That means that a total of 293 people gave individual submissions. The majority of those submissions were from Deaf people including some Deaf school students and other people with an interest in the Deaf community. No submission opposed the bill. Many submitters expressed celebration at having their language recognised after years of stigmatisation and oppression. 
The select committee recommends a number of changes to the bill all of which I support. Although the changes are mainly minor and technical in nature they strengthen and clarify the bill. I would like to make particular comment on a few of those changes. The select committee recommends changes that the definitions of “interpretation” and “translation” be more closely aligned with the definition of those terms in the Maori Language Act 1987. Those definitions would now relate only to New Zealand Sign Language interpretations and translations into and from English and Maori. This will help to ensure that interpretations and translations may be practically implemented in courts. 
Some submitters asked that the bill provide a definition of a “competent interpreter”. The select committee noted that an interdepartmental working-group is looking into this area. I can advise the House that a group that includes interpreters Deaf people and Government officials will be reporting back to Cabinet shortly. The group will propose minimum standards for New Zealand Sign Language interpreters in courts and that the Ministry of Justice be responsible for the implementation of the proposed minimum standards. 
The select committee heard stories in which deaf people experienced problems in gaining access to competent interpreters in wider justice settings such as in police interviews in corrections settings and in gaining legal representation. The select committee considered that issue carefully. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides a statutory basis for a Deaf person to access New Zealand Sign Language interpretations in connection with criminal proceedings. Therefore the select committee considers that the New Zealand Sign Language Bill does not need amending to confer a statutory right to have interpreters provided at all stages of the criminal justice process. However the select committee considers that further work is needed to ensure that competency standards for interpreters are available for those who work in the wider justice setting. The committee recommends that this further work should be undertaken by the working-group I referred to earlier and that it should be expanded to include the rest of the justice sector. I support this move and have asked officials to make arrangements for this wider membership particularly from both police and Corrections. 
The select committee proposes a new clause 10B to clarify that the bill does not extend rights to the Deaf community beyond those already provided in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It does not limit those rights in any way. 
The committee noted that it is important for departments to engage directly with appropriate representatives of the Deaf community when consulting on matters relating to New Zealand Sign Language. To address this it has proposed a new subclause (1A) to clause 9 which provides that Government departments must endeavour to consult with people or organisations that the chief executive contends are representative of the interests of the Deaf community. 
The bill’s wider objectives include the promotion and maintenance of New Zealand Sign Language. The select committee considered that monitoring the effectiveness of this bill against its stated purpose should be the next step in identifying further work that may be needed to achieve its wider goals. To support this it has proposed a new clause 10A to provide that the responsible Minister must require a report on the operation of the Act and whether any amendments to its scope and contents are necessary or desirable. That report would be required as soon as practicable after 1 March 2009 approximately 3 years after the bill is enacted. The new clause also states that representatives of the Deaf community must be consulted in this review. 
A major theme in the submissions was the pervasive daily barriers experienced by deaf people. Submitters described problems in accessing information and services that hearing people take for granted in education employment health public information and marae family and whanau events. Providing for the use of New Zealand Sign Language in education settings was seen as a particular priority area. The problems of deaf people’s access to Government services and information are addressed by the principles of the bill and related work streams. This includes work to develop long-term plans for the removal of language barriers in education employment health and broadcasting. 
The work on the New Zealand Sign Language Bill provides a platform for understanding the inequalities that deaf people face. In a model society we would provide equal participation for deaf people immediately. The New Zealand Sign Language Bill is a substantial first step towards achieving our vision of an inclusive society. The next steps include developing the capacity of the interpretive workforce beginning with those in the justice system. The recommended review of the Act after approximately 3 years will also provide a means for monitoring implementation of the bill. 
The passage of this bill through the House is very timely. Members of the Deaf community have been seeking recognition of their language for 20 years. 
In conclusion I reiterate that this bill is a monumental milestone for the Deaf community. It gives due honour and respect to Deaf people and to their unique language and culture. By declaring New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of our country this House is acknowledging the Deaf community’s presence its rights and its equal value in our society. I commend the progress of this bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The National Party supports the second reading of this historic New Zealand Sign Language Bill and we congratulate all those who have worked so hard to achieve it and to bring it about today. Although I was not personally on the Justice and Electoral Committee I understand that the 195 submitters—although I hear from the Minister for Disability Issues Ruth Dyson that the total figure was actually 293 submitters—all supported this bill. 
The genesis of this landmark bill goes back a long way but the Deaf community in particular must be congratulated on the long hard and consistent work it has done over more than 20 years to bring New Zealand Sign Language to being recognised as an official language in New Zealand. People have asked what is an official language. At present New Zealand has two official languages: English and Maori. Maori is official because it has been declared so by statute and English is official by convention dating back many hundreds of years into English law. 
It is important to acknowledge that New Zealand Sign Language is a wholly visual language with its own grammatical structure which is different from that of English and Maori. It is distinct and it differs from the sign language of other countries such as Australia America Canada and Britain. I am also told that a deaf person fluent in Maori who has no English and a deaf person fluent in English who has no Maori may equally learn and communicate with New Zealand Sign Language. 
The modern history leading up to the second reading of this bill has been more rapid than the long history of obstacles that deaf people in New Zealand have had to confront since the mid-1850s and probably long before that as well. As I noted in the first reading of this bill the Deaf Association of New Zealand has provided fascinating information demonstrating how British sign language was introduced to New Zealand back in the 1880s by deaf migrants pupils attending schools for the deaf and tutors working here in New Zealand. But how extremely difficult it must have been if one was a deaf person or child living and working in isolation out on a farm—or perhaps on a whaling station as my forebears were—to have access to those facilities. There was certainly no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in those days; in fact for the majority of New Zealanders there was simply no access to services whatsoever. 
 In 1878 the very insightful South Island MP William Rolleston introduced a bill to fund an institution for the deaf. By the 1880s school leavers from Sumner and overseas formed deaf communities. School signs and the British sign language combined to form the New Zealand Sign Language which has since evolved as a sign language absolutely unique to New Zealand. In 1904 an Act of Parliament meant that parents had to enrol their deaf children at Sumner but signing was forbidden. However children signed in dormitories and developed their own signs. So it was from these very early beginnings that I understand the New Zealand Sign Language has evolved and developed. 
In 1983 the Deaf Association of New Zealand was persuaded by its hearing president to accept signed English as the official sign language in the belief that anything else would prevent deaf children from having any kind of access to manual communication. From there work carried on so that by 1992 a New Zealand Sign Language dictionary was started at Victoria University. In the latter part of that year the New Zealand Sign Language Tutors Association was started. In 1997  
A Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language 
 was published. That was a major milestone and contribution. 
So today we get one step closer to the recognition of New Zealand Sign Language becoming an official language. At this stage the bill states that official status does not create any legally enforceable right except in respect of legal proceedings. My colleague Sandra Goudie spoke vividly in the first reading debate of the huge misunderstandings that had arisen when deaf drivers were apprehended by the police and communication virtually broke down until sign language came to the rescue. Dr Richard Worth another of my eminent National colleagues will also emphasise the profound difference to the fair working of the courts when sign language was made an official and an enforceable right in legal proceedings. 
I absolutely endorse clause 10A which requires a review of operations of the Act as soon as practicable after 1 March 2009. This requires a report on firstly the operation of this Act since its commencement and secondly on whether any amendments to the scope and contents of the Act are necessary or desirable. The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended the inclusion of “an explicit statement to confirm that aside from enforcing the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in any legal proceedings the bill does not extend rights to the Deaf community beyond those already provided in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and does not limit their rights in any way.” Again I understand that clause 10B covers this effectively by stating: “Nothing in this Act affects the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.” 
I am concerned however that there was no fiscal impact report on the bill. I do see it as inevitable and in fact as right and proper that in time there will be further provisions for expansion of signing services into health education and other areas. It is important therefore that the fiscal implications of this bill are taken seriously. The select committee was told that at this stage further spending would have to come from Vote Justice baseline funding. It is therefore vital and fundamental that Vote Justice is adequately prepared and that in the future if changes are made they are well-thought-out so they can be sustained effectively into the future. 
This bill has had the consistent backing and support of the Deaf community. We now learn that the 293 submissions to this bill were all supportive of it. It is with great pleasure that National supports its second reading. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 This is an important day for the New Zealand Deaf community as it marks a further step towards the recognition of New Zealand Sign Language as an official language. That is important in terms of the symbolism it represents but more so on a practical level it provides members of the Deaf community with the confidence to assert their right to communicate in their own language. It is not a prescriptive law but rather an enabling one and that has been the approach of this Government. 
I want to pay personal tribute to the Hon Ruth Dyson in that regard. As Minister for Disability Issues she has worked closely with different communities to ensure that their needs are identified and addressed. In a debate such as this where none of us have the ability to communicate as part of a particular community we can do so only on behalf of those members of the community we have met. Having had the pleasure of sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee that considered this bill I know that the Minister’s own personal commitment is both recognised and honoured by the community. The Minister can personally feel proud of what she has achieved and know that the gratitude of the community is both genuine and heartfelt. 
As a Parliament too we can take pride in adopting a non-partisan approach to this legislation. It means a lot to the community that this bill is passing without dissent. 
 I want to pay tribute to two very special people—David and Rachel McKee who head the Deaf Studies Research Unit of Victoria University. At the select committee not only did they provide us with a real insight into the Deaf community but they gave us some training so that we could greet submitters welcome them to the committee and thank them for their submission. I know that the submitters were genuinely appreciative of our efforts in that regard and given that this was probably the first time that many of them had come to Parliament we were pleased we were able to be welcoming to them. 
I also thank the interpreters. Not only did we have the challenge of hearings in Wellington; we also had the added challenge of distance submissions requiring interpreters to be used in other centres with questions and answers being interpreted in the select committee room at the same time. 
All submissions as we have heard were in support of the bill. As a result of the submissions and the excellent support of the advisers from the Office for Disability Issues and the Ministry of Social Development we made some minor amendments that have strengthened the legislation without detracting from its original purpose which is to promote and maintain the use of New Zealand Sign Language. The Minister has identified the changes that we made so I will not go through those here. But I do want to acknowledge that we received many helpful submissions—or advice really—from a range of departments: the Ministry of Health the Ministry of Justice the Department of Corrections the New Zealand Police the Ministry of Education and the Law Commission. What those indicated to me was a widespread understanding within the Government sector of the barriers faced by deaf people when accessing services and information. That leaves me very confident that the interdepartmental working-groups will be working hard to remove the language barriers they know exist especially in the areas of health education employment and public broadcasting. 
