Volume 653 Week 8 - Tuesday 31 March 2009 
Volume 653 Week 8 - Tuesday 31 March 2009 
[Volume:653;Page:2189] 
Tuesday 31 March 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Ministers—Declaration of Pecuniary Interests 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What assurances if any has he received from all his Ministers that they have declared all of their pecuniary interests on becoming Ministers; if so when? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 As members of Parliament Ministers are required by the Standing Orders to disclose certain assets and interests in the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. Ministers who were members of Parliament before their appointment have therefore publicly declared their pecuniary interests. The declarations for the year to January 2009 were to be lodged by 2 March and will be published by the registrar in due course. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did Dr Worth while speaking in India as a Minister and promoting aviation training in New Zealand in which he had personal commercial interests meet all of the conflict of interest requirements set out in the  
Cabinet Manual 
; if not in which respect did he fall short of the required standards? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I said yesterday I think it was unwise for Dr Worth not to have resigned from the New Zealand Aviation company when he embarked on that trip to India. That left him open to a perception of conflict of interest. I do not believe that there was a real conflict of interest for Dr Worth or that he set out to make pecuniary gain; nevertheless he opened himself up to the perception of one. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister in the  
Dominion Post 
 
in the morning say that he had absolutely no problem with Dr Worth’s trip yet in the afternoon say that he had given Dr Worth “a bollocking” for his behaviour? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly the  
Dominion Post  
is not published in the morning and in the afternoon; those articles were published on different days. I was simply asked a different question on Friday from the one I was asked on Monday. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the New Zealand taxpayer in any way subsidise this private business junket run by a member of the Prime Minister’s Executive Council? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Not to the best of my knowledge. I have a copy with me of the letter sent to me by Dr Worth which I released yesterday and in it he made it clear that the expenses for his trip would be met by him personally. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister then confirm the accuracy of Dr Worth’s statement that he paid for his own flight to India and costs and does he therefore accept that no other body or interests contributed in any way towards the cost of that trip? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: To the best of my knowledge I understand that Dr Worth was facilitated when he left through Visits and Ceremonial Office but I do not think that that would create cost. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did Dr Worth and Mr Groser continue to hold directorships within New Zealand Aviation and the India Trade Group several months into their ministerial appointments and for how long was the Prime Minister aware of that? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly in relation to both Ministers they rightfully sought Cabinet advice on whether there was a conflict of interest. In the case of Mr Groser after he raised the issue with the Cabinet Office it was indicated that it probably would be best if he resigned and he took the opportunity to do so. I am advised that he informally resigned from New Zealand Aviation in late December or in January; he formally resigned on 23 January 2009. In the case of Dr Worth there was not perceived to be a conflict of interest because there was no conflict with the ministerial warrants that he held. Of course once he went on a trip to India that in my view created a perception of a conflict of interest. I will say that the India Trade Group for all of that is a worthy organisation and one that seeks to build links between New Zealand and India. It is so worthy in fact that when I looked at the honorary advisers I saw that one of them lo and behold is the Hon Phil Goff Leader of the Opposition. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the various people who are honorary advisers to the organisation have in fact absolutely no pecuniary interest in it and that therefore his throwaway line at the end was just a pathetic attempt to take the focus away from the major conflicts of interest suffered by his Ministers? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. I think the Leader of the Opposition should stop acting so defensively. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did it take Mr Groser several months to resign from directorships that were an apparent conflict of interest when it took Richard Worth only 2 hours yesterday morning to do that? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In the case of Mr Groser as I said he verbally indicated that he would be resigning soon after he had raised the matter with the Cabinet Office. He was and is a very busy Minister of Trade. Amongst other things since becoming Minister he has been to Peru for days he has been to Poland he has been to Davos in Switzerland and he has been to India. In fact he has hardly ever been in New Zealand but in amongst all of that he did spend 2 weeks on the conservation estate. The feedback we have had internationally is that Mr Groser is a very hard-working Minister of Trade unlike the previous Minister of Trade. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Have therefore both Dr Worth and Mr Groser met the high standards that the Prime Minister says he expects from his Ministers; if not was he just talking tough when he said “One strike and you’re out.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes they have both met the standards— 
Hon Members 
: The high standards? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well yes they have both met the standards. I just point out to the Leader of the Opposition that he might like to talk tough down here in Parliament this afternoon but when he was asked on  
Morning Report 
 this morning: “Have you any proof that within the 3 months Mr Groser did anything that was a conflict of interest or compromise that in any way?” he said “No no. I’m not alleging that against Tim Groser. I cannot argue that. That was not the case.” By the way on the same  
Morning Report 
 item this morning Mr Goff said that for any breach of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 someone should be gone. You see Phil Goff wants to sack people for a perception of conflict of interest but when there was one with Taito Phillip Field and when there was one with Winston Peters as a senior member of Cabinet he sat back and did nothing. 
Sheep—Live Export to Saudi Arabia 
2.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: How does he expect New Zealand would benefit from any resumption of the trade in live sheep exports for slaughter in Saudi Arabia? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 New Zealand would benefit economically from the resumption of trade. I do not want to speculate on any specific figure but I can tell the House that the live animal export trade last year was worth a billion dollars to the Australian economy. It is clear that in these challenging times this trade is a potential—and I emphasis potential—economic opportunity for our farmers. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is it not the case that at the moment just one Saudi exporter is seeking resumption of the trade; and why would the Government risk ruining New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible agricultural exporter so that a Saudi-owned company can send sheep on a traumatic 3-week sea journey only for them to be slaughtered at the end of their nightmare voyage? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The negotiations on continuing the trade with Saudi Arabia began approximately 4 years ago under the previous Labour Government. No timetable is set for the completion of those negotiations. The fact is that the export of livestock for slaughter will not happen unless this Government is totally satisfied that the highest animal welfare and safety standards are met. 
Colin King 
: What is the Government’s primary focus in relation to the issue of live animal exports? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Very simply animal welfare. We inherited these negotiations from the previous Government and I have made it clear to officials that my overriding concern in even considering this issue is ensuring that the most stringent standards of animal welfare and safety are met both during transportation and upon arrival. Unless these standards can be absolutely guaranteed I have no appetite whatsoever for resuming these exports. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How can he possibly guarantee that stringent animal welfare standards will be maintained on a 3-week-long sea journey where up to 70000 sheep are jammed into pens and have to endure overcrowded conditions heat stress seasickness exhaustion and disease with many dying en route to Saudi Arabia or for that matter on arrival at Saudi Arabia given that country’s lack of animal welfare laws? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That covers the very point I am making. The Government is demanding extraordinarily high standards of animal welfare and safety before we consider the resumption of live exports. I would be the first to acknowledge that it might be difficult for some countries to meet these conditions. But let me make it very clear: we are not prepared to compromise and that may mean this trade never resumes. 
Colin King 
: Has any timetable been set for the resumption of live sheep exports? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No. Despite the scaremongering and hysteria of the Greens absolutely no timetable has been set. The Greens should be ashamed to suggest otherwise. These negotiations have been continuing for 4 years and no timetable is set for their completion. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why when we have longstanding certified halal slaughterhouses in New Zealand would we even consider sending sheep to the other side of the world to be slaughtered and would not resumption of the trade inevitably cost jobs and lead to abattoir closures as has happened in Australia? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: There clearly is potential for economic benefit to the New Zealand sheep farmer if the conditions I have spoken about today can be satisfied. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One is the company records of Awassi New Zealand Ltd showing that it is a wholly owned Saudi company. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: The second document is a cartoon in the  
Weekend 
Press 
 dated 28 March 2009 stating “We sacrifice these animals”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a cartoon from a newspaper? 
Sue Kedgley 
: It is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a cartoon from a newspaper. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Tax Cuts—Implementation 
3.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent measures has the Government taken to put more money in New Zealanders’ pockets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Tomorrow about 1.5 million New Zealanders will benefit from tax cuts. These cuts will deliver around $18.50 a week to someone on the average wage and will inject over a billion dollars into the economy over the next year. Tax cuts provide the right incentives to encourage people to get ahead and to boost growth as we come out of the recession. 
Amy Adams 
: How will the 1 April tax cuts help lower-income earners? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: About 630000 New Zealanders who earn between $24000 and $48000 a year will benefit from the new independent earner tax credit which returns up to a $10 a week increase in their incomes. Low to middle income workers will also benefit from the lifting of the 33c tax threshold from $40000 of annual income to $48000. 
Amy Adams 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of alternative approaches to tax cuts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Under the policy of the previous Government there would have been no tax cuts for anyone this year. It is confusing trying to track Labour’s position on tax cuts. It has called for cancellation of the 1 April tax cuts—a move that would strip at least a billion dollars out of taxpayers’ pockets over the next few years. At the same time it has also called for much greater fiscal stimulus. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is an experienced member and he knows full well that he does not have responsibility for Labour policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a valid point of order. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Can the Minister please explain to the House and the people of New Zealand how borrowing $1 billion from some New Zealanders to finance tax cuts worth $1 billion to other New Zealanders will create a net gain for the average New Zealander? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A feature of these tax cuts is that they are permanent. National is committed to lower taxes because we believe that the long-term effects of them are to increase the incentive for people to get ahead and to increase the rewards for hard work investment and risk taking. We do not believe that we should abandon those principles because we are currently in a recession. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that these tax cuts are “fair for all New Zealanders” when 71 percent of New Zealand earners will receive nothing and 30 percent of all of the tax benefit will go to only 3 percent of income earners? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I do agree with the Prime Minister. We believe that these tax cuts are fair and affordable. I do not agree with the member’s numbers. 
Amy Adams 
: What is the Government doing to help small to medium sized businesses? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: On 1 April a number of measures will be introduced that will make it simpler and less expensive for small to medium sized enterprises to pay tax. These changes are worth around $480 million over 4 years. Among them are changes to the provisional tax system that will provide an immediate cash-flow boost to small to medium sized enterprises by leaving around quarter of a billion dollars in those businesses in May this year. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Can the Minister explain to the House how borrowing $1.4 billion—a figure that includes interest on previous borrowings to finance tax cuts in 5 years’ time—to finance tax cuts totalling $1 billion this year will create a net gain for the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I explained to the member we believe that lower taxes are the right policy in the longer term and I had formed the impression that that was his view as well. 
Internal Affairs Minister—Visit to India 
4.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Can he confirm that he as reported in the  
Dominion Post 
 on 30 March 2009 spoke at a formal ceremony as Minister of Internal Affairs about the benefits of aviation training in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 No I cannot confirm that. I did not speak as a Minister of any portfolio at any event or ceremony during my visit to India. I spoke at the ceremony for approximately 5 minutes as the chairman of the India Trade Group on the benefits of strengthening trade links including those in agribusiness between India and New Zealand. I need to say with reference to a comment made by the Hon Phil Goff that the India Trade Group is an incorporated society. It is like a business council. It is a not-for-profit organisation. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Minister meet all of his own costs for travel accommodation and other requirements on the trip to India where he promoted New Zealand Aviation? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: The costs of the trip were borne by me. I did receive hospitality at a number of events. I can record what those events were: three social functions in Delhi and I think two social functions in Chandigarh. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did he receive airport facilitation from Ministerial Services either when leaving New Zealand or on his return to Auckland; if he did did his fellow shareholders in New Zealand Aviation at the time as private individuals also receive facilitation from Ministerial Services? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Yes I did receive facilitation at airports. I am not certain whether it was at every airport. Some members of the India Trade Group also received similar facilitation as members of that travelling team that I was chairing. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Were his fellow shareholders in New Zealand Aviation—those who received as private individuals ministerial facilitation at Auckland Airport—amongst those who contributed $1000 per person towards his personal expenses; if so just how much did the trip to India cost him or might he have run it at a small but tidy profit? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I am completely unaware of what the member has just said in terms of support. It is right to say that the final costs of the trip have not been allocated. I am simply unaware of the truth of that statement. I do not believe it to be correct. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister still receive any form of income from Simpson Grierson; if not when did he last receive any income from Simpson Grierson? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that that question relates to the primary question about a trip and speaking as Minister of Internal Affairs overseas or at least a report on 30 March. I do not see how the issue of whether the Minister has any income from Simpson Grierson is within the Standing Orders. I will give the member the opportunity to reword a question that does fall within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did the Minister inform the Southern Institute of Technology’s chief executive Penny Simmonds of his intention to withdraw from his directorship of New Zealand Aviation last September but did not do so until yesterday after the public heat had been turned up? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I do not have a clear recollection of that issue but for the benefit of the member I can explain the background to that issue. The brief background is that when those discussions took place with Penny Simmonds of the Southern Institute of Technology there was a proposal that there would be a shareholding of the Southern Institute of Technology in New Zealand Aviation Ltd. That never came about and the plan moved from there to a proposal that there would be a new joint-venture company set up of New Zealand Aviation Ltd and the Southern Institute of Technology. I understand that that joint-venture company has not been set up. It was never part of the plan that I would be a shareholder or director of that new company. I also need to say that New Zealand Aviation Ltd has never traded. It is a holding company and its existence and my link with it were disclosed in the 2009 Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Minister meet with New Zealand immigration officials in Delhi whilst he was in India; if so did he meet them as a Minister of the Crown or as not a Minister of the Crown and what was the nature of any representations he made? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: My recollection of that is that when the India Trade Group delegation arrived in Delhi there was a briefing at the Indian High Commission— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The New Zealand High Commission. 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: —the New Zealand High Commission in Delhi. My recollection is that there was an immigration official there. I have no recollection of exactly what was said but I believe there was a briefing by her on immigration issues. 