I conclude by thanking everyone who made submissions. Parliament’s task is made easier when such overwhelming support for a measure is evidenced in this way. I felt privileged to sit on the select committee and I am pleased that the House itself has made provision for this bill’s second reading to be made accessible to the Deaf community through agreed hours and interpretation services. As the Minister said today is a cause for celebration and I too commend the bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 For the benefit of those who are not present in this debating chamber and who are not watching what is occurring on television I say that there is at the moment a remarkable sight in this House. What we are saying in the speeches that as politicians we are making is being translated into sign language. For those of us watching this event it is truly remarkable to think that oral language can be translated in such a vivid visual way. 
Dr Hutchison has said on behalf of the National Party that we support this bill and we have supported it from the outset. The reporting back of this bill for its second reading is a splendid occasion and an exciting one. Of course that is not the end of its journey. There are further parliamentary steps that must be taken but the second reading is certainly one of the great steps. Lying ahead in the parliamentary process are first the Committee stage of this bill which we in National are confident will have a very satisfactory outcome and then finally the last stage the third reading following which the Governor-General will sign this bill and it will become part of the laws of New Zealand. 
We do well I think to remind ourselves of the exact extent of hearing impairment in the community. According to a New Zealand disability survey that was carried out by Statistics New Zealand approximately 223500 adults were either deaf or had a hearing limitation that could not be eliminated by a hearing aid in 2001. Ninety-five percent of adults who were deaf or who had a hearing limitation were living in dwelling houses. The remaining 5 percent were living in residential facilities. Sadly an estimated 18300 children were deaf or had a hearing limitation that was not then being corrected. Nine percent of those children used some type of equipment for hearing such as a hearing aid or an FM system. To complete the statistical picture two-thirds of the partially or completely deaf adults in households used some type of special equipment or service related to their disability. The most common types reported were a hearing aid and a volume-control telephone. 
Some 7700 partially or completely deaf adults living in households used New Zealand Sign Language and/or Signed English. Others in other places have made comments about the make-up of that very distinct and dynamic cultural group which represents the Deaf community. Of course New Zealand Sign Language is central to the culture of that community. Deaf culture like all cultures brings together a rich body of distinct customs mannerisms art humour and history as well as language. New Zealand Sign Language is a real language. It has its own grammatical structure and it is different from that of either English or Maori. As we can see vividly illustrated before us now it is not a collection of gestures or mime. It is like all other languages in that it can communicate a full range of concepts. 
Sign languages are not universal. I suppose some of us regard that as surprising because would it not be a great outcome if there were a universality in sign languages? But that is not so. Of course it means that New Zealand Sign Language is unique to our country. It is not used anywhere else in the world. It is also unique because it includes signs that express concepts from Maori culture. 
I would like to say something very briefly about the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee because that select committee as Dr Hutchison has said was privileged to hear a wide range of submissions across a broad grouping of topics. Although it is right to say that what Parliament is doing has in some sense a real symbolism about it in creating New Zealand Sign Language as an official language we are in fact concerned with much more than symbolism. 
From a legal perspective reflecting my background as a lawyer I was particularly interested in what this bill means when looked at in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides a statutory basis for a person who is deaf to access a New Zealand Sign Language interpreter in connection with criminal proceedings. What perhaps many of us have not sufficiently thought about and the Law Commission has brought this to our attention is that deaf people are disproportionately represented in the criminal statistics. Section 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act confirms the right of persons charged with an offence who cannot understand or speak the language used in court to have the free assistance of an interpreter. The provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would require that a person who is deaf and who is involved in any processes that have a bearing on the resolution of proceedings has access to a New Zealand Sign Language interpreter. The situation I am talking about is where a person is charged with an offence and is defending himself or herself either unaided or with the assistance of a lawyer in a court. 
But there are wider implications surrounding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That legislation provides sufficiently broad rights to ensure that a person who is deaf and who has been arrested or detained is not disadvantaged or discriminated against on the grounds of his or her disability during the police interview process. Others have spoken of examples of situations where that becomes critically necessary. If people are to have the reality of the rights given by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act they need to be able to communicate clearly to the police or the other investigating authorities their position their view of events and their innocence. 
Dr Hutchison also spoke about aspects relating to the resourcing of this legislation. There is no doubt that if it is to work well we will need more Sign Language interpreters. I do not doubt that that will be a major task because the subtlety and significance of first of all absorbing the language and then interpreting it are skills that not many people will have. So I do not doubt that funding will be required that a commitment will have to be made and that volunteers will have to be sought so that this legislation will on the exciting day on which it becomes an Act have life breathed into it. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. New Zealand First appreciates that this bill will give New Zealand Sign Language official recognition. As we have heard from the previous speaker New Zealand Sign Language is a language in its own right and it is to have equal status to spoken languages. Our New Zealand Sign Language differs from that of other countries just as spoken languages do. It is unique. 
I was most interested to read that in 1997 the first  
Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language 
 was published—a heavy hardback book containing over 4000 signs and costing around $100. That publication was considered to be a milestone. Five years on the editor Graeme Kennedy produced the concise version—a compact soft-cover book with 2500 of the most commonly used signs—for about $60. This book was more accessible. 
Today is another landmark day as this bill is a step closer to becoming law. New Zealand First believes that this bill is a significant step forward in achieving the vision of a fully inclusive New Zealand as is outlined in the Disability Strategy. The New Zealand Sign Language Bill represents a significant step forward for the Deaf community. The Deaf community and the Deaf Association have been seeking official recognition of their language for a long time. New Zealand First pays tribute to the dedication the commitment and the leadership of all of those involved in promoting and advancing this important bill. 
As the Minister has pointed out the immediate effect of the bill will be to provide people with the right to use sign language in any legal proceedings. That is an important component of access to justice. 
The demand for interpreters will be increased with the passing of this legislation in much the same way as occurred with the official recognition of the Maori language. We hope that sufficient people have been trained to ensure that this service can be provided. Now that sign language will be given official recognition there must be adequate resourcing to ensure that competent interpreters are available as and when required. Unless a high level of competency can be guaranteed there is a significant risk that the dialogue will not be relayed correctly. 
It is very clear that differing standards of interpretation are needed according to the context of the interpretation. The skills required to interpret effectively in an educational environment would be considerably different from those required in a medical or legal environment. We are very aware that there is possibly a shortage of competent interpreters in New Zealand as is the case overseas. Most interpreters would currently have an employer and no doubt all the work they can handle. The recruitment and training of interpreters will now be a priority. We can only hope that this issue is being worked upon at the very highest levels. Commitment is essential. 
New Zealand First is pleased with the introduction of the Diploma in Sign Language Interpreting offered by the Auckland University of Technology. It is the only course designed for sign language interpreting at this point in time. The starting date for that course is February 2006 and it is to be hoped that many students enrol. The successful completion of that 2-year full-time programme must be a prerequisite for employment because the role of the interpreter is very specialised with responsibility for facilitating and overall being an essential part of the communication between the deaf and the hearing people in society. Signing relies on a very accurate exchange of information that is often carried out at demanding rates with complex concepts being communicated. We look forward to a steady stream of graduates from that course. 
As many as one in five New Zealanders have been identified as having a permanent hearing impairment or disability. For many New Zealanders with a hearing disability communication and access to information is a key issue. All too often people are not able to participate in society because they cannot get the information they need in the form they need it in. The Deaf community must be equipped with the resources necessary to enable them to participate fully within the community. 
I was very pleased to read on the Wellington City Council website that the council offers a sign language interpreting service to improve communication between the Deaf community and the council. We hope that other councils have followed or will follow that example. 
We will be very interested in the review of this legislation to be carried out after 1 March 2009 as outlined in the bill. A great deal must be done to ensure that the Deaf community gains the ability to participate fully in society. It will be very timely to review progress at this time. 
New Zealand First congratulates the Deaf community on all the work it has done to ensure that this legislation has reached Parliament. It is with great pleasure that New Zealand First supports this bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I say how delighted we are to see this bill finally come back before the House. It seems like a long time since we first debated this bill back in June 2004 nearly 2 whole years ago. I am sorry that the processes of Parliament and the election have intervened to slow it down so seriously. I am just glad that this Government is sufficiently committed to disability issues to make sure that we are now dealing with this bill as a matter of priority. At least we are getting there. As of 1 March 2006 New Zealand Sign Language will be an official language of this country. 
I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee that dealt with this bill and I must first of all say what a privilege it was to be part of a process in which all proceedings were interpreted between New Zealand Sign Language and English and as an MP to begin to get even the smallest of insights into the language and culture of the Deaf community in New Zealand. I had had virtually no contact with New Zealand Sign Language prior to that experience so it was a steep learning curve. Apart from anything else I now have enormous respect for the skills and stamina of any New Zealand Sign Language interpreters. Select committee processes are long and difficult anyway—to have to cope with and interpret for submitters officials and politicians must have been quite something. 
A wide range of issues were canvassed during our consideration of this bill and a number of amendments have been developed in response to submitters’ concerns—although as with any legislation it was impossible to accommodate everyone’s hopes and dreams. Above all submitters revealed the deep need that exists for quality interpreting services in all aspects of the interface between the Government and citizens not just as part of formal legal proceedings. People came to the select committee to talk to us about for example what it is like to deal with the mental health system when one is profoundly deaf and has no way of communicating clearly with doctors and nurses. We heard of problems with police and prisons education and welfare. Deaf people face enormous barriers when trying to access services and information from Government departments much less when they get caught up with the State as for example a patient or prisoner. 
I acknowledge that even though this bill is about to go through there is still an enormously long way to go. Like others I am pleased that interdepartmental working-groups are working to improve performance in four key areas: health education employment and public broadcasting. 
The committee also asked that the justice sector be added as a top priority for although this bill as enacted will provide for the use of sign language in legal proceedings there will still be a wide range of gaps at critical junctures even within the justice system—for example when a person is first facing the police or when he or she becomes a prisoner. From my own experience of being on that end of the law I know how hard communication can be even when one is a hearing person with a good education and sound grasp of the English language. It is almost unimaginable what it must be like to be deaf and under threat or in the reality of arrest or suffering the ongoing impacts of incarceration without understanding what is going on or being able to tell one’s own side of the story. 