Hon Member 
: To a private citizen? 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: To the India Trade Group delegation. I believe I made no representations at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Questions should not be submitted by interjection. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek leave to table a number of newspaper clippings all of which are from India. The first is from  
The 
Tribune 
 which is the largest-selling daily paper in north India. The article quotes “New Zealand’s senior minister for internal affairs Richard Worth”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Indian Express 
 which quotes Mr Worth as saying that the cost of getting an airline pilot’s licence in New Zealand is around $70000 and that that is a good deal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek leave to table an article from an Indian newspaper known as UNP which describes the New Zealand delegation as being “led by their Internal Affairs Minister Dr. Richard Worth OBE.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek leave to table an article from  
The Times of India 
 which describes New Zealand internal affairs Minister Richard Worth as leading the delegation and quotes Mr Worth as saying that “New Zealand is an ideal place for aviation training as it trains pilot to tackle the sudden change of weather.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Government Position 
5.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will New Zealand be following Australia’s lead in reconsidering its position and giving New Zealand’s unqualified support for the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples thereby reversing the New Zealand Labour Government’s vote against it in 2007; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: Australia has recently reviewed its stance on the declaration. An announcement on its new approach is expected on Friday. We will look at the way the Australian Government interprets the declaration and will see whether its interpretation is applicable in New Zealand. However I cannot comment until we have seen what the Australians are saying about their support. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. What recent advice has the Minister received from officials regarding New Zealand’s position on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In November 2008 the ministry’s briefing to the incoming Minister outlined New Zealand’s position on the declaration. Since then the Minister has received several pieces of advice giving him background on the declaration and the position taken by New Zealand. 
Hone Harawira 
: Has the Minister been involved in any discussions with his Australian counterparts regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; if so what has been the nature of those discussions? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes the Minister of Foreign Affairs had an informal conversation with his Australian counterpart on Sunday 29 March in which the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was covered. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Why is Aotearoa New Zealand one of only three countries that oppose recognising indigenous rights under this UN declaration? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is important to understand with regard to the declaration that it is aspirational and is not legally binding. New Zealand takes its international obligations seriously and does not support texts unless we are able to implement them. So the issue is whether it is possible to do that. 
Police Staff—Drink-driving 
6.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many instances if any of police staff being caught drink-driving on or off duty has she been briefed on and on what dates were those briefings? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have received briefings in relation to two instances where off-duty police staff were stopped for drink-driving. Those briefings were received on 12 January and 30 March this year. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does she agree that those cases together with the other three cases of staff being charged—two sworn staff and one non-sworn staff—that she mentioned in answers to written questions from me tarnish the professional image of the police who on the whole carry out their duties honourably and professionally; and does she believe that she has a responsibility to show any leadership and to take appropriate action so that the public can have confidence that such behaviour is not condoned? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I agree with the member that it does not help the image of the police to have these instances happen. I recall that there are over 11000 police staff both sworn and non-sworn. Two instances is a pretty good record when one considers the record of the previous Labour Government. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Has she seen any other reports relating to police and drink-driving? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes I have seen a report in the  
Herald on Sunday 
 in which Clayton Cosgrove said he was “shocked” that two police officers were facing drink-driving charges. I do not recall his being shocked last year when the police advised in June that four officers were facing charges of excess breath-alcohol levels. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What specific action has she taken in her role as Minister in order to earn her pay in regard to each of those cases to ensure that the public maintain confidence in the police? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have asked the Commissioner of Police whether he felt there was any need to amend the police code of conduct but he agreed with me and with Annette King who advised this House in 2007 that the code of conduct had been approved by Cabinet. I recall that that member was a member of the Labour Cabinet that approved it. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How does she reconcile that answer with her answers to written questions Nos 1423 and 1434 which indicate that she has not even bothered to ask the Commissioner of Police to review the code of conduct in the light of those cases and even more bizarrely with her not having prepared any Cabinet papers or Cabinet committee papers since she became Minister; and does she intend to do anything— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s not true. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: —it is true because she answered the question—practical as Minister of Police to earn her pay instead of swaggering around the country talking tough? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Clearly the answer is easily. I suggest that the member recall that it was his Cabinet of which he was a member that chose to agree to the police code of conduct—and that was just over 1 year ago. For goodness’ sake he should do his homework before he comes down to the House. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I know that this is slightly unusual but I seek leave to table the answers to the two parliamentary written questions that I read out— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess I am obliged to put that leave since it has been sought but to table the answers to parliamentary questions that are on the public record is not consistent with the advice of the Standing Orders Committee. I am— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not dealt with the leave. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If I can just speak to the point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may speak to the point of order. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Mr Speaker I agree with you absolutely but the Minister said in contradiction to the answers to the written questions that she had asked the Commissioner of Police. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will seek leave to table the answers to those parliamentary questions. Is there any objection? There is. 
Broadband—Initiatives 
7.  
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What steps has the Government taken today to advance ultra-fast broadband in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 This morning I announced the Government’s proposed investment model that will help deliver ultra-fast broadband around New Zealand. This roll-out will enable schools health services businesses and households to take advantage of new and quickly developing technologies that will improve productivity and help grow our economy. Under our proposal the Crown will invest up to $1.5 billion alongside private sector co-investors and regional fibre companies that will deploy and provide access to fibre-optic network infrastructure in towns and cities throughout New Zealand. 
Allan Peachey 
: Why is this particular model of co-investment preferred over other models that the Government considered? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government considered a range of models but selected this one because it allows flexibility to provide regional solutions whilst meeting the Government’s clearly laid out principles regarding economic growth not substituting private investment not lining the pockets of existing providers avoiding duplication not preserving legacy assets and assuring affordable broadband services. An investment model allows both the Government and taxpayers to maintain an ongoing interest and obtain a return over time as opposed to the Government simply providing grants with no ongoing relationship. 
Clare Curran 
: Can the Minister confirm that by shifting from its pre-election policy of a single regulated utility model for delivering broadband to one that is regional open contestable and technology-neutral National has adopted Labour’s broadband investment policy framework; if this is true why did National not campaign for that rather than the opposite? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There are a number of differences between the model we have adopted and the previous Government’s Broadband Investment Fund. The first one is that this model is an investment unlike the so-called Broadband Investment Fund which was a grant; this model is directed at fibre technology whereas the previous Government’s model was a range of technologies; and this model is quite significantly larger than the one the previous Government planned. 
Allan Peachey 
: How will the Government choose whom to partner with in each town and city? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government is proposing to establish a Crown-owned investment company to drive the Government’s investment. It will be up to this company to decide whom to invest alongside in each town and city bearing in mind the Government’s objectives and principles. 
Clare Curran 
: Why is the Government setting its sights so low for private sector investment by requiring only $1 from the private sector for every dollar from its $1.5 billion investment when Labour would have required up to double that? Is that not selling the project short and should New Zealanders not be wondering whether they are getting the best bang for their buck? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There is a difference between an investment and a grant. Grants do not require a return to the Crown whereas investment does. 
Energy Efficiency—Promotion 
8.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does the Minister still agree with the recently reported joint statements with the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues that “We take energy efficiency very very seriously” and “I am very keen that more New Zealanders become aware of how they can save energy”; if so what policies is he promoting to support New Zealanders to do just that? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes my opinion has not changed from a day ago when those comments were reported in the Christchurch  
Press. 
 The Government has supported and continues to support a large number of projects designed to encourage energy efficiency. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When will the Minister’s new-found enthusiasm for energy efficiency translate into support for Labour’s proposal to better insulate homes across New Zealand a measure that will not only increase energy efficiency but also improve New Zealanders’ health and create much-needed jobs for this country? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This is one of those programmes that never existed. The Labour Government hoodwinked the nation hoodwinked the Green Party put together some sort of murky idea and went out to the voters and do members know what? Anybody who wanted to insulate his or her home would have been just like Mother Hubbard and found the cupboard was bare. Those members never funded it. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What other energy efficiency programmes does the Government support? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has a large number of worthwhile programmes. To name just a few there is the energy intensive - business project which offers cash grants to help businesses to adopt energy-saving technologies; energy-efficiency star ratings are available for consumers to make choices about good appliance purchases; and there is the $1000 grant for solar hot-water installation as well. I have directed officials from the authority and the Ministry of Economic Development to identify further opportunities to make energy efficiency gains across all sectors of our economy. Unlike our opponents opposite we will make sure that those programmes when announced are funded. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Which of the following two people is right about energy efficiency: the Minister’s colleague Nick Smith who said the Government is supportive of Earth Hour or the Minister’s own political adviser who announced via a social networking site last week that he would be turning his lights on during Earth Hour and who publicly encouraged everyone else to do the same as him? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Fortunately I can report that cyberspace is a place of great mystery to me and I have no idea what young people get up to when they are digging around in an area. What I can tell the member is that in my case every light was turned off in my home. All the switches were off and I was at AMI Stadium enjoying the rugby along with many others. It was a great night for the Crusaders and while we are on that topic— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Oh fair enough; I accept that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does not the Minister’s continued opposition to the energy efficiency measures proposed by Labour coupled with the publicly stated attitude of his own staff—hand-picked—help to demonstrate that the Government’s claim to support energy efficiency is just a public relations exercise? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member asked me at the start of this question in the primary question to confirm my statements supporting energy efficiency. I have done that and I do support it. What is more far from just going out there with some sort of a pipedream like Labour did before the last election National will soon be announcing a range of energy-efficiency measures for the economy and they will be funded. We do not think that slogans are enough; we think that action is very very important. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave—so that the Minister can see what goes on in cyberspace—to table the relevant statements from Facebook for him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document with statements from Facebook. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Accident Compensation—Government Actions 
9.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What action is he taking to fix ACC’s financial problems? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 This afternoon I announced the reconfigured Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board. I have put strong emphasis on actuarial investment and financial governance skills to better equip the corporation with the skills to address the scheme’s financial problems in these challenging economic times. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Why has the Minister determined that change in the ACC board was necessary? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: First the Government’s new direction for the accident compensation scheme requires a focus on cost control in order to avoid unaffordable levy increases. Second the changed economic environment requires top-flight investment and actuarial skills to oversee the scheme’s very large liability and investment portfolio. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree that replacing more than half of the ACC board including Ross Wilson and Wayne Butson will make it easier for the Government to reduce the scope of accident compensation cover and to privatise the earners account which currently covers all workplace accidents? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it will enable us to ensure that the board members will have the top-flight governance skills that are needed to run a very large organisation and to provide New Zealanders with 24/7 care but at the same time ensure that the levies are affordable for ordinary New Zealanders. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister received on briefings and timeliness of responses? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was amused to note that the deputy leader of the Labour Party said there were some 600 briefings. In fact there was one. I note that an important briefing was provided on 14 August last year noting a requirement for $1.56 billion. The matter was not included in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update because Treasury officials said it was not being considered by Ministers. The billion-dollar question is why a problem of that size was not being considered by Ministers. 
Government Advertising—Independent Earner Tax Credit 
10.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by the  
Cabinet Manual  
guidelines on advertising; if so is he satisfied that all Government advertising since the change of Government complies with those guidelines? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I do stand by the  
Cabinet Manual 
 guidelines. I am not aware that any Ministers or departments have breached those guidelines since the change of Government. I would be disappointed if they had breached them. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by his own statements that Governments should not be using taxpayer funds to push political messages and instead should be concentrating on helping families through the recession; if so why did his Government spend taxpayers’ money on this highly political advertisement I am holding up? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes; but I cannot read the advertisement and I have not seen it so I am sorry I cannot comment on it. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Prime Minister think it is a good use of taxpayers’ money to run an advertisement that gives the impression that all New Zealanders will get the $10 independent earner tax credit when the truth is that nearly 80 percent of New Zealanders will miss out? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: OK so that is what we are talking about. I am surprised that the member has bothered to raise this question in Parliament because it will be very embarrassing for the Opposition. The programme she refers to affects 630000 New Zealanders. From tomorrow they will get $10 each per week. The Minister of Finance took a moment out of his busy schedule to come to ask me personally about the advertising campaign. He went with Treasury’s least expensive option which was a 4-week programme of advertisements in print in the press and online. Its total cost was $600000 and the Minister of Finance said to me as he wandered out of my office “Gosh! We are a low-cost Government compared with the previous Labour Government. It spent $21.5 million on advertising Working for Families.” 
Hon Annette King 
: Did The Prime Minister approve spending taxpayers’ money on this advertisement and why was this advertisement acceptable to the Prime Minister when he said that advertisements about KiwiSaver last year were political propaganda? What is the difference between the adverts on KiwiSaver which gave information to New Zealanders and this advertisement—is that not a word that starts with “h”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are a number of things. First Government departments make decisions on spending. I am advised that Government departments made those decisions absolutely in line with the guidelines. The second thing is that if the member does not like the decision then she should take the matter to the Auditor-General to see what he thinks of it because I think he will find the advert to be low cost. The third thing I can say is that the member should leave the asking of questions of the Prime Minister to her leader. He does not do much of a good job but at least he does a better job than she has done. 
Whenuapai Air Base—Status 
11.  
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What updates if any can he give on the status of Whenuapai Air Base? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Yesterday Cabinet agreed that Whenuapai would be retained as a permanent air base for the air force. This decision removes any uncertainty about the future of the Royal New Zealand Air Force at Whenuapai and for the local community who have been very concerned about that facility. Cabinet also agreed to a programme of essential remedial work to reverse the previous Government’s last decade of neglect. 
John Hayes 
: What work needs to be done to fix up the base? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The most urgent need is to rebuild the infrastructure of the runway and the hard-standing areas. These have been neglected for a full decade and now have deteriorated. Other work will be required for fuel storage facilities as well. 
John Hayes 
: Why has the base been run down so badly? 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The previous Government had planned to vacate Whenuapai. However it did nothing at all to vacate the base and kept extending the date from which it would vacate. That led to uncertainty and confusion about the future of the base. It also failed to undertake essential maintenance and has left a legacy not just here but also elsewhere in the Defence Force of run-down defence assets. 
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Government Position 
12.  
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will he follow the example of Australia and change the Government’s position to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 Australia has recently reviewed its stance on the declaration and an announcement on its new approach is expected on Friday. This Government will look at the way the Australian Government interprets the declaration and see whether its interpretation may be applicable to New Zealand but I cannot comment until we have seen what the Australians are saying about their support. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: How can the Government reconcile supporting the flying of a Maori flag on Waitangi Day while still prevaricating on recognising the collective human rights of Maori as affirmed in the UN declaration; or is the Government all symbolism and no action? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think that in general New Zealand has worked hard in the last 30 years to recognise the rights of indigenous people. This Government has been working very hard to recognise the rights of indigenous people. Flying the flag on the Auckland Harbour Bridge working so collaboratively with the Maori Party and ensuring that the Waitangi Tribunal and the whole Waitangi settlement process is properly funded are all good examples of us working for the rights of indigenous people. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s position to date has essentially been that if the declaration can be taken to have significant meaning then that meaning cannot actually be enforced by the New Zealand Government and therefore it has determined not to sign it but if the declaration can be interpreted to not have any great significant meaning then the Government might be prepared to sign it? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes the declaration is not legally binding; it is an aspirational goal. I think that New Zealand has done a lot for the rights of indigenous people but let us see what the Australians do on Friday and what caveats they put around their support. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Is it right to prevaricate on the recognition of both an aspirational goal and the recognition of the collective human rights of Maori when this Government is dependent on the support of the Maori Party? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We are not prevaricating. Firstly it will be interesting to see if the Australians make an announcement on Friday what caveats they put around that support for the declaration. As I said earlier it is an aspirational non-binding declaration. From this Government’s point of view we take the rights of indigenous people seriously and we are working hard to advance those rights. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Is there any objection to that public document being tabled? 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Questions to Members 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Was John Judge invited by him or a staff member to attend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2007-08 ACC financial review? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I did not invite Mr Judge to the meeting on 12 March. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was whether John Judge was invited by him or a staff member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is correct. That question has been on notice. The question was “Was John Judge invited by him or a staff member …?”. I presume that the member as chair of the committee would know that. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I did not invite him and I have no knowledge of any staff member inviting him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on whether given that Mr Bennett is a new chair of a select committee and clearly has not been briefed it is appropriate to have this question set down for answer tomorrow. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The question is set down for answer today and an answer has been given. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did he indicate to the committee that Dr Nick Smith was standing in for Mr Judge when he has indicated that he was not aware whether Mr Judge had been invited? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The Labour members of that committee should be very thankful that Mr Smith did come and present to the committee. They would have got a lot of value out of his presentation at that meeting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point is very clearly that that answer did not even address the question. The question started “Why did he indicate to the committee …?”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to repeat his question formally. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did he indicate to the committee that Dr Smith was standing in for Mr Judge when to the best of his knowledge Mr Judge had not even been invited? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: To have the Minister there is something the members should be very thankful for. It was at a time when the ACC board was going through a reconfiguration of its membership so to have the Minister there was very helpful. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did he indicate to the committee that Dr Smith was standing in for Mr Judge when to the best of his knowledge Mr Judge had not been invited? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The members of that committee will be very thankful they had the Minister there. The fact that the Minister was there is something the members of the Labour Party should be very appreciative of. There was a reconfiguration of the ACC board at that time which meant there were changes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did he indicate to the committee that Dr Smith was standing in for Mr Judge when to the best of his knowledge Mr Judge had not even been invited? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: A reconfiguration of the board was going on at that time and to have Mr Smith there as the Minister was very helpful for the committee. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No one in this House other than those there on that day can know the nuances that might have been around any discussion that took place at the committee. We are getting into very odd territory if we are going to allow endless supplementaries on such a fine and imprecise point that has very little to do with the actual procedure of the committee. Mr Bennett answered his first question perfectly adequately. We are being asked to try to fill in a massive gap that enables the next question somehow to get some validity. I think that is most unreasonable. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I do not think the point made by the Minister is correct. The massive gap that Mr Mallard is attempting to fill in is what is known as a credibility gap. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable members for their contribution to this matter. I find the House in a difficult situation because the question seems on the face of it to be a clear question. But I do not think we can go on pursuing this matter indefinitely although the member can come back with further questions. The bit that cannot be substantiated to the House is what the chair might have told the committee. Maybe primary questions are a better way to pursue that issue. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
2. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: Did he “agree” with the Minister in charge of ACC that he would attend the examination of the ACC financial review by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as a witness? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I agreed with the Minister that he would attend the meeting on 12 March. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why was that agreement not shown in the witness list on the committee agenda that was issued the day before that meeting? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It was agreed that the Minister would attend and possibly it may be the case that that should have been shown on there; my apologies if it was not. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review 
3. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: When and how did he become aware that John Judge chair of the ACC board would not attend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee’s examination of the 2007-08 ACC financial review? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 I had not asked Mr Judge to attend the meeting on 12 March. The Labour members of that committee I am sure got great value out of the Minister’s attendance though. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did Dr Nick Smith tell him that John Judge was not coming? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I did not ask Mr Judge to attend that meeting. Dr Nick Smith was in attendance at that meeting. It was very valuable to have his attendance as the Minister at that meeting and we agreed on his attendance. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did Dr Nick Smith tell him that John Judge would not be attending that meeting? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It was agreed that the Minister would attend the meeting and I think that was very helpful for all the members at that meeting. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Supplementary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have explored the matter. It is most unusual to allow two supplementary questions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very simple question. It was one that goes right to a discussion that the chair had—and that the chair has been reported publicly as having had—with Dr Nick Smith. That is something that must be within his memory. He must be able to answer the question. He has not even addressed it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the honourable member should reflect on the set of questions and answers. We should remember that the honourable member who is the chair of the committee has told us that he did not invite John Judge and was unaware of Mr Judge being invited to attend the committee so I do not see how he can then be aware that he was not coming. I think the member needs to reflect on the balance of questions and answers there. Maybe if he wishes he could put down a further primary question but I think we have exhausted all the possibilities of this set of questions today. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That would be entirely accurate other than for the fact that in the public part of the committee and in the media— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am sorry but can I just finish. Both Dr Nick Smith and the chair of the committee have indicated that there was an agreement that because John Judge was not coming Dr Nick Smith would. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We cannot allow that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He has already said that in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot allow further supplementary questions on that basis because I do not have that kind of authentication. Primary questions can have that kind of authentication. I do not believe we can pursue the matter further today. Do not forget that I have already allowed two supplementary questions on this question and I think that is fair and reasonable. 
Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time. 
Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 26 March. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
:  
I resume my speech in this second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. This bill gives effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. The review found that there were delays and inconsistencies around the legislative procedures of the Act as well as confusion about some of the definitions in the Act. There was also a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. 
The bill provides additional powers for Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations and to coordinate cross-agency activity. This bill widens the definitions of who is a “public official” and who is an “employee” for the purposes of this Act. It extends access to the Act and also extends access to its protections. This bill also allows whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe on reasonable grounds that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoings even if that belief is found to be mistaken. Two further amendments were made to the bill on the basis of the Government Administration Committee’s recommendations. The first amendment was the insertion of section 6C(2) inserted by clause 6 to specifically exclude private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for further information about that organisation’s internal procedures. The second recommended amendment to the bill was the insertion of section 15E(3) inserted by clause 8 to include section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act which is the section relating to offences under that Act. This makes it an offence to refuse to provide the information specified in that section to an Ombudsman. 
The 2003 review of the Act found that there were no fundamental problems with the Act’s substance but that roles and processes within the Act could be easier to follow and that guidance should be available for people proposing to make disclosures. The amendment bill improves aspects of the Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations. The Act will also make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. The Government supports the broad approach of the Act and any efforts to improve its operation and administration. It should be noted—and I believe it is clearly understood—that Ombudsmen are held in high regard across Parliament and in public and that they are a good fit for an increased facilitation and coordination role under the amendments to this Act. 
National expects that with the better tools provided under this amendment bill Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner and to hold the Government to account. Finally protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative changes; ongoing operational improvements are also very important. With those few points I commend this bill to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Darien Fenton. 
METIRIA TUREI (Deputy Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you know there is a guide for the order of speakers and I understand that we are now at the usual position for a Green Party member to take the call. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: According to the list that I have it was expected to be a further Labour member. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is one further Labour member before we go to ACT and the Green Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Darien Fenton. Has she given the floor to the Green member? 
Darien Fenton 
: Yes. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I thank my colleague Darien Fenton for allowing me to speak at this time. I have another appointment. The Green Party supports the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. It will help to protect the genuine whistleblowers who expose serious wrongdoing in the public sector. 
Under the Act at the moment whistleblowers can meet a brick wall if they make a procedural mistake regarding the organisation whom to complain to or how to complain. If they make a procedural mistake then their complaint can be ruled out. One technicality is that whistleblowers have to refer specifically to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. Now with this amendment bill such a technical mistake will not rule out their complaints. 
Whistleblowers will also be able—as the other speakers have indicated—to get help from the Ombudsman in a number of ways in terms of the procedures and how to carry the matter further if they reach some obstacle. The Ombudsman will be able to give whistleblowers help even before they make the disclosure if they want help prior to beginning the whole process. The Ombudsman can help further by investigating the issue on his or her own initiative or in coordination with the whistleblower or can refer the complaint to the relevant Minister. 
The complainant does not need to be absolutely sure of the situation before making the complaint. There has to be room for error because in many cases the whistleblower will get an inkling something is wrong or might have certain evidence that something is wrong but will not be absolutely sure of all the wrongdoing that has taken place. There might be a set of mirrors in the organisation and the wrongdoer is obfuscated and I think it is important that this does not hold up the investigation of the complaint by the proper people. 
The more assurance the whistleblower has that he or she is protected the better it will be for getting complaints into the system. We have found so far under the present Act that in the year 2006 there were only eight such whistleblower complaints. The reason for this low number is partly the potential whistleblowers’ lack of knowledge about procedures and what is possible and partly because the whistleblowers are not entirely confident that they will be protected—that is that their anonymity will be protected—which is important if they are to continue operating in the workplace or even in terms of their reputation outside the workplace. 
There is also the question of persecution. Any worker can be persecuted by the organisation’s management if it thinks the whistleblower is exposing something it does not want exposed. The whistleblower’s workmates may think that the reputation of a fine organisation is being sullied by the complaint and the whistleblower can be persecuted as a result. So protection is important if we are to encourage whistleblowing. 
In the original bill the problem was not helped by the channel of complaints having to go up through the hierarchy of the organisation to managers who could be at least in part responsible for the wrongdoing either directly through incompetence through not managing their affairs properly or even through looking the other way and not doing anything about wrongdoing by a subordinate. This bill will mean that complaints will not just be channelled up through the existing structure but that there will be a role for the Ombudsman. People can go to the Ombudsman and ask how to work through the process. 
It is important that volunteers are now included in the process because a lot of organisations use volunteers. Volunteers can recognise wrongdoing within an organisation and they should be able to whistle-blow too. Obviously non-governmental organisations use a lot of volunteers but so do State organisations such as the Department of Conservation. Volunteers should be able to be part of the whistleblowing process. 
All this is very important as the Bazley report on historic police wrongdoing indicated. If one reads that report one sees that a lot of what went on—the wrongdoing within the police at Rotorua etc.—happened because good police did not blow the whistle for reasons such as they did not feel they could they thought their careers would be affected because of mateship or whatever it was. A combination of things meant that the whistle was not blown and the situation got worse. 
Even in some of the discussions we are having now on whether things are going wrong in prisons it is important that we allow the maximum opportunity for whistleblowing rather than perhaps having some horrendous thing happen and then we debate it in Parliament. That situation could be short-circuited by people whistle-blowing at an earlier stage. 
This bill will help organisations to act more morally will hold them—particularly public organisations—to account and will make them more in accord with recognised codes of conduct. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am really pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. This is an important bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government. In fact it is so important that I see it still has the Hon David Parker’s name on it. It builds on the Protected Disclosures Act which was also introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2001. The bill was considered in the last Parliament by the Government Administration Committee of which I was deputy chair and I think the committee did an excellent job. 