Another area in which the committee took a particular interest was in the definition of interpretation. We reworded that so as to make clear the impacts in relation to both English and our country’s other official language Maori. We also had a number of interesting discussions about how competency in interpretation might be defined. We discovered that a lot of work is continuing in this area and although some of us would have liked to create a definition in this bill it will still be possible for that to happen through regulation later on if necessary. 
One fact became glaringly obvious as submissions proceeded and that was the existence of a severe shortage of fully trained and qualified interpreters in this country. For forward movement in this area it will be absolutely critical that the Government does everything it can to support the maintenance and development of the training that does exist and facilitate the access of keen would-be interpreters to that training. I was pleased to hear the comments the Minister made earlier about that area. 
Each qualified interpreter is worth his or her weight in gold and so far there have been far too few of them. Some submitters put forward the view that this bill should establish a New Zealand Sign Language commission in the same way that we have Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori. After discussion and advice we considered that in this case it would be preferable to establish an advisory group with strong representation from the Deaf community. The purpose of that advisory group would be to monitor the effects of the legislation to make sure it is achieving its stated goals and to advise the Government on further steps it should take in future to promote New Zealand Sign Language. I sincerely hope the Government does make that happen and does not just see this bill or the Minister’s report that is required after 1 March 2009 as the end of the story. 
In conclusion I acknowledge all those who took the time and trouble to make submissions to us particularly those from the Deaf community who have had such a long struggle to make this bill a reality. I realise that they may remain considerably frustrated by the slow pace of progress but I see this bill as a critical first step on a journey towards a society and Government that fully recognises and uses their language as part of its operations. I thank them for all their work and for the privilege of sharing even a tiny portion of their lives language and culture with us. This bill is a testament to their courage. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Today we bear witness to the great event of New Zealand Sign Language being wrapped around our Deaf community providing the warmth and protection of one’s language as a primary means of being in the world. It has often been said that the limits of our language are the limits of our world and today that world becomes progressively larger for some 28000 people who are already familiar with New Zealand Sign Language. It also becomes larger for their families for their communities and indeed for us all. It is a most important day—a day that inevitably draws me back to August 1987 and to the passing of the Maori Language Act that declared Maori an official language of New Zealand. 
Today in conferring that same official status to New Zealand Sign Language we acknowledge the political will the determined commitment of the Deaf community and the recognition of all the specialist support that has made this possible. I particularly commend the Minister for having the insight and fortitude to carry this through—tena koe Ruth. From that day in 1987 on the Maori Language Act has made it possible to recognise te reo Maori in law and allows it to be used in the courts. From the basis of that Act te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori is charged with promoting Maori language as a living language and as an ordinary means of communication. It is from the normalising of Maori language as an ordinary language and a living language that our world has changed and there have now been some 136000 speakers of te reo. 
Indeed I would hasten to suggest that even in this House every single member will have been influenced by the expansion of the use of te reo Maori. We have heard maiden speeches delivered entirely or spoken for the most part in te reo; we have observed the way members have sought to address pronunciation issues and we have heard familiar greetings—tena koe ka kite he patai taku—becoming more commonplace and the Standing Orders Committee will shortly be considering the important initiative in simultaneous translation to initiate facilities for immediate comprehension of te reo. Our world is expanding daily and who knows one day New Zealand Sign Language may be normalised in almost every public setting. It is a long way from the days when Naida Glavish was threatened with dismissal for saying “Kia ora” or our mothers and fathers were strapped for speaking their native tongue. 
For this significant population within Aotearoa the same but different experiences of marginalisation of isolation and of prejudice will also have shaped their memories of expressing themselves in their language. We have heard the stories of deaf children’s hands being strapped behind their backs to stop them from signing. The existence of sign language for years was ignored by officialdom. This new bill confronts all of those days gone by through establishing New Zealand Sign Language with the official recognition of a national language and with the purpose of giving it proper status and giving the Deaf access to interpreters for legal proceedings. 
The Maori Party celebrates this historic breakthrough and will support this bill through its passage in the House. We are pleased for those for whom it serves but it does not go far enough. For we want today to give recognition to a very significant population within the minority Deaf culture. Hearing loss is an important issue that impacts in a major way on our mokopuna tamariki and whanau. Research would suggest that Maori who are deaf make up 30 percent of the Deaf community. For our tamariki and mokopuna the results are particularly stark. In 2001 Maori children under 19 comprised a record 48 percent of the deafness notifications despite being only 19 percent of the population—that is almost half of all notifications of deafness in this nation were for Maori children. If we want to think of closing the gaps this might be a good place to start for in the age groups of 15 to 24 years hearing disability afflicts young Maori at a rate that is 3.5 times more than non-Maori. 
So how do these high numbers of Maori Deaf fare in a world that is frequently dismissive or unprepared to face the challenge inherent in taking up other means of communicating isolated from the very essence of who they are? The world of Maori Deaf is constrained by linguistic and cultural boundaries that could be broken down through understanding of sign language and te reo Maori. One of the most profound experiences in my life was when a young man came here to Parliament into my office and having stood up to mihi to me he sang his waiata using sign and not a sound was heard. I was deeply moved as it made me understand how isolated the Maori Deaf can be from the Maori world. I appreciated that the support he had alongside of him was vital to help us to understand and communicate. 
The significance of this bill today is that for Maori Deaf official recognition increases the likelihood of being able to use New Zealand Sign Language at hui marae and tangi and increases their access to te reo tikanga and whakapapa. Inevitably of course the crunch issue lies in resourcing constraints and we have heard that from other speakers. As I noted earlier Maori are over-represented in the Deaf community yet there is a shortage of Maori teachers signers court interpreters and community aid. 
A particular concern that the Maori Party would like to see addressed and further advanced in legislation is the complete inability of the bill to address the issue of trilingual interpreters and to recognise trilingual interpretation—Maori sign and English. The number of trilingual signers is very few and far between. The Auckland University of Technology trilingual interpreting course was cut as part of the Government’s so-called race-based funding cuts of 2004. It was yet another example of the ethnic targeting no-go zone promoted by the Government. The tragedy of this is that it denies Maori Deaf access into Maori hui where te reo is used. Maori Deaf have every right to understand the true meaning of the processes and korero that occur on the marae. Sign language interpreting helps bridge those communication gaps. 
This bill must make provision for the urgent need to recruit train and retain Maori student interpreters. This is an idea that was first raised at the Taumata Matauranga hosted by Ngati Tuwharetoa paramount chief Tumu te Heuheu in 2001. The hui brought forward the idea of offering scholarships to train sign language interpreters fluent in te reo Maori. Such scholarships are practical solutions that respond to the dreams and aspirations of our whanau for their children’s access to kohanga reo and kura kaupapa through the support of New Zealand Sign Language interpreters fluent in te reo. We know that there are some great things happening for Maori Deaf. The initiatives at Ruamoku Marae and at the Auckland University of Technology in supporting student sign language interpreters are exciting and we also know of the hard work of groups such as Te Roopu Waiora that are focused on the needs of Maori Deaf. 
The Maori Party is proud to promote wider recognition of te reo as the first and official language of this country. We welcome the inclusion of New Zealand Sign Language as another official language and we do so particularly under the opportunities for bi-literacy and even tri-literacy afforded to the nation by virtue of the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Our tupuna have often gifted us with whakatauki to convey a message about the world in which we inhabit. They are ways of conveying the feelings values emotions and visions that serve to help mould our character and discover a universal truth. These language pictures are best expressed in te reo. But for the significance of today I hope my concluding words will benefit from trilingual interpretation. 
Anei tatou na ko te pa ano tatou na he ra ki tua. 
Here we are in the night comforted by the day soon to follow. There is light ahead. No reira tena koutou katoa. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Let me say first of all that I was not a member of the select committee the Justice and Electoral Committee that worked on this bill but I have noted the report of the committee and have made a couple of notes that I think are significant. 
Firstly in all the 195 submissions received by the committee no one opposed the bill and all expressed strong support for the recognition of New Zealand Sign Language as an official language of New Zealand. I also noted that 104 people contributed to the submission process by using sign language and that the advent of video conferencing made possible a new and important way for those who are hearing impaired to enjoy greater access to and greater participation in the parliamentary process. Long may this continue not just on issues relating to deafness but on all matters concerning Parliament. 
 It is also worth noting that the committee chose to make reference in its report to the fact that no one on the committee could communicate in Sign Language. Yet with the help of interpreters and the Deaf Studies Research Unit of Victoria University the process went very smoothly. The report pays tribute both to those who supported the committee with advice and interpretation skills and to the Deaf submitters who worked with them so well. 
The passage of the bill is an important milestone for the hearing-impaired community but it should not be and is not intended to be an end in itself. The committee has recommended that an advisory group be established to monitor the effects of the legislation against its stated purpose. Many submitters expressed concern that the application of the bill must not be neglected. They noted that there was a need for sign language to be promoted proactively and that merely giving the language official recognition was not necessarily going to achieve that. 
The initial obligations and applications under the bill will be in the justice arena but the current efforts by interdepartmental working-groups to remove language barriers for the Deaf community in the health education employment and broadcasting sectors need to be encouraged and to have measurable time frames around any goals that are set. The select committee noted that even the justice sector could consider improving services beyond the obvious applications outlined in the bill. United Future supports the amendment which was agreed to by the committee that requires all Government departments to take responsibility for consulting with Deaf communities on matters that relate to New Zealand Sign Language. That is to ensure that departments do not sit back passively and wait for the Office for Disability Issues to initiate discussions on relative issues. 
United Future believes that as the interpretation services workforce capacity is built over time—and that must be a priority—then amendments to the bill should be actioned so that the current barriers faced by deaf people when accessing services and information are removed progressively and deliberately. Funding considerations will be the measure of any Government’s commitment to removing barriers to the hearing impaired. The select committee shied away from making specific recommendations in this regard and suggested that the matter would need more specific attention once the period of monitoring and reporting had been completed. 
United Future is therefore very pleased to be supporting the bill and congratulates everyone who has played a part in progressing it through the select committee process. With 8 percent of the adult population affected in some way by hearing impairment it is good news that the bill moves another step towards becoming law. I take a moment to welcome to the public gallery those people who are affected most by the bill and I want to thank the interpreter for making what I am saying understandable. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill on behalf of ACT New Zealand. Some people will be disappointed to learn that the ACT party is opposing the bill. I ask them not to be offended for we mean no offence. We applaud the intent of the bill but fear the wider-reaching implications of it. 
In the first reading of the bill ACT’s Gerry Eckhoff spoke movingly of his own experience of deafness and in particular of the difficulties that he faced growing up as a hearing-impaired child. He described his difficulty in the classroom the school reports stating he did not pay attention in class and could try harder and his reputation as a troublemaker because he switched off when he could not follow what was going on. I am sure that many will be able to relate to that situation. 
The reason that we oppose the bill is that it is unlikely to do anything to help members of the Deaf community. The reason for that is simple. The Government is proposing to create rights for Deaf people to use New Zealand Sign Language but it has no plan in place to fund the provision of the services that would be necessary for those rights to be met. There are people who think that the money will be found just because the right is established. I ask them to think again. The Minister of Finance guards his surplus millions closely and can scarcely bring himself to part with a single cent. We have seen legislation like this before with the establishment of rights on paper that do not exist in reality. The absence of any Treasury comment on this bill means that nobody in authority has even begun to think of how to pay for its provisions. 
Perhaps the best thing about this bill and there are many good things in it is that it has highlighted the issue of communication for the deaf. The discussion and debate it has attracted has certainly heightened general awareness and that in itself is very positive. That is why ACT supported the bill at its first reading and its progress to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The intention of the bill is very creditable. 
We also agree that in legal processes it is essential that a deaf person like every New Zealander be presented with information in a way that he or she is readily able to understand. History has many examples and we have heard some today of injustices suffered by the deaf because they could not follow proceedings. 
From my previous career as a health professional I know that in the hospital setting the provision of translation services is a frequent problem. It is a problem for deaf patients and for people who do not speak English. It is usually possible to organise translators but when interviewing patients health professionals are conscious that they are relying on the translator’s goodwill. Translators are expected to provide the service in their own time or if they are hospital employees in addition to their usual duties. In that situation there is a tendency to make use of family members as translators but that can create problems of its own with regard to sensitive issues. Those obstacles are not of course confined just to the hospital setting but impinge on every facet of life. 
A better approach is the one that is used in Britain for example. It is to provide a budget for translators so that they are paid for their work and in proportion to the time they devote to it. It is a simple and relatively cheap practical measure that would help people to get more accurate diagnosis and better treatment and it would assist everybody involved. 
However good intentions alone do not automatically translate into good lawmaking. Making New Zealand Sign Language an official language will not in itself achieve very much without proper support and definite funding allocations. There is absolutely no evidence of that in this bill. In ACT’s view it would be more useful to follow the Australian example of recognising the Deaf community as a language group. In Australia the policy is as follows: “It is now increasingly recognised that signing deaf people constitute a group like any other non-English speaking language group in Australia with a distinct sub-culture recognised by shared history social life and sense of identity united and symbolized by fluency in Auslan the principal means of communication with the Australian Deaf Community.” ACT believes that that approach would be more appropriate for the New Zealand situation. 
Another issue is that sign languages differ from country to country. The international sign language was Gestuno. Now called International Sign Language that is what is used at international conferences and meetings. The obvious comparison is in the world of music. A musical score can be read by those with musical training no matter whether their native language is Spanish Arabic Cantonese English or any other language. To give New Zealand Sign Language official status as the bill proposes automatically disadvantages those signing in any other sign language. According to the 2001 New Zealand disability survey some 7700 partially or completely deaf adults live in households using New Zealand Sign Language and/or Signed English and another 51000 are able to lip-read. Although that is a significant number the question that must be asked is whether that is sufficient for New Zealand Sign Language to constitute an official language. 
An unintended consequence of awarding official recognition to New Zealand Sign Language may well be for other non - English speaking groups to then seek official recognition of their languages. For example can we expect demands for Braille to be extended similar status or for other spoken languages such as Mandarin or Cantonese to receive official status? 
If this bill is passed I predict that the services necessary to fulfil the obligations of organisations will not be in place. Our current Government will then move slowly to fill the gap hiring full-time translators who will then spend very little of their working day doing the job they were hired for. I have to wonder whether the money could not be better spent on the treatment of deafness. In my research into this subject I discovered that 21 percent of partially or completely deaf adults in households had an unmet need for some type of special equipment or service related to their disability. The most common reason for that unmet need was financial. It seems that if Government money is to be spent then that might be a good place to start. 
Politics is not confined just to this debating chamber and I am aware that some in the Deaf community look on lip-reading as a poor relation to sign language. Yet approximately 51000 hearing-impaired Kiwis lip-read—a fact that should not be overlooked. 
To conclude the ACT party supports the aspiration of the Deaf community to integrate fully into society and accepts that that will quite rightly involve greater use of sign language. We have doubts about the wisdom of making New Zealand Sign Language an official language and feel that this bill as it stands will give the appearance of progress but achieve very little. That outcome is the worst of all worlds. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 This is a proud day for people who are deaf and hard of hearing in New Zealand for those who lobbied for years to give real status to New Zealand Sign Language and also for my colleague Ruth Dyson who has been the all-too-important voice inside the tent as Minister for Disability Issues. 
Reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee which I chaired when this bill went through public submission and subsequent detailed consideration and some amendment the bill is now starting the last lap of its complicated journey from idea to law. As previous chairperson of the committee I want to highlight some of the issues raised in the committee’s report. One hundred and ninety-five public submissions were received and over a period of 8½ hours we heard 26 of them. They were the people who told us that they wanted to talk further. 
I say “heard” nervously as among the numerous profound effects that our work on the bill had on our committee members was a careful examination of the everyday language that we used. Maybe National’s PC eradicator could learn a lesson from the fact that some language that we in the hearing community regard as normal is far from normal or acceptable to some. Not often could I say that Parliament has through its select committee process released voices that were just wanting to cry out but this was certainly one occasion when that was happening. All 11 members of the committee went through an intense awareness-raising process and became quite gripped by trying to work through the implications of the proposed law. One of the great things about select committees is that they offer that direct contact with ordinary New Zealanders with something to say and also something to challenge. 
The bill is fairly short and straightforward but as we tried to see how it would work in a variety of public services and contexts the full implications and the inevitable difficulties became very obvious. For example we considered whether the New Zealand Sign Language used by Maori who are fluent in te reo required a separate recognition. On repeated advice we concluded that it did not. We considered the establishment of an equivalent to the Maori Language Commission to nurture and promote the development of New Zealand Sign Language. After much thought we decided that although the function was important more basic challenges such as the shortages of signers were more urgent. We looked at the range of public services that might develop detailed plans and even separate regulations or laws relating to New Zealand Sign Language. We were pleased that working-groups involving people from various Government departments and the Deaf community itself were working on four particular areas: health education employment and public broadcasting. These were stated in the select committee hearings by people from the Deaf community to be the most important areas. Add to that the justice-focused rights that are explicit in the bill. We were gratified to see that the issues raised by submitters were the issues that the system was already starting to address. 
Communication is at the heart of the bill. The Justice and Electoral Committee members did not have skills in sign language and even tuition by experts who are present today in the Gallery did not help very much. The lead adviser to the committee and a team of signers did much to open our eyes both to the barriers presented by our world to people who are deaf and also to the liberation offered by sign language. I thank them and the committee staff who took us along that journey. 
This bill generates but a modest cost to the State in order to implement and I believe we have a moral and a legal duty to do that. I find it extraordinary that some put the issue of resources before the issue of fundamental rights for people who are deaf particularly in a situation where we are moving towards universal rights—United Nations - instituted rights—for people with disabilities. I find it amazing that someone would deny even the modest rights contained in this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. It is historic it is a first for New Zealand and it is the proper thing to do. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 As we have heard from several other speakers today sign language in New Zealand has had a chequered career. Although British Sign Language was introduced by deaf immigrants and sign language tutors were working in New Zealand as early as 1880 the first schools for the deaf banned sign language and signing was forbidden. An Act of Parliament allowed only oral education for the deaf and kids were punished for signing. It is a very similar story to that of Maori. But kids being kids and desperate to communicate they continued to sign among themselves in their dormitories. Those school signs combined with English Sign Language have become the basis of New Zealand Sign Language. 
New Zealand Sign Language is unique to our country. It encompasses cultural ideas and traditions both European and Maori that are our very own and it is something we should be very proud of. Its present form is relatively new and it is enshrined in the  
Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language 
 which was published in 1997. 
The New Zealand Sign Language Bill means that 125 years after sign language first came to this country our own locally developed language will now be recognised as being an official language of New Zealand. That means that as an official language the use of New Zealand Sign Language will be maintained and promoted. The bill has been strongly supported by the Deaf community which has worked long and hard over the last 20 years to receive official recognition for New Zealand Sign Language. 
Most New Zealanders have no idea what being deaf means. The frustration of watching an interesting television programme with no sound can give us only the slightest inkling. The submissions reflected on the huge price that deaf people pay because of difficulties with communication. They understand only too well that the lack of effective communication brings social isolation and with that often frustration loneliness and despair. Research tells us that children who are deaf and who do not sign take far longer than hearing children to develop mentally and socially. Their language skills and their personal motivation suffer. 
Poor communication often leads to low self-esteem low achievement and low levels of social interaction. As children who have poor communication skills become adults their employment opportunities are limited and access to the public information and services that hearing people take for granted can be irritatingly difficult. Work and the rewards that we receive from having a job are a very important part of life. It is much harder for deaf people to get work and to keep it and they have a significantly higher unemployment rate than the norm. It is not surprising that deaf people suffer disproportionately from depression and far too many commit suicide or end up in jail. 
The bill also provides the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings where signing is a person’s first or preferred language. By using sign language and with skilled interpreters there will be more effective communication for the Deaf in our courts and tribunals and we hope that that will help to reduce frustration levels and miscommunication with officialdom. It is also hoped that it may underpin better judgments. 
Many submitters saw this bill as a small first step towards a whole raft of measures where the use of sign language and the provision of interpreters could enhance quality of life for the Deaf. They want more interpreters in education in health and in all parts of daily life. Many submitters explained in graphic detail the huge reliance they have on interpreters to get them through their days and the problems of obtaining them when they were needed. Some of the stories were truly heartbreaking. As we know submitters supported the bill unanimously as did all the parties that spoke in the House on the first reading. 
Everyone will celebrate when this bill is passed into law but I have some real concerns about its implementation. It is an enormously important bill for the Deaf community. The Deaf community has worked long and hard for it and it is keenly supported by the House. Therefore it is imperative that it does not disappoint. I am concerned that although the bill states things the public wants to hear it may not deliver—for two reasons. Firstly despite concerns expressed during the first reading there has been very little discussion about the costs created by the bill or the earmarking of money to pay for its provisions. I could find no budget advice no fiscal impact report and no Treasury report. As we all know unless funding for new services is allocated then regardless of rhetoric nothing tends to happen. Already in the House this week we have seen important roading projects that time and time again have been promised to the public being postponed or pushed out into the never-never because of a lack of money. 