It is pleasing to see that this bill has not been discharged by the National Government unlike some other important legislation. One such bill that was particularly close to my heart was the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 3) which would have given temporary and casual workers both in the State and in the private sector much more certainty and security in these very difficult times. I am relieved that the bill has survived the appalling denigration of public sector workers that we are seeing from this National Government. In its lexicon front-line workers means good workers and workers behind the front line are bureaucrats who in other words have jobs that are useless pointless and wasteful. The worker is often described as lazy bloated and dispensable. 
It must be awful to work in the State sector at the moment. There is nothing worse than having one’s job devalued having one’s work constantly criticised and living under the threat of the knife day after day after day. I feel for State sector workers and indeed I meet many of them as I go about my parliamentary duties and family responsibilities. I cannot imagine life without the clerical workers in hospitals for example who help us through the maze of public hospitals when a family member is in hospital. I cannot imagine life without the workers who help each of us here in Parliament like those who work as our executive assistants and those who work in our offices outside of Parliament. Are they bureaucrats or are they front-line staff? Who knows? It does not really matter to me because they do important work and we rely on them. I would love to see National Party MPs telling their executive assistants that they are bureaucrats and therefore valueless and useless and to see how far they get in their day’s work. The National Government unfortunately is currently responsible for the demoralisation of State sector workers—the very workers it will need help and cooperation from as the economic crisis grows and New Zealanders expect more assistance from this Government. 
 As previous speakers have said this bill amends the Protected Disclosures Act which facilitates the disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing within both public and private sector organisations and protects those who bring that information forward in accordance with procedures under the Act. 
John Hayes 
: Just table your speech Darien. We can read it. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I beg your pardon? 
Moana Mackey 
: Maybe the Prime Minister could have tabled the answers to his questions today. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is a good idea; the member is right. 
The need for the Act arose after 10 years of a National Government in a climate of fear in the public sector during the 1990s. There was the well-known story of Neil Pugmire a nurse at Lake Alice Hospital who expressed concern to his employer—which was then known by the ridiculous name of Good Health Wanganui; members will remember that name and how crazy that was—over the release of dangerous psychiatric patients into the community. When he got no satisfactory response he went public about his concerns. He was suspended and then fired. This led to much public debate about the importance of public servants being able to speak out about abuses or corruption that they see in their workplaces. 
Unfortunately I think that the climate of fear is reasserting itself in the Public Service. We have signs that this National Government will not tolerate dissenting views from public servants. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. The National Government is seeking to control even the very words that public servants use. There are bizarre examples. I have heard that NZAID staff have been told that any reports or papers written for Minister Murray McCully cannot include the words “poverty alleviation” “human rights” or “gender” in case they upset the Minister. There are other stories about stupid instructions from Ministers in relation to State sector staff about words that will not find favour—for example “social justice”. 
Moana Mackey 
: Public health! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: “Public health”! These kinds of directions are quite scary and when a Government seeks to direct or limit the very language of public sector workers we are heading down a very dangerous path. 
Then we have the strange circumstances of Dr Nick Smith seeking to muzzle the chief executive of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in the recent select committee debacle. That was after he muzzled the chair and the entire ACC board. Tony Ryall is pretending that if he dumps pay equity investigations then the problem does not exist. Soon we will not be able to use the words “pay equity” and women will just have to put up with being paid less than men for doing work of equal value. 
This Government is muzzling the State sector. It is shutting down dissenting views and it is shutting down debate. The National Government’s old prejudices are emerging. 
In speaking about disclosures let me ask about the interesting disclosure in the  
New Zealand Herald  
yesterday that New Zealanders are being asked whether the Government should allow nuclear-powered ships back into our waters. Workers for a market research company have disclosed that they have been polling voters about nuclear power. They claim that the survey was being carried out for the National Party. The original Act did require a review as other speakers have referred to and this was carried out by Mary Scholtens QC. It was an excellent report and she concluded that the Act had not been used a great deal and that it had not always been used well. That was of concern to the select committee and of concern to me. She identified that there were problems in the uptake of the rights of this bill and that many workers did not know about protected disclosures. She also said there were delays inconsistencies and other difficulties in using the legislative procedures properly. 
The report also highlighted that there was a strong perception among workers consulted on the Act that the identity of a whistle-blowing employee would not be protected. That perception goes to the heart of the effective operation of this Act and this bill. Without protection for those who set out to disclose wrongdoing in their organisation the confidence of workers is diminished. Ms Scholtens’ review concluded that the Ombudsman could assist whistleblowers coordinate referrals between appropriate authorities and guide and review the Act’s operation. The Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill gives the Ombudsman that enhanced role. It also picks up on a number of other recommendations designed to improve the Act’s protection and processes. 
The right of public sector workers to speak freely about their concerns will be severely limited by the current approach of this National Government. Which public servants in their right minds would be courageous enough to challenge their bosses in this kind of environment? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Down the road. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Absolutely. So many jobs are on the line there is so much uncertainty and the very work that workers do has been denigrated and maligned for month upon month both before and after the election campaign. The Government’s approach is highly dangerous not only to State sector workers but to the reputation of our Public Service. It also endangers our consistently good rating on the annual survey of Transparency International as a corruption-free country. 
In the current environment with National’s razor-gang approach—it is a razor gang on the march—this legislation is more important that ever. Unfortunately the National-led Government is destroying the goodwill of public sector workers let alone other workers. National members think they can get away with attacking young workers and vulnerable workers with the 90-day bill. They think they can risk alienating temporary and casual workers by dumping the bill that would have given them protection. They think they can denigrate the accident compensation scheme and fool the public into believing that privatisation and reductions in services are acceptable. They think they can ignore the State by refusing to provide alternatives such as the 9-day working fortnight for struggling departments and workers losing their jobs. Well I am here to tell National that its Government may be able to fool some of the people some of the time but it cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 If I had one concern about the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill it would be in the title. How much easier would it be if we knew we were standing to talk to the issue of workplace whistle-blowing—or even to talk to the bill to report serious wrongdoing in the workplace? 
The concept of disclosure has of course many and varied meanings. As a former lawyer the context I am most familiar with is disclosure as interpreted across various statutes. In company law disclosure relates to giving out information about public or limited companies. Disclosure in a property context refers to information being disclosed about aspects to do with real estate that might influence the property values or appraisal. Or in a criminal law action it might be understood within the context of the victim protection scheme. In a health context disclosure might relate to the nature of one’s disability or specific health condition. Whereas “workplace whistle-blowing” would clearly convey the types of disclosures that might promote investigation of serious wrongdoing in the workplace and provide protection for employees. Of course we would expect that “serious wrongdoing” could benefit from a full definition as well. 
This issue—of knowing exactly what we mean when we refer to protected disclosure—was a key concern brought forward by Mary Scholtens QC in her 2003 review of how well the protected disclosure legislation was working. In her assessment there were many difficulties associated with using the legislation procedures properly not the least being confusion over some definitions. 
Another key group of concerns was around a perceived lack of confidentiality and protection of identity. The review went so far as to say that the perception was so strong as to be possibly a reality—that it was unlikely the identity of a person making the protected disclosure would remain confidential. This is of course at the heart of the legislation so is a significant concern that this House must address. David Woodnorth a barrister writing in  
Employment Today 
 observed that “employees may only be prepared to blow the whistle on wrongdoing when they can be reassured that a high degree of confidentiality applies to their identity as the informant.” If confidentiality cannot be assured then employee confidence in the process will be unlikely and as a consequence the Act will only ever have limited effectiveness. 
In response to these not insignificant concerns the 2003 review recommended that the functions of the Ombudsman could be extended under the Act to give more explicit powers related to information-giving and advising. The bill highlights the role of the Ombudsman giving him or her an enhanced role in guiding reviewing and investigating disclosures of serious wrongdoing. In particular the Office of the Ombudsmen is charged with facilitating a collaborative cross-agency approach. We support the role of the Ombudsman in taking up a more substantial responsibility in managing and coordinating the various investigative functions of organisations and we were pleased to see the amendment from the Government Administration Committee making it an offence to refuse to provide the Ombudsman with information about internal procedures. 
Accountability transparency credibility—these are all concepts that the Maori Party has always placed a great deal of weight around. In our policy manifesto  
He Aha Te Mea Nui 
 we were keen to investigate a more substantial role for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. We had envisaged that an important new function they could take on would be reporting annually on the effectiveness of interventions targeted at Maori Pasifika refugees migrants and youth. This same reporting procedure might encompass an annual report on the capability of the State sector to achieve outcomes for Maori. So opening up one’s books—throwing light on to the affairs of any entity—is something that we believe is fundamental to the operations of a healthy democracy. We welcome therefore the recommendation to ensure both public and private sector organisations and employees will be required to provide information about their internal procedures around disclosure in the public interest. 
I have to admit—and I am sure the Minister would be of the same view—that it made serious reading to learn of the concerns raised by John Crowther. Mr Crowther was acting for Deborah Houston who was the whistleblower in matters of conflict of interest with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Ms Houston was acutely aware of the importance of getting it right in improving the protection of whistleblowers. In her experience the risk of retaliation was high. More evidence around this is provided in the New Zealand State Services Commission integrity and conduct survey of 2007. It was extremely disappointing to learn that district health boards have the lowest awareness of the provisions in the Protected Disclosures Act. Less than a quarter—some 23 percent—of our district health boards knew about the provisions of the Act. The other revealing finding was that there was less belief at the district health board level that senior and middle-management would exhibit and practise elements of ethical behaviour. The third disturbing conclusion from the survey was that although district health board employees report breaches of standards at about the same rate as the State services average their reasons for not reporting are typically more fear-based. In the report of the survey it notes that of the district health board employees who report misconduct some 30 percent claim to have experienced retaliation as a result. The leaders and decision makers of the institutions focused on the health and well-being of New Zealanders are at fault. I believe this is also a specific issue for all who are charged with responsibility in the health sector to face. 
On the basis of the 2003 review by Mary Scholtens and the submissions received for this bill there clearly has been an inconsistent application of the Act including questions about what agencies are included as “appropriate authorities”. And yet at the same time when the provisions of the Act had been incorporated into an organisational culture—when the risk management policies of an agency and the procedures relating to appropriate ethical conduct are sufficiently robust—then it has appeared to work well. 
We in the Maori Party have an interest in all organisations working well which will ultimately be in the best interests of the workforce of families and of the wider community. We believe the implementation of the Act would be successful with a greater involvement from the Office of the Ombudsmen and we support the overall thrust of extending human rights protections to those making disclosures of serious wrongdoing. The Maori Party supports this bill. Kia ora. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to support the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and I kick off by saying that New Zealand has a tradition of strong leadership. It perhaps began with “King Dick” Seddon in the 1890s and the first Labour Government around the Second World War conscription and the post-war era. I think of Sir Robert Muldoon’s administration during the economic crisis of the 1970s the fourth Labour Government from 1984 to 1990 and the National Government from 1900 until MMP arrived in 1996. The unbridled power of executive Government has been described as perhaps the most streamlined form of democracy in the world. I also think of my constituents and I see New Zealanders valuing pragmatism flexibility and innovation. When we want to change things we generally adopt an incremental approach to deal with problems. By and large the New Zealand community is happy to make changes in the way that we run our legislation. I see in my community a strong sense of egalitarianism and a sense of fair play and I think that honesty is a strong New Zealand value. In my community there is a widespread view that everybody should have a fair go and there is a belief that when injustices occur they need to be remedied. If someone has made a mistake or caused a problem even unwittingly he or she needs to front up and admit it. 
Over recent years there has also been a shift in the way that New Zealand officials local government politicians and others engage with business. There was a time when businesses took the view that central government would create broad business conditions through taxes trade policies subsidies—way back when there were things like subsidies—and monetary policy. They thought that there was not too much that local bodies could do to influence business conditions and their activities were minor. Over recent years we have seen the role of central and local government change quite significantly. If I think of my own electorate I have seen the Universal College of Learning a State-owned enterprise involving itself in Martinborough by going along and saying that it was going to set up a cuisine school. More recently I have seen activities under the aegis of the Canterbury Regional Council and its wholly owned subsidiary Target Pest Enterprises Ltd. That company went into receivership and cost people in my community serious amounts of money. I see that as indicative of an environment where our local authorities are much more engaged in commercial activity. I think of the Greater Wellington Regional Council and the consistent loss-making entity called BioWorks which is also competing with private sector companies. I support the broad approach of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act for those reasons as does the Government. There is a need to improve the workings of the legislation both in its day-to-day operations and in its administration. 
I recall about 2 years ago saying to John Belgrave a friend and a man I highly respected as an Ombudsman that the Office of the Ombudsmen was vital because it was the one guarantor that the right thing could be done and when the right thing was not done then politicians and people in the community relied on the integrity of the Office of the Ombudsmen to get good disclosure. I know that across our communities the Office of the Ombudsmen is held in high regard as it is in this Parliament. With this legislation we are trying to facilitate the Office of the Ombudsmen and the coordination role that it has. 
If we provide better tools through this amendment bill we can expect that Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner and will be better able to hold Government—both central government and local government—to account. I stress local government because that is where I keep seeing some entities owned by local government stepping out of line in provincial communities. For example the Universal College of Learning a tertiary provider is stepping out of line in some of the things it is doing. It is ultimately the people inside an organisation at all levels who are watching what is going on and very often are best placed to get engaged in the business of saying: “Excuse me I’m not sure that this is right. Could we please have another look at it?”. If they cannot get their colleagues in the organisation to do that then they need a vehicle for blowing the whistle. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; we also need ongoing operational improvements which are very important. We must learn from our mistakes. Silence is not in the public interest. We want the public to have confidence in the process of making a protected disclosure and in my 3½ years in Parliament I can point to a number of instances where that level of confidence has not existed or has not protected people. 