Secondly competent interpreters are the key to the effectiveness of this bill and although some interpreter training is under way there is a real fear that there may not be enough trained interpreters to meet the demand. We defeat the whole purpose of the bill unless experienced and competent interpreters are available. Ensuring the highest standard of competency is enormously important and there is provision in this bill for regulating the quality of work if necessary. But a lack of skilled interpreters will leave the Deaf community back where it started. 
This is a good bill but the Government needs to deliver the money and with it the skilled personnel to make sure that it really means something for the Deaf community. I would hate to see all its hard work the work of this House and our select committees and the very good intentions of this bill undermined because the Government has not fully considered the fiscal or personnel ramifications or has not allocated money. National takes great pleasure in supporting the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take the opportunity for a short call on this bill given that I am now an ex-member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and I participated in the hearing of submissions at the time when I was a member. I have been keen to keep a close eye on the progress of this bill—hence the reason why I have entered the Chamber—and I am thankful for the opportunity to raise a few issues. 
I would like to commend the Minister for Disability Issues Ruth Dyson for having the foresight to promote the bill and the effects this legislation will have and I thank her for that. 
I recall that when I was talking with submitters about the issues surrounding the setting up of a commission we talked about the comparison with the Maori Language Commission. I see from the bill that the select committee has agreed to the establishment of an advisory group which would have the role of monitoring the effects of the legislation against its stated purposes. It is my view that as time progresses we will need to seriously consider implementing a commission. I know from my experience in promoting Maori language and the reo that that is a good platform to continue to promote the development of any language. 
I also recall learning about sign language through the process of hearing submissions learning that there are subtle differences between the language from country to country and learning that sign language includes signs in respect of the reo. I thought that was pretty amazing. Having the opportunity to learn that was for me unique. 
This bill represents a platform to ensure that the language is protected and promoted. But we must also be conscious that the language must be given an opportunity to survive which is the reason why practising it on its own is not enough. We need to give more consensus to the development of the language. I recall also that part of that development was in relation to ensuring that we had quality interpreters and I do disagree with the ACT member when she stated that the bill will do nothing for the language. I do think that recognising the language in the way that we are doing gives the opportunity to continue to promote it to practise it and to consider further ways to achieve that outcome. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Sign Language Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
The Employment Relations Amendment Bill gives effect to the Government’s intent of ensuring that the terms and conditions of employment for New Zealand’s most vulnerable employees are protected when their work is restructured. The bill also encourages businesses to utilise existing talent and facilitates productive employment relationships that are built on good faith. The bill balances the need to allow businesses to grow and contribute to New Zealand’s economic transformation with the need to provide protection to specified employees who are particularly disadvantaged when businesses restructure. 
In 2004 the Employment Relations Act was amended to introduce a two-tiered system of protection for employees affected by restructurings. Specific groups of employees such as cleaners and food service workers were provided with the right to choose to transfer to a new employer on their existing terms and conditions of employment. These groups of employees had been particularly susceptible to and disadvantaged by successive changes in contracts. Other employees were given protection through a requirement that their employment agreements contain a provision describing what steps their employer will take to protect employees affected by sale transfer or initial contracting-out situations. The intent of those amendments was that the right to choose to transfer should include all situations where a new contractor replaces an existing one and the specified employee’s work is affected. 
In July 2005 the Employment Court’s decision in  
Gibbs 
and others  
v  
Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd 
 established that the amended Act does not provide the protection the Government intended in these subsequent contracting situations. That decision highlighted a gap in the protection that the Employment Relations Act was intended to provide. This must be rectified. Specified employees must be ensured of a right to transfer to the new employer on their current terms and conditions of employment in subsequent contracting situations. 
This bill ensures that specified groups of employees have the right to choose to transfer when contracting in or contracting out on the sale or transfer of the employer’s business and in subsequent contracting situations. This right applies regardless of whether a new contractor intends employees to perform the work. This right to choose to transfer applies regardless of whether the work was at some stage performed in-house. The right also applies whether or not the contract for service was terminated by one of the parties or just expired. The right does not disappear just because the new contract does not start immediately. There has been no change from the Government’s policy in this area since 2004; the bill implements the Government’s original policy intent. 
This bill not only addresses the issues raised by the Employment Court in the  
Gibbs 
and others  
v  
Crest Commercial Cleaning 
Ltd 
 case concerning subsequent contracting but also clarifies the practical application of the Act in restructuring situations. By outlining specific scenarios providing examples of how the bill applies in practice and introducing specific penalties and remedies for non-compliance the Government can be certain that the protection it intended to provide is implemented. The court’s decision highlighted certain areas in which the Act is unclear. Additional loopholes have been identified following the court’s decision that have the potential to frustrate the original policy intent. The bill closes those loopholes and prevents the use of contracting mechanisms that have the effect of avoiding the Government’s original policy intent. 
The use of fixed-term employment agreements linked to the end of a contract for services is one such mechanism. To prevent specified employees from being stripped of the right to choose to transfer when their fixed-term agreement ends at the same time as a restructuring the bill provides that specified employees whose employment agreements are linked to a contract for service or to an intended restructuring may elect to transfer even if the fixed term has expired. This means that the obligation to provide specified employees with the right to elect to transfer cannot be avoided through the use of fixed-term employment agreements. 
The bill also clarifies how the protection applies when the work is subcontracted. At the moment the application of Part 6A of the Act to subcontracting situations is not clear. To provide certainty and to ensure that some specified employees are not excluded from protection simply because work is subcontracted or they work for a subcontractor the application of protection in subcontracting situations is spelt out in the bill. This again is not a policy shift from what was intended in 2004; the bill clarifies the Government’s original intent. These amendments will not prevent businesses from having the freedom to choose how to do their business and whether to contract out work. The amendments will ensure that specified employees are not treated as disposable commodities to be cast off when a business contracting arrangement comes to an end. To clarify the practical application of the Act the bill provides that the terms and conditions that transfer to the new employer include all statutory leave entitlements accrued. This ensures that employees can access these rights on transfer. 
The bill does not mean that specified employees are assured of jobs for life. This bill affects specified employees at the time of a restructuring. It does not change the usual employment rights of specified employees after they have elected to transfer. Following the transfer an employee’s terms and conditions can be renegotiated in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. Employers and employees can agree in good faith to changes that are satisfactory to both parties. If performance or employment relationship problems arise following transfer then the mechanisms for employment relationship problem resolution already in place under the Employment Relations Act will apply as usual. 
The bill also clarifies that if an employer has surplus staff due to a transfer employees may be made redundant. In such a case the employee will get the redundancy entitlements provided for in the employment agreement. If the agreement is silent then the employee can bargain for redundancy entitlements from the new employer. If the employer and employee cannot agree they can apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a determination on redundancy entitlements. 
The bill delivers on the Government’s original policy intent. It is about providing clarity and certainty to employers and employees and stability to specified groups of vulnerable employees. It ensures that businesses maintain the freedom to grow but confirms that employees who are particularly disadvantaged when businesses restructure are protected. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The law was bad back in 2004 and it is bad now. Let us take for instance the current situation—and I appreciate that the Act does not strictly apply here. Let us imagine for instance that an airline company wants to change the service provider for the maintenance of its aircraft. This is not an airline company that is just having a change of shareholders but one that wants a different service provider to do its maintenance. Under this bill that airline company would still be stuck with the very people whom it did not want continuing to do the maintenance. That is a flawed theory. 
Labour’s argument is that a special group of people is much more vulnerable than any other group of people: cleaners. I have to ask whether there are hordes of unemployed cleaners around the country and whether cleaners are actually disadvantaged. It is one thing to be low-skilled and to have modest wages; I acknowledge that cleaners are often in that situation. Cleaning is often part-time work night work and so forth. But that of itself does not mean that people in that situation therefore cannot get jobs and are always on the unemployment list—it is not like that. In fact at various times when I was at university I did some cleaning jobs and I am sure many people in Parliament can testify that they also did so. The reality is that those jobs were easy to get. The industry is characterised by relatively high turnover. Cleaning is typically not a job that people want to stay in for long periods of time. It is a falsehood to argue that workers in that industry are uniquely vulnerable and need a job guarantee. It does not matter what the Minister says; that is effectively what will happen. 
This legislation is a form of job guarantee irrespective of whether the person who originally needed cleaners wants to change the people who are doing the job. The employer may say that contractor X is doing a bad job and that a new contractor is needed to do the work but the Government says that the employer cannot do that. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Really? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: No the employer cannot do that. The employer is unable to get new cleaners if that is what is needed because the original cleaners can say: “Hang on a minute; we just want to transfer over.” The Government says that that applies even in cases such as  
Gibbs and others 
 v  
Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd 
 which referred to subsequent or second-generation contracting. So it applies not only in a situation where there is simply a change in shareholding but in the situation of a franchise operation where there is a change. The original cleaners will always be able to say that they want to keep cleaning a place irrespective of whether they are doing a good job. Irrespective of whether the job has been satisfactory those people are able to stay. 
 That cuts across business freedom. The Labour Party will say that that sounds all very harsh and unreasonable and that the National Party is just taking a prejudiced view against people on low incomes. I acknowledge that people in the cleaning industry are on lower incomes. But let us look at the facts of the  
Gibbs and others  
v 
 Crest Commercial Cleaning 
Ltd 
 case. The people were cleaning kindergartens. Kindergartens are not flush with money; they have to be careful with their resources. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: And they have to be well cleaned. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: And that is the key point—well cleaned. People do not just change cleaners willy-nilly; there has to be a reason for people to change a cleaner. Perhaps the job is not satisfactory or it is over-priced. It could be any one of a number of reasons and I am certain that people with commercial experience know the truth of that. Kindergartens are not noted for being rapacious organisations. They had very good reasons to make the switch and they did so. They sought to employ Crest Commercial Cleaning an organisation that did not directly employ cleaners. It used franchise operators which it then engaged to do the actual cleaning. It was on that point that the court stated the 2004 legislation did not apply—that it would have applied only if Crest had been directly engaging the cleaners as opposed to operating a franchise operation. 