This bill will give effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act and I commend my colleague Tony Ryall for bringing this legislation back to the House and progressing it within the first 100 days of this administration. That review found there had been delays and inconsistencies around the legislative procedures of the Act as well as confusion about some of the definitions and a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. That is something that can be very hard to do in an environment where a relatively small group of people know what is going on. 
This bill provides additional powers for Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations and to coordinate cross-agency activity. The bill widens the definition of “public official” and of “employee” for the purposes of the Act. It extends access to the Act and to its protections. The bill will also allow whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe on reasonable grounds that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoing even if this belief is found to be mistaken. There are two further amendments to the bill that I will remain silent on at this point but I hope to address them in the third reading of the bill. Again I wholeheartedly support this legislation. Thank you. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Today I want to focus on the issue at hand and not waste time unlike some of the members opposite. Last week we heard Mr Grant Robertson talk about a whole range of irrelevant areas rather than focus on the topic being discussed. National has delivered this quickly after all the other results it has achieved in the first 100 days so I am pleased to stand to support the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in the second reading. 
National recognises the need to protect those who wish to speak out in the best interests of New Zealand. We need to recognise that whistle-blowing comes with some risk to employees. We also know that silence is not in the public interest. I want to address a comment that Ms Fenton raised around the possibility that the current Government might want to stifle freedom of speech. I remind the House of legislation passed by the then Labour Government called the Electoral Finance Act. That Act did everything it could to avoid members of the New Zealand public having their say. The National Government is proud to support freedom of speech. I want to talk about the original intention or objective of the initial Protected Disclosures Act 2000. 
Darien Fenton 
: Passed by the Labour Government. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Absolutely it was passed by that Government and National is proud to make sure that the Act works as it was intended to. That is why we are bringing this amendment to the House. 
The Act was intended to operate by facilitating the disclosure of serious wrongdoing facilitating the investigation of that serious wrongdoing and protecting employees who make disclosures under the Act. The Act also provided for a review to be made of its operation no sooner than 2 years after the commencement. That 2003 review appears to be comprehensive comprising of around 90 pages. That review was in 2003 so I am not quite sure what happened in the intervening years; it has taken 4 years for that bill to come to the House and the results—or at least some of them—were introduced last year by the then Labour Government. It took 4 years. In contrast to the previous Government—and I am not quite sure what it focused on—National has not wasted any time in picking up this bill and taking it forward to this second reading. 
As my colleagues Jacqui Dean and John Hayes have stated earlier today this bill gives effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Act. The review found delays and inconsistencies around the legislative processes of the Act some confusion about definitions and a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. Of course it is incredibly important that those who have information to disclose are adequately protected. The bill provides additional powers for the Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations and to coordinate cross-agency activity. The bill widens definitions of “public official” and “employee” for the purposes of the Act and extends access to the Act and—more importantly—its protections to include board members and volunteers. National recognises the important work that volunteers undertake and we recognise that those in unpaid work need to be equally protected in terms of disclosures. It allows whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe on reasonable grounds that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoing even if this belief is found to be mistaken. It recognises that mistakes can occasionally occur but we would much rather that people feel confident in their ability to be protected while disclosing important information even if on the odd occasion they are mistaken. 
Two further amendments were made to the bill on the basis of the Government Administration Committee’s recommendations. One is the insertion of section 6C(2). It specifically excludes private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for information about an organisation’s internal procedures. The other amendment is to section 15E. It includes section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act which is the section relating to offences under the Act. It makes it an offence to refuse to provide an Ombudsman with the specified information. 
When looking at the 2003 review the committee found that there were no fundamental problems with the Act’s substance but that the roles and processes could be easier to follow and that guidance should be available to people proposing to make disclosure. One important thing is that if there are steps that can be taken to make it easier for people to disclose then it might encourage more people to take that opportunity. That is why it is really important that these processes are simplified and rather than sit on our hands for 4 years this Government is taking action in the second reading of this bill. The bill improves aspects of the Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations and it will make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. We want to make sure that organisations that investigate whistleblowers’ information find the process easier than it currently is. 
National supports the broad approach of the Protected Disclosures Act and supports any efforts to improve its operation and administration. National expects that with the better tools available through this amendment bill Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner in holding the Government to account. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; ongoing operational improvements are also important. We recognise that any time a law is changed there are important changes to processes that then make that legal change relevant. We recognise that silence is not in the public interest. We want the public to have confidence in the process of making a protected disclosure. 
I stand before members thrilled to support both the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and the Minister of State Services the Hon Tony Ryall. This bill improves aspects of the Protected Disclosures Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations and it will make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. I commend this bill to the House. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on the second reading of the very important Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the wonderful work of the then members of the Government Administration Committee that was chaired by Shane Ardern: Darien Fenton Brian Connell the Hon Harry Duynhoven Sandra Goudie and the Hon Dover Samuels. The select committee heard four written submissions and one verbal submission. 
This is very very important legislation and I will give the House some of the reasons why I believe it is extremely important. I acknowledge that this bill still allows for people out there to blow the whistle and that is extremely important. They will continue to receive the protection of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 on the grounds that they believe it is reasonable for information of serious wrongdoing to be provided. That is a very important part of this bill. It widens the definitions of who is a “public official” and who is considered an “employee” for the purposes of this Act. This extends access to the Act and to its protections. 
Two further amendments were made to the bill through the work of that very important select committee. I will spend a little time if I can on those two recommendations which have already been alluded to by some of the earlier speakers this afternoon. The first is the insertion of subsection (2) in section 6C inserted by clause 6 which specifically excludes private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for information about an organisation’s internal procedures. The second amends section 15E(3) inserted by clause 8 to include a reference to section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act which makes it an offence to refuse to provide the Ombudsmen with the information specified in that provision. This is a very important bill which this Government is progressing. For that reason the Government supports the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 11 March. 
Part 2  Criminal proceeds and instruments forfeiture regime ( 
continued 
)  
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call and finish what I was beginning to say when we started talking about Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill a bill that stands for the great principle that crime should not pay. Part 2 achieves that purpose. Part 2 is the lion’s share of the bill with over 220 clauses. It provides for restraining orders civil forfeiture orders and much more than that. 
I note something in relation to the civil forfeiture orders and it is really a large theme in this legislation before the Committee. I note that this provision takes us to a civil regime which is a very significant and important change with this bill. Most of the time in criminal law the standard of proof is one of being beyond reasonable doubt. This standard means that juries have to be sure. If they have any sort of reasonable doubt as to someone’s guilt then that is the end of the matter. That may be OK—in fact it is more than OK; it is absolutely right—when we are dealing with the liberty of a citizen but it is not necessarily right when we are dealing with sums of many millions of dollars that are probably ill-gotten gains. Parliament has made a good value judgment in this bill in moving from the criminal standard of guilt being beyond reasonable doubt to the civil standard of guilt being more likely than not or more probable than not. In my view that is the right thing to do. 
This is a significant change in the law. It makes all the difference because there is now no need for the offender necessarily to have been caught; it is about the offence. The corollary of this is that we can get to people and to money in situations where the person involved did not necessarily get his or her hands dirty. We can get the assets even though there may be a series of Chinese walls between the person and the money. It is quite a common situation in the criminal arena that people higher up the chain have their mules do the work. They have others— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Or their camels. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —their camels if we are going back to earlier in the day—do the work. 
So there are two significant shifts here. There is a change in the standard of proof down from the criminal standard to the civil standard but there is also a change so that no longer do we need to have a person be caught in the act. We can get to the property even where as is so often the case in gang-related activity the people at the top have managed successfully to get away from the criminal behaviour—where they have managed to extract themselves and to have others who are lower down the chain do the work. That is often done through very nasty means or through coercion and it may surprise some in this Chamber including the Greens to learn that those means can include torture. That happens in this country. I have been involved in cases where people have been forced by torture into doing illegal acts. This bill cuts through all that as we have gone to a civil standard of proof. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I also rise to support the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. As we know much of this bill was authored by the previous Labour Government. I think the member opposite has made some valid points. I was over in South Australia—and I believe the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power was there—recently. It has had similar legislation to this bill for some time. 
Hon Simon Power 
: No they haven’t had this one yet. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sorry; South Australia is getting it. The member who just spoke made an interesting point. He said that the tentacles if you will of crime can extend right through to secondary and tertiary parties. In this country we know that they often extend with regard to gangs to kids—to children. Children are often used to use the previous speaker’s term as mules: as people who can traffic drugs or act as couriers. Those young people are often used because a different standard of law applies to them if they are caught and put through the court system than applies to adults. The forfeiture regime within the bill allows the tentacles of the law to go right to secondary and tertiary parties in order to recover money and assets. 
This bill in Part 2 particularly strikes at the heart of organised criminal activity. As members have already said crime should not pay but we know that some members of our society are uniquely placed as criminals with devious criminal minds to be able to hide assets and funds and to accrue income well beyond their means unless it has come directly from criminal activity. The bill deals with that problem. It gives the Crown the ability to move in and confiscate those assets and profits if they have been obtained by criminal activity on the basis of the civil standard of proof as the previous speaker said. I think that will strike at the heart of some of the organised crime and gang activity that we see in this country. 
I am not sure who it was but I think a member of this House has said previously that if we do many of these measures some people in our society will accuse us of driving gang activity underground. Well I would argue that the real gang activity the organised criminal activity is always underground. The real activity is always the stuff that we do not see—the heavy-duty crime—and many organised criminal groups and gangs do not want the light to be shone upon them. They do not seek any profile because they want to carry on very quietly and stealthily in the criminal activities that they engage in in order to amass substantial assets and dollars. 
 When we look at the provisions within Part 2 we see that they are common-sense substantial provisions. There are a number of safeguards and that is appropriate. In its report the Law and Order Committee has argued that the police should be the recovery body and that the definition of the owner of property should be extended to include those who might have as the previous speaker Simon Bridges has said an interest in that property. The easiest thing for criminals to do is to sign over all the assets—the boat the Porsche the flash cars and all the shares—because some of these criminals are involved in quite substantial so-called legitimate commercial activities to their family members trusts or whatever so that the criminal appears to be asset-less or penniless when the recovery body in respect of the police comes around to do its duty. As I say these provisions give the ability to extend the tentacles of the law into secondary and tertiary parties. 
I think the bill is a good solid bill. It will have a very solid and practical effect. It does not deal with apparel as we have done recently. I mean no disrespect to the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill but although it is well intentioned I do not think that bill will deal to and cut to the heart of gang activity. There is an old saying that we should follow the money and I think that is right. We should follow the money and the assets when we really want to hurt harass and deal with the activities of gangs and organised criminals. Those criminals do not really mind what they wear but they do mind when we take their cheque books out of their pockets their wallets off them and their boats and flash cars away and when we do not allow them to make money or accrue those assets. That is at the heart of this bill and that is what we support. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I follow the member who has just resumed his seat Clayton Cosgrove and I will make a couple of comments in response to his remarks. Of course Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill contains some of the clauses that matter in this part of the legislation. The previous speaker is right in that I did spend some time in South Australia recently looking at the gang legislation but also meeting with academics and the local law society to get a broad view of that legislation. One of the things I learnt while I was there was that we are actually a bit ahead of the game on this particular work. Yes other jurisdictions are looking at the complete outlawing of gangs by way of what could be described as the equivalent of domestic terrorism legislation. I suspect that that is the best way to term it. New Zealand is leading in some respects with this particular bill. 
Exactly what we are doing here should not be underestimated. This bill flips the burden of proof in respect of the confiscation of assets in quite a remarkable way. Rather than the prosecution having to meet a certain standard in order for forfeiture to occur the burden is flipped to a civil standard to allow those assets—and in “assets” I include cash—to be seized. Of course then the burden of proof that the assets were not gained from criminal activity is placed upon those seeking to recover the assets or cash that has been up to that point confiscated. Safeguards exist in the legislation for innocent third parties who might find themselves caught up in this regime. Those avenues give plenty of opportunities for matters to be rectified when a perceived injustice has occurred—for example in regard to a spouse or partner of some criminal whose family home has been caught up in this regime but without his or her knowledge of the criminal activity that was occurring. 
We should neither underestimate the strength of what is proposed here nor turn from the fact that both major political parties in the House have supported this legislation from the start when it was introduced right through until this point. That goes to show how seriously the Parliament takes this issue. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove is right in that to go to the heart of the power of these organisations is to take from them the assets and cash they derive from illegal activity. Therein lies the modern equivalent of the cry made by I think Norman Kirk to “take the bikes from the gangs”. In fact the modern equivalent of that cry is to “take the assets and the cash”. 
The bill that appears in the Committee stage today had a fairly good working-over in the Law and Order Committee under the watchful eye of Martin Gallagher who ensured that a fair and robust discussion was allowed to occur without implanting his own personal views on the proceedings of the committee. That was helpful because I was not sure what they were. Part 2 contains a fair chunk of the operative clauses here. I will listen with interest to contributions from members and I look forward to hearing their views on some of the clauses contained in this part. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and to voice my support for it. As other members have acknowledged before me this bill was originally of course a bill introduced by the previous Labour Government. I do not get the opportunity to do this very often but on this occasion I will congratulate the National Government on showing some good judgment. I have heard other members speak about the principle behind this bill which is that crime simply should not pay. I think everyone in this Chamber would agree with that very sound and precious principle. 
The Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 allowed the Crown to confiscate profits made from a crime after someone was convicted but we all know that those profits can be spread among many people and not all of those people can be convicted. I might use organised crime as an example of that. This bill addresses that problem and gives the Crown the power to confiscate the profits and assets obtained. It will allow us to tackle gang leaders who although they do not get their own hands dirty certainly enjoy the benefits of illegal activity. We think this bill strikes an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal and property rights. I also note that Australia Ireland and the UK have passed similar laws quite recently. 
Two orders are established to deal with removing the profits of crime from a person. One is the forfeiture order which deals with a person’s unlawful income. It also targets the property used to commit the crime. For example if a farm is used to grow marijuana then that property will be termed an “instrument of crime”. A recovery body is also established under the bill and that will be part of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency. The New Zealand Police will still be responsible for the confiscation of instruments of crime but the bill will help the two agencies to carry out their roles by giving them a broad suite of powers to search for seize and restrain the proceeds of crime. All in all the bill is a very constructive one which goes a long way towards addressing what was missing before it came into the House. 
 Like the previous speaker the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power I would also like to acknowledge the Law and Order Committee which undertook a robust—I think that was the Minister’s term—analysis of the bill and also under the very excellent guidance of its chair Martin Gallagher gave some very constructive suggestions which were taken up. Certainly maintaining that the Police should be the recovery body defining the owner of the property extending that definition to include those who may have an interest in the property and defining the term “instrument of crime” are suggestions that show this was a very hard-working committee as I am sure the Minister will agree. 
Other recommendations from the committee include the clarification of the circumstances in which property was acquired after a restraining order was made the clarification of the ability of third parties to have property separated from a restraining order the deletion of the powers of the director of the recovery body to issue a notice requiring production of documents and alignment with other legislation regarding immunity for people who disclose information on money laundering. I think that was a very important contribution that the select committee made. The committee also recommended that the Inland Revenue Department be permitted to provide the police with information for the purpose of civil recovery. I think there were other recommendations that covered asset forfeiture only interests on a title of the Crown and the duration of production orders being shortened to 30 days. The retention of documents for as long as is necessary only was a very common-sense suggestion and I am sure the Minister will agree with me on that point. The disclosure in the application for the search warrant of any other applications made and the provision that tax advisors are protected with professional privilege were other recommendations of the select committee. 
All in all after what was already a good draft bill from the Labour Government the committee amendments and suggestions and the common sense that has prevailed have gone a long way towards making this a very good bill that will really address justice and as I said before really reinforce the principle that we all hold dear which is that crime should not pay. Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. As speakers who have gone before me have pointed out this bill is supported by Labour. I think it gives some contrast to the bills that we have previously debated in the House around the consequence of gangs in our communities. I also think it goes beyond some of the more tokenistic legislation that we have seen coming through this Chamber to date so I am pleased to be debating this bill. I am also pleased that the— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Tokenistic? It took me 3 years to draft it! 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I say to the Minister of Justice that I would not call this bill at all tokenistic. I also point out that we are pleased that there is some acknowledgment over the seriousness of the shift in onus which the Minister has already spoken about and which is probably the most substantial part of this bill. 
We are debating Part 2 of the bill which deals with the forfeiture regime. We have already heard about the primary aims of the bill and that is the means by which we extend the confiscation of property used to facilitate or commission a crime beyond those solely convicted—and for good reason. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has already talked about the comparisons that we can make with New South Wales and the legislation that has been used there. I would like to make some comparisons regarding the monetary difference that this legislation could make. In New Zealand in the past 12 years $14.3 million has been paid to the Crown through assets seized on the basis of criminal activity. In comparison taking into account the different jurisdictions that we are dealing with New South Wales has seized more than $100 million in the past 14 years. It is a comparable time period and it shows a significant difference in the size of the criminal proceeds that have been recovered. 
Our existing law at that time had been criticised as being too weak because of the requirement of proof that assets were acquired by the profits of crime so the onus was primarily on the Crown in that regard. I reiterate that shifting the onus on to the criminal to prove that those assets were legally obtained is a significant shift and one that will make a marked difference to the way this legislation operates in our jurisdiction. In shifting the onus it is still important to have a certain number of standards around such a procedure. We are talking about those who have not necessarily been convicted through the criminal courts but we are still giving the Crown the ability to seize their assets. This bill does that very well as the bill still requires a civil standard of proof. 
 The Law and Order Committee deliberated for some time on two additional protections that are in the bill and I will dwell on a couple of those important features for a time. One is around the instruments of crime. The bill stipulates that these are liable for forfeiture only after criminal conviction. This is in order to reflect the reality of some of the seizures that we might see in a New Zealand context. For instance it may be unknown to a farmer that marijuana is being grown on his or her property and we have seen that in some parts of New Zealand where forestry is particularly thick. I am thinking of parts of the Bay of Plenty and around the Rotorua area; this might occur in some of those areas. I would love to hear the member from that area take a call on this issue and I am sure applaud this bill also. 
This bill is not intended to unduly punish those who have not been part of some kind of criminal activity so there are protections in it to make sure that that does not occur within the New Zealand context. I think those are important tests. 
The bill also looks at the issue of third parties. On both sides of the Chamber we acknowledge that there is the potential for third parties to be unfairly brought into the seizure of criminal property when that may not be intended. They may have a stake in forfeited property but it is not known to them that this criminal activity has occurred. This bill in the forfeiture regime provisions gives the ability for the situations of dependants banks spouses and innocent victims to be considered and for them to be able to make appeals to have their part of an asset excluded. 
I will dwell very briefly on some parts of Part 2 that demonstrate well the gains that have been made through this bill. Clause 13 lays out that no identifiable owner is required for certain proceedings relating to specific property. This will give additional speed to the Crown when dealing with forfeiture and it addresses a problem that was raised back in 2007—and highlighted I think by the media—that it can take decades and beyond to resolve the issue of or to fully confiscate land that is identified as being involved in criminal activity due to the very lengthy process that has to be undertaken once land is seized. That is one mechanism that could move a little more swifty. Clause 16 “Quashing criminal proceedings does not impact on civil forfeiture” demonstrates again the considerable shift from a criminal test; it allows civil standards to be used around our forfeiture regime. Also clause 17 allows for multiple forfeiture orders. Clause 17(1) states that nothing restricts a court from making one or more forfeiture orders—one can cover assets instrument forfeiture orders and profit forfeiture orders in combination. Again it is particularly comprehensive. 
In considering this bill the select committee has done a very good job of ensuring that we have found the right balance between making sure the Crown is able to act where it is obvious that the profits and proceeds of crime are in abundance—they may not have been of direct benefit to a criminal but they may have been moved around in a particular way—and applying a new standard a civil standard that also includes safety checks and measures for those who may indirectly be affected. I think we have come out with a very balanced bill. It achieves what it intends to achieve and it ensures that no one benefits from crime in this country. I look forward to seeing the effective implementation of this bill. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call this afternoon on Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and I comment as other members have done on how pleasing it is to be speaking in the Chamber on a bill that has such widespread support and such wide agreement on its necessity. There is recognition of the fact that our current law is simply not meeting the needs of our community hence the need to get it done. 
I also join with my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber in congratulating the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power the former Minister the Hon Annette King and the select committee that worked on the bill. As we have heard this afternoon already there is currently a significant deficiency in the law we have around the recovery of the proceeds of criminal activity. We have heard that under current legislation we are not able to get right to the heart of the gang empire which is as has already been said in gang members’ pockets. If we cannot start effectively to get them where it hurts we will not make meaningful inroads into the problem. 
We are looking at the moment at Part 2 which is obviously the most meaty part of the bill before us. It is made up of 10 subparts and contains the real heart of the regime. It goes about setting up a new civil forfeiture regime which I think will be a powerful enhancement in the crime-fighting arsenal we currently have and which will certainly aid New Zealand’s police force in its ability to clamp down on gang activity. Let us remember at this point that gang activity is a serious concern to the people of New Zealand. Up and down this country it is one of the No. 1 issues being talked about and I think that it is no coincidence that this bill has been so widely supported. 
We have heard already in relation to this bill that the current Proceeds of Crime Act really helps us only in the simple crime situation where the guy who has pulled the trigger for want of a better term is the one who will profit from the crime. But the reality is that that is just not the way the business of complex crime-rings now works. And it is a business—that is what we need to recognise. It is a business and to effectively deal with it as a business we have to stop the money flow. That is what this bill will do. 
We need a more comprehensive system where those ill-gotten gains can be traced right through the criminal network and the important point is that that goes beyond those directly involved in the commission of the offence. That means we have to have a system that does not require the physical legal owner of the goods to have been convicted of a specific offence and that is the key aspect of the change in this bill. Part 2 clarifies the civil aspects of the regime and the property that can be restrained or forfeited or first restrained and then forfeited. We know that restraining prevents property being sold and moves it to the official assignee on the basis of there being reasonable grounds to believe that the property is tainted and that the person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. In general terms restraint of that property would expire 1 year after the order was made or until a forfeiture order was granted or declined. 
One of the points I want to make around forfeiture orders in particular is about their flexibility. The assets to be forfeited can be the specifically tainted assets that were involved in the crime which is provided for under assets forfeiture orders or—and this is particularly interesting—they can simply represent the value of a benefit a person has derived from significant criminal activity. This is an important hurdle to be able to overcome because we no longer need to show that the Harley Davidson the gang member in question is riding is stolen; it is enough if that item represents the value that that gang member has acquired from criminal activity. That flexibility will go a long way to addressing those deficiencies in the current legislation that I have already spoken about. 
If we did not bring into place that sort of change it would be an insurmountable evidential hurdle. I suspect that that is why we have seen relatively few successful prosecutions under the Proceeds of Crime Act we have certainly seen a decline in the numbers and value of proceeds that have been confiscated under that regime. That evidential hurdle is significantly reduced if prosecutions can go for either tainted property or property representing the value of the benefit. 
Part 2 also deals with the difficult question of who the recovery bodies should be as we have already heard talked about and following the particularly good work of the Law and Order Committee which we have already made reference to the bill now provides that the recovery body for this legislation should be the New Zealand Police. I think the consensus we have across the Committee is that that is the obvious and sensible place for that function to rest. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 As I said in my earlier speech on this bill I support and like this bill. Originally authored by the then Minister the Hon Annette King it is based on the clear principle that crime must not pay. Labour believes that this legislation will help to uphold that principle. I like this bill because it is a bill that has real teeth. To tackle crime particularly organised crime we need bills of real substance not window dressing. In my last speech on this bill I cited the ACT Party’s “three strikes and you’re out” bill idea as one of the window-dressing bills. Mr John Boscawen felt in his own words honour-bound to stand up and respond to some of the comments I made. Fortunately Mr Boscawen’s speech was brought to an end because it was not addressing the right bill—namely the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill—and he had ample time to respond to what the chairman believed was a passing comment made by me on the “three strikes and you’re out” bill. Unfortunately Mr Boscawen did not respond to my comment that the “three strikes and you’re out” scheme was one that had a 20-year implementation period and that it was internationally condemned as a failed model. Therefore to tackle crime particularly organised crime we need measures that have real teeth. 
The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill consists of three parts. Of course it is intended that at the end of this Committee stage Subparts 1 and 2 of Part 3 will be divided from the rest of the bill to become two separate bills. Parts 1 and 2 will remain as the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and on commencement will replace the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991. Currently the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 allows the Crown to confiscate the profit made from a crime but only after someone is convicted of that crime. This bill deals with this problem and instead of employing the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” the bill gives the Crown power to confiscate profits and assets obtained through criminal activity on the civil standard of proof on the balance of probability. 
Subpart 3 of Part 2 which we are debating establishes two orders to deal with the removal of the profits of crime from a person. One is the profit forfeiture order which deals with the unlawful income of a person; the other is the assets forfeiture order which targets property directly or indirectly gained from criminal activity regardless of who the owner of that property is. 
It is also worth noting that the report from the Law and Order Committee has recommended a number of changes. The key recommendations include that the New Zealand Police should be the recovering body the definition of the owner of a property should be extended to include the words “who might have an interest” the definition of instruments of crime should be amended to include the words “proceeds from the sale of a property” and other aspects that I hope we will be able to address in detail at a later stage. 
To conclude this bill is a substantive measure that will go quite a way towards addressing hitting head-on and dealing with gang leaders and organised crimes. Labour believes that this bill finds an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal and property rights. Thank you. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Indeed it is a pleasure to be able to stand today with my colleagues from both sides of the Chamber to support the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill particularly when the Committee is speaking as one rare though that is on an issue of such importance as gang violence. We are addressing Part 2 which is the cornerstone of this bill because it gives effect to the intentions that this Parliament wants to drive in recovering the proceeds of crime. 
In particular I highlight clause 18 “Applying for restraining order” which provides the power to a commissioner to apply for a restraining order to seize property whether it has been directly acquired by an accomplice or by associates. Clauses 19 and 20 detail how that process will work. Clauses 24 and 25 talk a bit more about the way that those specific restraining orders are to be applied and defines tainted property in terms of the property that is to be confiscated. 