Labour wants to ignore the whole concept of the integrity of contracts. It wants to ignore the whole concept of franchising and of different arrangements. It just wants to cut across that completely. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: No free enterprise. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: We know that the Government does not understand free enterprise. So in practical terms this Government is prepared to say to the kindergarten organisations in Dunedin that it is too bad if they have bad cleaners who are not performing as one would reasonably expect them to perform because they are stuck with them. The Government is telling those organisations that it does not matter what arrangements they make—whether they change firms or try to get franchises to do the work—because they are still stuck with the original people. Where is the incentive for better performance in that? How will people actually improve competitiveness productivity and all the things the Government says we need to do in the New Zealand economy? Essentially people will stop taking those sorts of actions. 
National is fundamentally opposed to this legislation. It cuts across commercial reality and across the ability of people to improve their performance. It means that one has to take on as the new cleaners the very people to whom people are choosing to say: “Actually we need a new group of people to do that work.” Only then can one apply all the new tests. Actually the test was being applied at the time of changing the contract in order to get a different firm. Let us imagine the situation if we did that with regard to carpenters. Let us say we engaged a group of carpenters to build a house but found halfway through the contract that things were not going in quite the way they were supposed to go and that we needed to get a new builder. If we went along to the carpenters and told them that the contract was not working and that we needed to get in a new firm to complete the job those carpenters could say to us that we were perfectly entitled to do so but that they would still turn up the next day and continue to work on the house because their jobs would just continue on. That is exactly what Labour proposes in this legislation. Labour thought that the 2004 amendment to the Act was marvellous. Well it was not marvellous. It has led to a less productive economy. 
In the couple of minutes I have remaining I want to say that this country has a problem with its productivity. Everyone in this Parliament acknowledges that. The way to boost productivity is by boosting skills and competitiveness by eliminating compliance costs and by reducing taxes. Labour is failing the test on every one of those. For instance Australia—the country with which we compare ourselves—spends under a conservative Government more than we do on skills training and on building expertise. It puts 1.5 percent of its total wealth into boosting skills. It does that not just in the universities and polytechnics but right across the board at all levels. This country spends 1.3 percent. 
One of the key choices Australia has made is to boost productivity. This country has not made that choice. I ask Labour—because it will have a choice in 2 or 3 weeks—whether it will support a 90-day probation period. Every country in the OECD has done that. Some—for instance Britain—have a year. New Zealand is the only country that does not have a 90-day probation period and that holds back productivity. Will the Government do that? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: That will be a test. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It will be a test for the Government. Does it want to have a more competitive economy? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It says it does. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It says it does but if this legislation is anything to go by then the answer can only be no. 
Finally will the Government reduce taxes for hard-working New Zealanders—low-income earners especially—irrespective of their incomes? The answer to all those questions is no no no and no and that is why so many people are going to Australia. 
This is bad law. It was bad in 2004 and it is bad in 2006. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 That member spent 10 minutes displaying his utter ignorance of many people’s working realities in this country. I will tell him a few home truths. The people who clean his office and who feed him in Bellamy’s are contracted-out employees. For years and years those people have done those jobs. He said that their industries were high-turnover industries. What would he know? Is he here at midnight watching his office being cleaned? No he takes it for granted that his office is cleaned nicely for him every time he rolls into it in the morning after eating his breakfast. For years and years under a National Government workers in the contracting industry were subject to abuse. This legislation seeks to make sure that that does not continue. For years prior to the National Government changing the law that was the reality. Yes people could have a contracted-out situation. New contractors could come in and take over a job. They took over the workforce with the existing wages and conditions then they set about trying to get productivity gains. Most of them did it this way: at the Auckland hospital they simply said to the cleaners who had one ward to clean that they were sorry but they would now have to clean two wards in the same time and for the same money—and they did it. What better productivity can one get than that? 
But were the contractors satisfied with that? No they were not. They said to those workers that they were still not doing their job well enough and that they were still shirking even though they had gone from cleaning one ward to two in the same number of hours and for the same money. They were not satisfied with that level of productivity gain so as well the workers were to have their hours cut and were to do their work in an even shorter time. 
So all those full-time workers many of whom had worked there for 20 to 30 years—[ 
Interruption 
] Wayne Mapp laughs because he thinks it is a big joke for people who have been hospital cleaners for 30 years to be told they have to do twice as much work in fewer hours for less money. He thinks it is funny. He thinks that those people should be treated with derision and that is what the National Party does in voting against legislation such as this. Those people are largely Pacific Island and Maori women who have been working in those jobs for 20 to 30 years. Their kids are now achieving academically and are representing us internationally as sportspeople. 
Those are the sorts of people we are talking about. They are the people who feed that member and who clean his office while he is comfortably tucked up in bed. When those people are transferred from one contractor to another they have a right when they turn up for work the next day not to be confronted with a contract that says: “Sorry I’m your new boss. Here’s your new contract. You’re going to work for $10 a week less or $20 a week less and have your penal rates and allowances taken off you. If you don’t like it go away.” 
 That was the reality under the National Government. Labour does not believe in that sort of absolute rort. If that is the commercial behaviour that Wayne Mapp wants to see in this country God help us if he is ever on this side of the House making laws! That is the kind of slavery-type situation that the National Party would prefer to see. National members laugh at that but they have never ever seen what I have seen as a union official representing those workers—the utter chaos that is created in people’s lives. [ 
Interruption 
] That new member over there is laughing too. 
Paula Bennett 
: I think you’re living in bloody Noddy-land. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: She knows all about that! She was on a benefit and claims that she knows all about the lives of the low paid. A landlord does not say: “Oh look the cleaning contract has just changed I’m really sorry that you’ve lost 50 bucks a week I’ll drop the rent.” The bank does not say that people do not have to pay the mortgage any more because their boss has suddenly cut their wages and conditions. 
That is the harsh reality of life for those people and this law seeks to redress that sort of imbalance. It is a good law. We are going to make sure it gets passed and that it protects those most vulnerable workers. They are the people who clean Paula Bennett’s office and Wayne Mapp’s office and who feed them at Bellamy’s. Those members are happy to see them completely rorted. If members do not believe that that happens they should ask the people at Bellamy’s what happened when the services were contracted out. Those employees were going out of here in droves and their wages and conditions were taken off them by the contractors. It is happening right here in this building; it is not just out there where members cannot see it. It happens every night after members have gone home when people clean members’ offices. Members should go and ask those people for once and not just ignore them or say to them: “Thank you very much for my coffee.” If members thought about those peoples’ wages and conditions and what this law will do to protect them they would support this bill. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I was heavily involved in the original debate on the Employment Relations Act. That legislation came in under extraordinary urgency in from memory early or mid-2000. We worked for 4 days on the trot with very little sleep to pass that bill and this amendment bill is evidence of the fact that passing the original bill under extraordinary urgency was a very stupid thing to have done indeed. I say that because by my recollection—and Mark Gosche or Ruth Dyson are welcome to correct me on this—this is at least the 12th amendment to the principal Act since it came into force in 2000. 
That leads us to one very simple conclusion: that the legislation was appallingly put together in the first instance. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Simon you’re a lawyer; you know that we would correct it. 
SIMON POWER 
: Ruth Dyson chips in by saying that I am a lawyer. I cannot think of another piece of legislation in the 6 and a bit years that I have been in this House that has required 12 amendments—two per year—in order to get it right. [ 
Interruption 
] Mark Gosche asks what is wrong with that. I will tell the member what is wrong with that. Labour members should have got the legislation right in the first place—they told us at the time that the Act was perfect in every way. We had applause and people yahooing and congratulating each other when it was passed and that legislation comes back to the House every time it needs yet another amendment. 
The interesting thing is that the Government did not swallow its pride initially and admit it had made a mistake. It took the Employment Court to tell the Government that there had been yet another mistake in the drafting of the Act that would require clarification by yet another amendment. Here we are with legislation that was poor law to start with. It was poor law because regardless of whether members agreed with the ideological drive behind the Act—and we certainly had a very long and protracted debate over that particularly during the Committee stage when from memory 11 or 12 parts were debated—it was poorly drafted in the first place. Because it was poorly drafted it has allowed situations like this to evolve. [ 
Interruption 
] That member should read her Standing Orders and then she would know that she cannot move from her seat to a position of advantage in order to interject. She should move back to her own seat. Yet again there is a major problem with the Act that requires the attention of this House—for at least the 12th time by my count since it passed into law. 
There are concerning things about this bill. Frankly some of the points Mark Gosche made in his contribution make sense only if the public is of the view that no matter what kind of contract or arrangement two people enter into it will not count for anything. The Government is simply legislating straight across one of the most important principles of law in this country: the sanctity of contract or the ability of two consenting adults to enter into a contract for the provision of goods or services. It is an extraordinary situation when the Government decides to introduce legislation that tells young people who want to get into business after coming back from overseas those who want to set up contracting businesses and those who want to employ people that when they pick up a contract for the provision of services to a particular business regardless of the quality of service that was being provided up until that point—which of course may be the very reason an organisation or business wishes to let the contract out to a different organisation in the first place—there is no way that the new employer can make any changes of a substantial nature to the workforce. 
That is just extraordinary. It essentially suggests to somebody who is prepared to take the risk to get into business set up contracts employ people and make a contribution to the economy by lifting productivity that if that is what the business chooses to do that is fine but it must do so with a workforce that it has been decided was not up to scratch. That is just the most extraordinary set of circumstances. 
This Government wonders why the flood of people who come back from the UK New York and other places around the world stops in Sydney and Melbourne. It wonders why that is the case. I will tell Government members why that is the case because those people are firmly in the same demographic as myself. They are in their mid to late 30s and keen to set up businesses. They usually have one child or possibly two children and they are coming back because they believe that New Zealand offers them a wonderful lifestyle—the opportunity to set up a business and settle down here. But they come and look at the sort of nonsense that is contained in this legislation and say that if their children go to the local kindergarten and the standard of cleaning at that kindergarten is so bad that the hygiene regulations are being breached this Parliament is telling them there is nothing the kindergarten can do about that. The kindergarten associations say they want to change the contractors for the provision of those services but there is nothing they can do about the standard of cleaning. 
The most extraordinary thing is that members of the Government who are sitting there now sat and listened to the most boring ill-informed repetitive speech I have heard in my 6 years in the House. Yet again we heard Helen Clark come to the House and talk about so-called economic transformation— 
Dave Hereora 
: We want to buy in haste. 
SIMON POWER 
: There is Dave Hereora having a bit of a chip there. That is great; that is his contribution for the next 3 years. So we had Helen Clark come to this House and talk about economic transformation yet with her other hand the Prime Minister is allowing the introduction of legislation like this which is the very antithesis of economic transformation. This legislation means there is no incentive for performance no incentive to improve the services that are provided no problem if those providing a service are negligent or careless and nothing an employer or a new provider of those services can do about that. It just seems to me that that is an unrealistic expectation to put on those who proclaim they are the masters of an economic transformation in New Zealand. 
Well that is true actually in one very small way: the economic transformation we are seeing with at least the 12th amendment to the Act is one that takes us back to the days when this country’s chances of getting back up the OECD ladder have just taken a serious knock backwards. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I listened intently to that speech and though the member made some very good points I thought—fair points—he is wrong on one count at least. This legislation is not an amendment to the Employment Relations Act; it is an amendment to the amendment to the Employment Relations Act. 
New Zealand First has looked at the bill fairly thoroughly and we cannot support it. That is not to say we do not have sympathy for vulnerable workers. We have and that is why we are fighting very very hard to raise the minimum wage. We are very keen to make the minimum wage $12 an hour. We were going along— 
Lynne Pillay 
: What about the cleaners on the ships on the waterfront Peter? 
PETER BROWN 
: The honourable member can rest assured that I will get to shipping sooner or later in my speech. I will get to shipping and waterfront work sooner or later—probably sooner than she would care me to. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What about those simple sailors Peter? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is looking at a simple sailor a very simple sailor. I claim to be nothing else. 
I want to go back to the roots of why this bill has been introduced. It has been introduced because Labour Government members did not in their eyes get the legislation right a year or so ago. I listened to Mark Gosche’s speech and it almost brought tears to my eyes but he did not make one reference—or maybe he made just one reference—to what this bill is about. He was talking about the bill that has already been passed and become an Act that protects vulnerable workers; he was not talking about this set of clauses that address what we might call the Dunedin kindergarten issue. 
I want to refresh members’ memories of what happened in Dunedin. The Dunedin Kindergarten Association engaged a cleaning organisation called Southern Cleaning Services. The association members were not happy with the service or quality of cleaning that that organisation gave—that is my understanding—so early in 2005 when the contract expired the association said thank you very much to the cleaning organisation and told it that the contract was being put out for tender. The tender was won by an organisation called Crest Commercial Cleaning. It saw no sense in having to employ—I hope I am not doing it a disservice here—employees of Southern Cleaning Services so it offered the work to contractors whom it called franchisees and I gather they have done the work very well since. Since that time some of the cleaners employed by Southern Cleaning Services have been made redundant because their jobs had been dependent on the firm having the contract to clean kindergartens. Those workers believed they should have been re-engaged by Crest Commercial Cleaning. They went to court and they lost. 
Should they have lost? Well I do not know the answer to that. Should they have had an automatic right to job protection—should they have been engaged no matter which company had the main contract? New Zealand First says that no we should not be extending that sort of protection to anybody. We do not extend it to normal occupations so why should we extend it to employees who are not delivering the service that the employer—the kindergarten association in this case—wants? 
 Let me be absolutely frank: competition is essential for the better economic well-being of this country. We need competition. Competition brings with it innovation efficiency and cost-effectiveness. To some degree it drives wages down but once one achieves the level of service that is worthwhile paying for the effect is the reverse. So New Zealand First’s position when it comes to vulnerable workers is that first and foremost we want the minimum wage increased. We want to give employers some tax benefits some tax cuts so that they can afford the increased wages but we want competition to remain a tool if one likes of employers to ensure they get the best service—the best bang for bucks. 
I come to the waterfront because sooner or later I have to talk about it. The waterfront used to consist of pooled labour. When I was a stevedore I had to engage labour from a pool of people. I could not bring in modern equipment any more than my competitor could. I had no say on whether the workers would use it or whether they would work different hours. The workforce determined the hours and determined the equipment that was used. As a result our ports did not keep pace with overseas ports by a long way. In Tauranga where I come from we prided ourselves that we had the best port in New Zealand but when it was compared with ports on a worldwide basis we saw that it was less than satisfactory. 
In 1989 all that was changed. We changed the method of employment—employees worked for company A B C D or whatever and were part of the team of that company. They were not part of a pool of labour. As a result modern equipment came in loading rates went up discharge rates went up wages went up to some degree and everybody was happy. I have to say that the then National Government then passed the Employment Contracts Act and that put downward pressure on wages which was most unfair to many working on the waterfront. 
So in essence New Zealand First will not support this bill because we believe that it could lead to protection of incompetence or less than quality service. That is our concern. I am not saying that it will do that but we believe that it will protect incompetence to some degree. It will not affect the big cleaning companies at all. They are already captured into the market by whatever. But it will affect mum and dad cleaners—the small people—and quite dramatically and it will put a number of small businesses out of business. The alternative is to ensure that cleaners—if we are talking about cleaners—and other people on low wages get a reasonable wage. That is why New Zealand First members are striving and fighting for a higher minimum wage. 
The other issue in this country that should be addressed is casualisation. Many many industries have moved to casual employment. We believe that there should be some rules around employing people on a casual basis. New Zealand First will have some ideas to present probably to this Government during this term on how that can be achieved. 
So in essence higher wages and controls on casualisation are the answer to the issue of vulnerable workers. [ 
Interruption 
] That member ought to take a call to make her view known. The answer is not potentially to protect incompetence. New Zealand First members are not prepared to do that. Therefore we will be voting against this bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this Employment Relations Amendment Bill and hopes that it will work its way very quickly through the necessary processes. We fought hard for the transfer of undertakings provisions in the Employment Relations Act in 2000—the committee process that Dr Mapp remembers so well—and we were really disappointed when the Labour Government of the time felt obliged to remove this clause from the bill before it ever came back to the House. We were delighted then that the Government made a second more serious attempt at dealing with this thorny issue with the inclusion of Part 6A in the Employment Relations Amendment Act in 2004. We now support the clarification of that legislation so that it achieves what we intended to do all along—protect those who were most vulnerable in the workplace when their jobs are sold out from under them. 
The intention of the bill in front of us today is not new at all. Parliament already agreed to it when it passed the Employment Relations Amendment Act in 2004. I am well aware that it is simply an unintentional drafting error that has given rise to this situation. We are here because the Employment Court decided in  
Gibbs and others 
 v  
Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd  
that the law as currently written did not apply to them. The matter that went to the Employment Court was around cleaners who had been cleaning premises belonging to the Dunedin Kindergarten Association. The cleaning contract was re-tendered and the previous employer Southern Cleaning Services lost the contract to another firm Crest Commercial Cleaning. 
As soon as Crest Commercial Cleaning won the contract it gave notice that it did not intend to employ any of the current cleaners but were going to subcontract to independent franchisees. There can be no doubt that those workers were in a vulnerable situation. There can be no doubt that this situation was similar to that described by many of the submitters to the select committee when we heard evidence on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. There can be no doubt that the select committee thought that it had drafted a bill that supported vulnerable workers in this situation. As a member of the committee I was there and I have no doubt that that was our intention. It is for this reason that I believe forlornly I know that the bill should be supported by all parties in the House. It simply reinforces the intention we had when we passed that Act in 2004. 
The Employment Court case that led to the need for this bill also touches on a number of other aspects of worker vulnerability that are of concern to myself and my Green Party colleagues. One of the issues is the claim by the new contractor Crest Commercial Cleaning that it was not going to be employing staff but was going to engage independent franchisees. Whether those independent franchisees were employees by another name I do not know but I have my suspicions. However I am concerned about the growing use of so-called independent subcontractors and the way in which corporations and larger employers use them to reduce their costs. 
 We have seen it clearly in the care service industry and I think that every party—except perhaps ACT—has spoken out about the need for the health industry to look at how it employs and pays its carers who in many cases have to pay for their own transport from job to job. As MPs we get paid for our travel. It is totally outrageous that workers disguised as subcontractors or independent franchisees earning as little as the minimum wage of $9.50 an hour or less if they are under 18 are having to pay for their travel between clients. In other cases they even pay for their own cleaning equipment. It is no wonder that the provision of home-based age and disability care is in almost total meltdown in some parts of the country. 
In the 2001 census there were over 12000 people working in cleaning services. The Service and Food Workers Union says that the average wage of a cleaner on a collective agreement is $10.40 to $10.60 an hour. That is the rate for a collective. We can safely assume that there are many workers who are on less than that especially those who are not in a union. They will be on the minimum wage of $9.50 an hour or even lower if they are unlucky enough to be under 18. Many of those cleaners are doing two to three jobs just to make money to pay the bills and to keep themselves and their families going. 
Commercial cleaning is still one of the most undervalued and underpaid occupations in the country. I hope like Mark Gosche that all of us here spare a thought from time to time for those invisible workers who leave their families in the middle of the night to come here and make our offices habitable once again. 
The bill before us this afternoon does not and cannot address all the problems that surround vulnerable workers but I hope that perhaps later in the term we will see more legislation that will offer them greater protection and support. Meanwhile the Green Party is right behind the bill and I hope it will progress with considerable speed through the necessary processes. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I have been amused by some of the political commentators who have passed judgment on the performance of Maori Party MPs suggesting that because my learned colleague from the north Hone Harawira and myself have donned a tie miraculously we have acquired a sense of discipline an honest work ethic and a conscientious approach to the endeavours of this House. The reality is that hard work industry efficiency planning and accomplishment are synonymous with what it is to be Maori. Our earliest documented histories emphasised the advantages of work and of communal effort. Equally it is evident from any analysis of pre-colonial employment that idleness clumsiness and wastefulness were treated with contempt. One of the expressions of that time was: “Ma te werawera o tou mata e kai ai koe i te haunga ahi o te kai.” That can be interpreted to mean that by the perspiration on one’s face one will taste the piquant flavour of cooked food. In other words hard honest work by all will bring its own rewards. 
The rewards of collective prosperity of unity and of the well-being of people are values that pass down the generations. In this world view the possibility of vulnerable employees who are affected by the sale or transfer of a business or the contracting-out of work simply does not fit. For a start as in the old English adage the measure of a community is only as strong as its weakest link. Moving down the centuries I wonder what our tipuna would have thought of the workplaces of today. 
The Maori Party will be supporting the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. We do so in recognition of the fact that quality employment and productivity emerge from a decent work environment and decent wages. A decent work environment means that all staff are valued including vulnerable workers and that is exactly how it should be. Mauri mahi mauri ora; mauri noho mauri mate. Industry begets prosperity; idleness begets insecurity. Or through collective effort supporting all members of the team we can achieve economic gains and social stability. 