The reason that all of those specific requirements are needed is simply that there is no doubt we are dealing with organised crime in this process. Of course although we are aware that we do not operate in the true style of the Mafia where organised crime had its own tradition none the less it is present in many of our gangs. During my research in support of this bill I was able to obtain information on a number of cases where in recent times the law enforcement agencies have been unable to if you like take from criminal gangs and their associates the proceeds that have been acquired during the course of carrying out crimes. The importance of that of course is that the fact that they might do time in jail is really of little consequence to them. It is more of a badge of honour. What really does hurt them is when their nest egg is taken away. That of course is the intention of this bill. It provides the power for the authorities to do so which we should fully support. 
The next point I want to highlight which is equally as important as that is that in exercising such powers it is incumbent on the authorities to do so responsibly. Those accountabilities if you will are set out in clause 28 and I think it gives a very thorough description of the process so that we do not have unbridled power in the exercise of those authorities. The recent gang killings at airports in Australia are an example of what is being driven by the drug trade. There is no question that throughout organised crime and particularly in the gangs high levels of money and assets are involved. I heard it described on Television One last night as a house that is full of money. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and I am speaking to Part 2. I note a number of issues that were raised in debates when this matter was previously before the House that drew some concern from people particularly from the Maori Party who were concerned about parcels of land or assets that were held as joint property or where a number of people had an interest in that property. It is important to note that there are a number of protections within the legislation that provide for that interest and for the protection of that interest. For instance where the matter is brought before the court and in proceedings before the court whether it is on the initial application or whether it is for an extension of an application for an order anybody with an interest in the land or in the property has an ability to be heard in that respect. 
That is important obviously from an interest of justice point of view because it could well be that where there is an interest in a particular property by a large number of people there needs to be the ability to protect that interest not only for the people who are aware of it but for those who will come later and will take over that interest further down the track. 
It is interesting to note too that where a search order has been made in respect of any item of property the person who is holding the property or facilitating the execution of the order is not to disclose the existence of the order or the execution of the order to certain people. Those people may well have had a duty to disclose in any other circumstances under any other legislation or under another provision. Of course the reason for that obviously is to protect the integrity of the investigation or the examination that is being carried out to make sure for instance that the property is not dealt with in some way that would prevent the public interest in being able to restrict the use of that property or to prevent the disposal of that property. 
I turn to Subpart 9 which looks at offences including clause 156 “Contravention of restraining orders or foreign restraining orders” clause 157 “Contravention of forfeiture orders or foreign forfeiture orders” and clause 158 “Failing to comply with orders and search warrants”. It is those particular clauses that protect the integrity of that investigation and prevent those parties who are the respondents in these actions from being able to dispose of that property. It is an offence to disclose the existence or operation of a search order not just when it has been actioned—for instance if it is to do with proceeds of a crime being held in a bank account or a security box within a bank’s premises—and not just when it has been executed but also as soon as a person becomes aware of it. Then of course it is an offence to obstruct in any way the execution of such an order. That is important too because when one is executing a search warrant the ability of one person or another to hinder the execution of that order or warrant has the ability to affect the evidence that can be brought before the court at a later date. 
 Clause 163 makes the point that compliance with the order is not actionable. So it could be for instance that if an order were being executed on a legal firm then clients who would normally expect their lawyer to operate with a duty to them to not disclose information may try to take some action against their legal counsel—the person whom the clients would expect to act in their best interests—to prevent disclosure of what remains on their file or within the confines of the law firm from being disclosed to those who might come and look for it. So it prevents an action against people such as solicitors accountants bank managers and so on. 
Clause 164 provides an indemnity for enforcement officers who are acting out and executing the order as required by the documents. Once those documents are signed before the court the enforcement officers’ actions are protected from contest on behalf of the respondent. 
It is legislation that works very hard to protect those members of the public who are the victims of crime. Obviously if there are organisations or individuals who work towards gaining property and profit at the expense of others we need to do all we can to prevent them from moving down that track and creating more victims. In the past a much higher standard of proof has been required and these particular actions could be taken only when someone had been before the court and convicted of an offence. 
Part 2 allows for an explanation of how the whole bill will work once it is enacted. It provides for a reverse onus of proof in cases where some significant piece of property is found—whether it be land motorbikes vehicles houses or homes as we have heard before—in circumstances where there does not appear to be any explanation to show that the property items were gained legitimately. There is a reverse onus on the respondent to prove that it was gained legitimately and then only to a standard of the balance of probabilities. And with the balance of probabilities being less than within the criminal jurisdiction a heavy weight is put upon those people who most of us would say have been getting away with it for years. 
We all know of such people within our communities. We have all looked around the neighbourhood and seen someone who is driving a new car or riding up and down the street on a brand-new motorbike or towing a big boat behind a big four-wheel drive. We have then wondered how that person on the dole is able to afford that late model Toyota Land Cruiser with the $30000 boat being towed behind it. We all know that it is the fruit of ill-gotten gains. We want to live in a society where those people are held to account. It is not so much a matter of Big Brother watching over our shoulders but of it being a protection for those of us who work hard to earn a living support our families and pay our taxes. 
I am pleased to be part of an administration and a Parliament—because this bill has received wide support right across the House—where these people will be brought before a court and held to account if there is no clear explanation as to how they obtained that property. I am pleased to stand in support of this bill and I encourage the whole of the House to continue in their support for it. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I want to summarise what I last spoke about on Part 2 and in general on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. Firstly it seems to me that we have a consensus that the purpose of this bill is that crime should not pay. We want to make sure that it does not pay. The issue is whether in implementing the purpose in Part 2 we will achieve that. There is an interesting dichotomy between the purpose and the implementation and whether we will achieve our goals or intent in this bill. Having read it I would say to the Committee that we are achieving them. We will be able to implement the purpose very successfully. Secondly I say the other notable thing this bill shows is that the House is able to come together on important significant issues gain agreement and act in a bipartisan manner. I think that Governments should not be afraid or ashamed of picking up bills drafted by previous Governments when they have merit examining them on their merits and taking them from there. This Government is doing that. I think that is something to be proud of and it is good to see that the Opposition—the previous Government—is sticking with the position it had when it was in Government. That is a very good thing. We have agreement about the purpose and we have bipartisanship being shown on this bill. 
I have talked already about Part 2 and about the fact that there are a couple of important changes. Firstly we are moving from the criminal standard of proof to a civil standard. That is a substantial change and a good one given that we are not dealing with the liberty of our citizens in this bill. We are dealing with large amounts of money on the basis of the balance of probabilities and that is right. We have made the right value judgment on that issue as a country—as a nation—in this Parliament. It is proper that such a change is decided on by Parliament and not by the courts. We have done that. Secondly we have got away from the need for there to be an offence committed by a particular offender and we are dealing with the property. I think that that is exactly right as well given that as the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said we can have situations where things can be many parts removed from the offender. So we have done the right thing there also. 
I want to talk about Subpart 3 of Part 2 which deals with civil forfeiture orders. Clause 43 tells us that those orders may be applied for by the Commissioner of Police rather than the Director of the Serious Fraud Office. There are in fact some important safeguards in Subpart 3 that I think really put to rest any concerns that civil libertarians—whom I have a great deal of time for; they play an important role in relation to criminal legislation—may have about this bill. Firstly civil forfeiture orders can be applied for only in the High Court. I think that is significant. These applications will not be coming before the District Court on a busy list on a Monday morning when a District Court judge may have 25 drink-driving cases and many other cases to deal with. Applications will be dealt with on their merits in the High Court by our High Court judges who are essentially the best lawyers in the country. That is a significant safeguard. It means that applications will be heard by judges who are alive to the justice of the case who will give it detailed consideration and who are aware of the nuances of the facts before them. That is pretty important. 
Clause 45 “Application for civil forfeiture order on notice” also provides a significant safeguard given as I have already said that we have decoupled this measure from the offender. There is not a need for an offender to be included. Clause 45(1) states: “The Commissioner must serve a copy of an application . . . on every person who to the knowledge of the Commissioner has an interest in the property”. So it is not as though there will be difficulties with regard to people being unable to get before a High Court judge and have their say about this property. The spouses the affiliates the whanau or the neighbours who say they have an interest in the property will be able to come along and they must be served with notice of an application for an order. That is far from a ramshackle situation. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It is good to be able to stand again to speak to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill given that a little earlier so many people wanted to speak in support of it I had to stand down. I want to talk in particular this time about quite a significant change made by the Law and Order Committee to a provision that was in the original bill when it was introduced to the House which so far in my intensive listening I have heard no one mention—and in particular no one from the Opposition. It is the move now to make the authority in respect of pursuing these cases the Commissioner of Police. 
When the original bill was first tabled there was a proposal that the Serious Fraud Office take responsibility for the oversight and management of this legislation. That is of course addressed in Part 2. I must say it is pleasing to see that the select committee came to its senses and overrode the intentions of the previous Government to have the Serious Fraud Office oversee the enforcement of the measures in this bill particularly given that the previous Government was working to disband the Serious Fraud Office either by way of ensuring a lack of resourcing for it or as we subsequently found out by doing a deal with its then coalition partner. The Labour Government was not only in fact preparing to disband it but also failing to even provide it with sufficient resources. There was some suggestion that it would get $3 million. 
The fact of the matter is that the people who are being pursued here are hardened criminals. They will stop at nothing to protect their property—in particular they will do so in very violent ways. So it really is sensible that at the select committee the enforcing authority in respect of this legislation was shifted from being the Serious Fraud Office to being the Commissioner of Police. One can imagine the situation as was talked about last night on TV of arriving at a house full of money. One can imagine the machine-guns shotguns or any other source of armoury that the gangs would use to protect their ill-gotten gains. So it is only sensible that our law enforcement division being the New Zealand Police—and in this case probably the armed offenders squad—be given responsibility for entering into these very dangerous situations. 
I want to commend the select committee for recognising the deficiency in the original bill removing the Serious Fraud Office as the empowering body and turning that role over to the Police—in particular to the Commissioner of Police. That now means that in enforcing any power that is used in respect of the provisions of this legislation we can provide appropriate levels of resourcing to address any situation particularly when it is dangerous and we can take great comfort from the fact that the commissioner will be the one who oversees that enforcement. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to take another call on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill because this part really is the teeth of the legislation and it contains a number of important points that are worth commenting on further. Before I speak on Subpart 2 I will endorse the comments just made by my colleague Paul Quinn. He made the point absolutely correctly that it is sensible that the New Zealand Police is the enforcement body that will be looking after this matter. It is the organisation that has the detailed knowledge of criminal activity in this country. It has the best knowledge and understanding of our criminal organisations. Certainly it makes sense that the police can use that knowledge across the board not only in their crime-fighting and law enforcement objectives but also in extending that out to the recovery of the proceeds of crime. So I do endorse what Mr Quinn has said in that regard. 
However what I want to talk about primarily in this call is Subpart 2 of Part 2 which in complement with what my colleague Mr Bridges was talking about in relation to forfeiture orders is the part that deals primarily with restraining orders. This is often where the rubber meets the road in these recovery claims and I think it is worth spending just a few moments on it. 
We see in Subpart 2 the core constraints in relation to applying for restraining orders. We know that not only can the Commissioner of Police apply for restraining orders for specific tainted property but also the prosecutor can do so in respect of a prosecution for an offence that has been committed. That gives us two key aspects and in clause 19 we go through what the order has to set out. 
Clause 22 is titled “Application for restraining order without notice” and anyone who has been around the legal system will understand the importance of being able to bring these sorts of applications without notice. To put it quite simply often we are not playing by Queensberry Rules in these situations. If we give gangs notice that their Harleys will be seized a week from Tuesday my bet is that they will not be there to seize. So it is really important to highlight that provision. These are not people who play by the rules. We have to give the good guys every tool we can to help make these provisions effective and that is what we are talking about here. We are taking policy that we all agree with and giving it more teeth to make it more effective. Clause 22 is a very very important aspect of the proposal. 
Clause 24 lets us know that the court can award that restraining order if it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds—and that is the civil standard of proof coming in there—that the property is tainted. With all of this and the debate that has gone on in the Committee today people who are listening to the debate may start to wonder whether law enforcement is given just too much width. Yes we need to crack down on gangs and crime but the bill also gives considerable weight and I think proper consideration to the checks and balances that need to be put on this sort of order being made. I am very pleased to see in Subpart 2 that a number of the provisions include those sorts of checks and balances. Certainly if I go back to the issuing of the order without notice there are all the usual provisions one would expect to see around that sort of order in terms of timing notification ensuring that the application is suitable and the like. 
We know that when the restraining order is being made the court has the ability to consider a number of factors not least amongst them the reasonable living costs of the respondent and his or her dependants reasonable business expenses the payment of specified debts and the like. So the court does seek to strike a balance when making the restraining order with the fair and reasonable circumstances of not only the respondent but also his or her dependants in debt situations. We do not want to be creating more hardship and more problems for ourselves. So that check and balance is there and it allows the court to give due weight to those factors. 
Another check and balance in this Part is in clause 29 which provides the court with the power to require undertakings for damages or costs. Again that is a very significant legal mechanism by which the bodies that are charged with applying these rules are made to be very careful that they do not overstep the bounds. If they get it wrong there can be considerable cost. That sort of check and balance is an important mechanism to make sure that these powers are not used inappropriately. 