 To achieve those goals we now know that employment protection is required to ensure that groups of vulnerable employees are not standing out in the cold. And who are those vulnerable employees? Well one thing is for sure: they do not get promoted with a glossy career profile encouraging our children to grow up to be a vulnerable worker. Yet the combined trade unions the Minister of Labour and the other Labour Ministers all sing the same song justifying the introduction of this bill as necessary to protect the terms and conditions and continuity of employment of vulnerable workers. 
When we consider the situation for vulnerable workers we are considering the situation for many Maori and Pacific Island workers. In the 1980s the ruthless economic restructuring driven through by Labour increased Maori unemployment to record levels. I remember when it was 22 percent. The damage caused in the 1980s has left a lasting impact with the unemployment rate of 7.6 percent for Maori still three times that of Pakeha. That equates to thousands of Maori available for and seeking work. Facing the choice between the dole queues or the food banks many of our people will accept employment that is casualised lowly paid and insecure. 
The Maori Party members believe that the bill being discussed here today will benefit the many Maori workers and their whanau who are affected by subsequent contracting. Without the amendments that are tabled in this House vulnerable workers stand to lose employment and thus their income to face precarious terms and conditions or to have changes imposed upon them—such as changing hours of work and increased workload and associated stress—when there is a contract change. The legislation will overtake the Employment Court decision made last year that said employees did not have employment protection in succession-to-contract situations. Again this House is facing the dire consequences of an error of lawmaking much as we saw last week with the Land Transport Amendment Bill. 
The legislation amends Part 6A of the principal Act and relates to the transfer of terms and conditions of certain vulnerable workers when a business is sold or work is contracted out. As this House will recall last July—and it has been mentioned before—six Dunedin kindergarten cleaners lost their bid to keep jobs in the first case to test the employment protection provisions included in the legislation in 2004. The workers found themselves out of a job after their employer’s cleaning contract was taken over by another company Crest Commercial Cleaning which declined to keep them on. It is all well and good to say that the intent of the original Act was always to protect the terms and conditions and continuity of employment of vulnerable workers such as cleaners. Well as the Employment Court in  
Gibbs and others 
 v  
Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd 
 showed the provisions of the Act were not clear enough to uphold the intention in the event of subsequent contracting. 
Once again as with the land transport error it is real families real workers real situations that suffer because of sloppy drafting. They are workers who are already on low incomes; workers who may already be under pressure as they manage the demands of juggling their employment with childcare and with whanau and community commitments; workers who may be struggling to manage multiple employment responsibilities in the stress of trying to supplement low pay and scrabble together enough to put bread on the table. We know that the faces of a lot of these workers are brown. We have been glad to meet with Te Kauwae Kaimahi Runanga which represents the jawbone of Maori trade union workers. We are aware of the huge impact of poverty wages casualisation insecurities and cultural undervaluing all of which go on for far too many workers who are Maori. 
The amendments are setting in place a practical solution to a very real problem. The Maori Party is aware that contracting change-overs are happening all the time and every week low-paid workers are losing their employment as a result. Workers are telling us too often that imposed changes to work hours can and do result in job loss. Without the amendments employers are able to screw down wages and conditions. The bill ensures that employees can now enforce their rights when an employer fails to provide the right to elect to transfer by providing remedies and penalties for non-compliance. If workers transferring to a new employer are surplus to needs they have the right to bargain redundancy entitlements from the new employer. 
The legislation being laid before us today is a step along the way to assisting our vulnerable workers improve their lot. But it is still only a limp band-aid on a seeping hakihaki—that is like a sore—oozing out over this nation: the spreading sickness of poverty. This Parliament must seek to reduce the gap between low-income taxpayers and the average income for the nation. How often do we need to remind this House that six out of every 10 Maori have an annual income of $20000 or less or putting it another way that the incomes of Maori people are on average $163 less per week than those of Pakeha—$437 compared with $600? The Maori Party has always said that if we are looking for real progress for our workers and families the most effective policy change would be to increase the minimum wage to $12.50 per hour. This would mean a figure of in the vicinity of $25000 for those working between 37.5 and 40 hours per week. So while we are happy to support the new amendments in their intention to establish employment protection in succession-to-contract situations we will not resile from continuing to front the challenge against poverty in Aotearoa. We believe that in a buoyant economy we should expect more people to benefit from employment opportunities and wages that can support real living conditions. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I do so understanding that the bill’s intention is to provide protection to vulnerable employees in all change-of-employer situations including succession to contract and contracting in and contracting out of work. I understand that “vulnerable workers” is a term that mainly applies to those who work as cleaners and that the aim of the bill is to ensure that benefits are continued regardless of the changing employment arrangements around the worker. We understand that the bill is being put forward by the Service and Food Workers Union and we also understand that the trigger for it as referred to by other speakers was a particular case involving Dunedin kindergartens that was before the Employment Court in Dunedin— 
Gibbs 
and others 
 v  
Crest Commercial Cleaning 
Ltd 
 was the name of the case. 
United Future has decided not to support the bill for several reasons. We have several concerns and apprehensions about it and I will quickly explain them. Firstly we are unconvinced of the need for this legislation. Most large companies with cleaners have multi-employer contracts with unions with provisions that already cover succession to contract and contracting in and contracting out scenarios. 
Our second concern is that the employment of an employee who elects to transfer to a new employer would be treated by the amendment as continuous. It is a little unclear at this stage what “continuous” means and what sort of period of time is covered by the continuous employment provision. 
Third we fear that the bill will force out minor players by imposing on them the same rules that larger companies have to contend with. Larger companies tend to be able to absorb these kinds of rules and regulations more easily than smaller ones. We are concerned that far from protecting vulnerable workers the bill could do the reverse and push them out of employment. A number of the smaller players are often small family businesses and interestingly enough quite a large number of them are owned by Pacific Island families. Our legislation in this area should be aimed at making it easier for new immigrants to work and to set up their own businesses when they feel ready not to make that harder than it is at present. We feel that the bill has the potential to keep new players out of the cleaning industry. 
The very nature of competition between businesses is that one can out-price but one can also outperform competitors. My experience of employing cleaners is that most people who take out a contract for cleaners rather than being completely constrained by what it will cost are more interested in the quality of the work that is to be done. I myself since coming to Parliament have employed a cleaner—and I would like to say that I pay my cleaner well above the minimum wage and I hope I am a good employer. To say cleaners are somehow undervalued could not be further from the truth in my experience. When I go home on a Friday at the end of a hard day the most wonderful thing is to walk into my home and see what has been done on my behalf and I do not begrudge a cent of what I pay. But what I value is the quality of the work that has been done. I do think that when a contractor has not been performing to the standard that was expected and when that has been communicated and the staff have not complied with that advice then the contractor should be able to move on and if necessary in order to make the necessary changes bring in new staff who will work to the standard that has been set. 
United Future will not support the first reading of the bill. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I have much pleasure in speaking in support of this important bill and I congratulate Minister Dyson on bringing it to the House so promptly. It is a very complex area and it is very clear that some members of the Opposition do not understand it. I hope I will have the opportunity at the select committee to explain to those members exactly how some of these things work but I will try to make it clear tonight if I have the chance. 
It is very evident that they do not understand the real world of working as a cleaner as a food service worker as an orderly in our hospitals in our schools in our office buildings—in any sort of business where employers and contractors compete in the competitive tendering process on the basis of lower labour costs through reduced wages cutting hours or reducing staff numbers. So although my colleague over there might pay above the minimum wage in this situation I am sure she does not understand that what can happen is that staff hours are reduced. 
The purpose of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is to implement the Government’s intention to provide protection for vulnerable workers in situations where workers are contracted out or a business is restructured. As people have said the amendments are necessary because of the decision of the Employment Court in  
Gibbs and others 
 v  
Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd 
. The law does not provide specified workers with the protection the Government intended in situations of subsequent contracting. 
The bill was originally introduced in response to the devastating effects of more than a decade of competitive tendering and repetitive contracting-out of the thousands of low-paid workers. Over the last couple of decades a repetitive process of competitive tendering has become the norm as businesses seek ongoing cost reductions particularly in easily outsourced work such as cleaning food services and orderly and laundry services. Contractors compete on the basis of lower labour costs in a race to the bottom through reducing wages reducing staff numbers or reducing hours. 
The effect on those workers has been catastrophic. Workers lose their jobs often at short notice in a process that can be repeated up to four times a year. Contractors seek to win contracts by reducing hours of employment pay and conditions so even where workers continue to be employed by the incoming contractor they face “take it or leave it” situations in jobs with less pay and more often than not reduced hours of work. Those whose jobs are terminated often have no redundancy compensation protection and no other jobs to go to. 
The proposed bill is not a new idea and it has been carefully considered over many years by this Government; nor is it an idea that is unique to New Zealand. The UK has had a protection called the transfer of undertakings since the early 1970s and it is currently in the process of strengthening that legislation. Australia has similar protections for the transmission of business and it has had them for years. Having listened to Peter Brown I think he does not understand that the horse has bolted. Part of the legislation will continue to apply but what will not apply is the situation of subsequent contracting for those vulnerable workers described in the legislation—cleaners laundry workers food service workers and others—where they are already contracted out. Tens of thousands of those workers work in our schools polytechnics airports commercial buildings Parliament and aged-care facilities. The Crest Commercial Cleaning decision means that succession-to-contract situations are now explicitly excluded from subpart 2 of Part 6A of the current Act so the terrible irony is that the most vulnerable workers who were intended to be covered by this Act are now left to the vagaries of the market. I accept that there is a balancing act in weighing up protections for workers and the requirements of business but there is also a requirement to balance the relative powerlessness of workers who have little bargaining power and are more vulnerable. 
I will now address some of the things that have been raised. I think Wayne Mapp does not understand the nature of competitive tendering. One cannot just sack a contractor because one does not like the cleaners; it does not work like that. Peter Brown raised the point that this legislation could lead to the acceptance of incompetence and the protection of incompetence. Well performance is a management issue and our current labour laws give employers the right to deal with performance issues right now. The other thing that people do not understand is that this protection applies only at the point of transfer. It applies to the workers so that they have the right to transfer. After that the incoming employer or contractor has the right to restructure the business subject to current employment laws. 
It is really important for the workers whom we are talking about that this legislative protection proceeds through the House because it will make a huge difference to tens of thousands of workers many of whom are women Maori Pacific Island and new migrants. It will mean that they do not have to come to work each day not knowing whether by the end of the day they will have to go home and tell their families that they no longer have jobs. I also want to make the point that this is not about preventing contracting-out or undermining competitive tendering. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.