One of the other points I wanted to talk about is the rights of co-owners of property that might be affected by restraining orders and in particular clause 30 of the bill. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will take another call or two. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I thank my friend and colleague on the other side of the Chamber for giving me the opportunity to speak so early in this debate. I recognise the work that the Law and Order Committee has previously done on this issue. As I was looking through the notes just a moment ago I noticed that of the members of the select committee who worked so hard on this issue some are currently in this Chamber but unfortunately some are no longer with us today. I recognise a former chair of the select committee Ron Mark. When it comes to Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill which is quite a weighty part if Ron Mark—a man who spoke very strongly on law and order issues in this House and outside of it—was in favour of this then that means some good work was done in that select committee. 
I also say that it is good to see that this bill has been given priority and I congratulate the Government and the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power on taking the issue of gangs seriously and on taking the issue of crime seriously. I say to this Committee that anything that we can do as humble representatives of the people of New Zealand and our electorates to be serious about gangs and get on top of crime so constituents in our electorates and all the people who live in New Zealand will be safer is worthy of our consideration tonight. 
It is time we clamped down on gangs in this country and time that they hear a message loud and clear from this Parliament that they serve no good purpose in New Zealand or for New Zealand society and that we will not condone them or their criminal practices. This bill goes a long way to starting the process of getting on top of crime and gangs in New Zealand. Some communities in my electorate of Rotorua are afflicted by the poison that gangs spread. The gangs act criminally and they trumpet their gains from crime. If their possessions are gained through illegal activity as the bill refers to and as Part 2 deals with then they deserve to have them taken from them and they deserve to be imprisoned. I think there is no disagreement in this Committee about what should happen to goods gained illegally. 
In certain circumstances the bill will alter the burden of proof and do so quite substantially. If we are to take the confiscation or recovery of the proceeds of crime seriously we must as a Committee balance the possible loss of the rights of some in New Zealand against the rights of the majority of law-abiding New Zealanders who have nothing to do with crime and who have nothing to do with gangs and make sure that gangs cannot profit from their crimes. 
The bill seeks to reform the existing criminal proceeds recovery regime and Part 2 is an important part of this. My colleague Paul Quinn spoke earlier about the role of the New Zealand Police and I think the Committee has rightly seen that the police are in a very good place to implement parts of this draft legislation. Criminals care about their possessions and they seem to care even more about possessions that have been gained through illegal activity. In my electorate there is a small town of great people called Murupara. People have come together and stood up and said that gangs are not acceptable to them that crime is not acceptable that they want a better future for themselves in their small town and that they want a better future for their children in their small town. 
As I cast my mind back to last year I recall that a certain gang in New Zealand—I will not mention them because I do not want to give them any more publicity than they deserve; indeed they deserve none at all—decided to call a meeting. Gang members from all over the country came to Murupara to do whatever it is they do on their weekends away. The police in Rotorua were superb in the way that they dealt with this issue at what could have been quite a difficult and dangerous time for the people of Murupara. They showed a presence; they took it seriously. When I was able to meet and talk with them and ask them why they were so successful at making sure Murupara was not damaged and that the great community was not harmed by these people whose intent was illegal they told me that in showing a presence they set up roadblocks and they went out and stopped the various bikes to see who was there and find out what they were doing. 
It surprises me that the police said that some of these bikes which would have been gained through illegal activity and the proceeds gained from illegal conduct are so important to these big burly gang members that they left their bikes at home. They got in minivans and asked their partners and wives to drive them to the meeting so that they would not lose those possessions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call Todd McClay. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Thank you. I had not quite finished talking about the great work of the police in Rotorua and Murupara. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I remind the member that this speech should be a little more about the bill and less about his personal reflections. 
TODD McCLAY 
: In fact Part 2 refers directly to the role that the New Zealand Police has. I want to give an example of why it is important that the Committee has recognised that the police should play a role here. To finish what I briefly started I say that the example from Murupara suggests to me that the police can get out and stop gang members from riding their illegally gained motorbikes into a town or a small community. This bill will help them to do this when it passes into law. The police know greatly what they are doing—and they should do. 
Paul Quinn also said that criminals will stop at nothing to protect their gains and the gains from crime and that they will be violent in doing so and will wreak havoc upon society. I accept the intelligent and sage words of my colleague Paul Quinn. I am glad that I have had the opportunity to hear him speak on Part 2 this afternoon because this is a serious issue for New Zealand. When we come to Part 2 we see that it does a number of things. As I look at the overview—the great work of the select committee—I see it states that Part 1 and Part 2 will “provide for the restraint and forfeiture of property derived as a result of significant criminal activity without the need for a conviction;”. 
Simon Bridges 
: Define “significant”. 
TODD McCLAY 
: Well “significant” is obvious to those people out there in New Zealand who have suffered at the hands of these criminals. We need to get serious about this issue; we need to not allow criminals to hide behind the current law and to use the law to keep their property. I think Part 1 and Part 2 will go a long way towards this. The overview also states that Part 2 “deals with general matters relating to the criminal proceeds and instruments forfeiture regime;” which is important; it “deals with the restraint of property that may later become the subject of a forfeiture order;” which is also important; and “it deals with civil forfeiture orders (which are assets forfeiture orders and profit forfeiture orders);”. I am glad that my colleague Simon Bridges spoke at great length on this issue earlier in the evening particularly on Part 2. 
Simon Bridges 
: He makes it sound like it was boring. 
TODD McCLAY 
: It was an entertaining speech from my colleague from Tauranga; I can see why the people of Tauranga like him so much. 
Part 2 deals with civil forfeiture orders as I have said. Also it “deals with certain procedural matters associated with conviction-based instrument forfeiture orders;” and “sets out the powers of the Official Assignee;” and “subpart 6 of Part 2 sets out the powers of the police;”. I think everybody in this Chamber supports the role of the police and I am glad that the Committee is able to decide that this is an appropriate place for the power to implement the bill. Part 2 “provides for investigative powers for various agencies;”—well if we do not know what these gangs and criminals are doing and where they are hiding their assets then how can we find them to take them from them? Part 2 also “deals with foreign restraining orders and foreign forfeiture orders;”. 
Simon Bridges 
: What’s a restraining order? 
TODD McCLAY 
: A restraining order is an order whereby we restrain something in the simple terms of the law. Finally it sets out the consequential amendments to the bill. I would like to refer to other parts but I say to members opposite that yawning in itself will not help the people of New Zealand yawning will not help us move Part 2 forward and yawning in relation to this bill is part of the reason that members opposite are on that side of the Chamber and not on this side. I happily offer my support for the bill. 
Hon Annette King 
: It happens to be our bill actually. 
TODD McCLAY 
: I again congratulate the select committee on its good work. I recognise that the bill was put up by the previous Government but how many years did the bill sit on the Order Paper? It is serious legislation—Part 2 in particular—and the previous Government trumpeted it election after election but the bill just sat there. Although Part 2 will do the most to implement this law and make New Zealanders safer by getting rid of gangs the bill languished on the Order Paper for far too many years. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on deciding that the bill must be a priority. I very happily give my support. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Paul Quinn 
: Mr Chairman— 
Hon Annette King 
: This is absolute repetition. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No I think the speakers so far have been doing all right. I call the honourable Paul Quinn and I hope that he speaks directly to Part 2 with a luminous address. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I indeed intend to talk specifically to Part 2 because previously I had—unfortunately—been unable to finish what I was focusing on due to running out of time. I turn the Committee’s attention to Subpart 6 “Role of police” in Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. This issue is what I was addressing a little earlier and I want to highlight the specific fact that it is in Part 2. 
I note the common sense that obviously came out of the Law and Order Committee’s consideration in respect of the redrafting of those powers of the police. There is a large amount of redlining in many parts of Subpart 6. I compliment the members of the select committee particularly the National members who obviously managed to bring some sense to the issue of the actual authorities that would enforce this legislation because the previous Government was responsible for first bringing the bill to the House. But during the select committee deliberation members were able to highlight the fact that the New Zealand Police is the proper authority to deal with this matter and Subpart 6 spells out quite specifically what can be done. The police can move rapidly to obtain orders and to go to the High Court because time is of the essence in those sorts of things. The select committee members particularly the National members—hard-working loyal members—should be congratulated on driving the change necessary for the Police to be the appropriate authority to deal with this. I congratulate those hard-working loyal members on bringing sense to the deliberation of the select committee. Thank you. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Simon Power to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in his name to new clause 154 be agreed to: 
to omit “section 149A(3)(a) (b) or (c)” and substitute “section 149A(2)(a) (b) or (c)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to clause 154 as amended and the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in his name to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended and the remaining amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Amendment as amended and remaining amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3  Amendments to Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 and Sentencing Act 2002 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call in respect of clauses 1 and 2. Members would have noticed no doubt as they read through the detail of clause 2 that the legislation will come into force on a date that is 8 months after the day on which it receives the Royal assent. I am advised that a substantial transition period such as this is designed to allow regulations to be developed to deal with one or two particular matters. One is the necessary forms and the usual kind of stuff that goes with these types of transitional provisions and periods. The second is the official assignee’s gearing up for the necessary orders of profit forfeiture and the like to be fully developed and put in place by the necessary institutions. Although 8 months is not an ideal period of time it is the length of time that the select committee—I was not there for this particular issue—was no doubt advised these things take. 
I take this opportunity to thank all members of the Committee of the whole House for their support of this legislation. It is something that we think as no doubt the previous Government thought will make a difference. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. This is a good title in that it is clear and describes exactly what the bill sets out to do. It is really what we have been talking about this afternoon: the ability of the law of this land to effectively get at and recover the proceeds of crime. But within that—and I will make the point again because it is central—we need to look at exactly what the proceeds of crime encompass and at what we are seeking to recover by amending the legislation. We have heard it said before by members from both sides of the Chamber that the law we have at present although seeking to achieve broadly the same fundamental and philosophical aims simply does not have the teeth to truly get in and recover those proceeds of crime. Here we have a bill that began as we have heard under the previous Labour Government—and I commend it for that—but we as a National-led Government are now prioritising it through to its completion in this House. 
The nature of the proceeds that this bill aims to bring within its ambit is considerably widened and this is really the key point of the debate this afternoon. It is not just the proceeds of crime it is not the money someone stole from the bank or the methamphetamine that is ripped off from the chemist but the wealth that those criminal offences bring to the criminal element that organises that sort of offending. We have to be a lot more creative as law drafters and lawmakers to set up a system of recovery that can look much more holistically at where the money is in crime how it gets there and how we can get it back. 
The title of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill is clear and descriptive as to what exactly the legislation will do. It will do that because it will put teeth into the existing philosophy and will ensure that the proceeds of crime in New Zealand can be far more effectively recovered and far more effectively removed from the entities that are benefiting from crime. Importantly we are not limiting ourselves to the tainted property specifically; the recovery of any benefit or even goods of an equivalent value that can be removed certainly will achieve those same aims of the bill because we are seeking to ensure that crime does not pay. That is why we have heard this afternoon in the debate that the bill goes on to target any fruits of a tainted tree. It is a clear maxim of law that fruits of a tainted tree are as tainted as the tree itself. That is why we know that we cannot have good title to goods that have come down through a tainted process. 
We have talked before in the debate about the important safeguards in place to ensure those powers are not misused and misapplied. I think that we can have confidence that the drafters of this legislation have worked very hard to put in place appropriate safeguards to make sure that although we are increasing significantly the powers of the New Zealand Police to punish gangs and the criminal element through hitting at their asset base we are doing so in a way that enables our very talented and highly respected judiciary to ensure that the powers are not used inappropriately. 
I just comment also in respect of this title clause that the mere passing of legislation called the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill sends a message which is an important part of the work we do in this House. It sends a message that this Parliament—and I say “Parliament” because of the cross-party support that this bill has enjoyed—will not tolerate gangs criminal organisations organised crime or anyone else who seeks to make money from breaking the law. We will not tolerate that sort of behaviour and allow those organisations to thrive. 
To be able to stand up in each of our electorates in all parts of this country and say to New Zealanders that this Parliament has passed the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill is a thing to be proud of. It makes a very clear statement about what we as a Government as a Parliament and as members in this House are prepared to accept and about the standard that we demand. Where we see clear evidence that the law is not achieving the ends that this House had for it then it is certainly incumbent upon all of us to take steps to address that situation. This bill certainly does that. I wish to commend once more the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power for bringing the bill before the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this particular part of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and to reflect on the work of the Law and Order Committee as it was when we processed this legislation through the select committee under the wise stewardship of Martin Gallagher the chair and then later Ron Mark. A number of select committee members had very full interaction with submitters coming before the committee and amongst themselves to try to get this right. 
It was interesting to note that early on in the piece it appeared that the then Government was quite strongly in favour of the Serious Fraud Office being the recovery body for this bill; then later on it seemed to change its mind. The bill was obviously targeted at organised crime and particularly at gangs and the view of the National members early in the piece was that the New Zealand Police should be the recovery body because it was the police who had an understanding of how gangs worked—essentially of who was who in the zoo—when it came to organised crime throughout New Zealand. In actual fact the Serious Fraud Office as it was then did not have the institutional knowledge in the view of the National members to be able to fully implement and enforce the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill as it was drafted. 
 We are pleased to note that part-way through that process there seemed to be a bit of a change of heart on the part of the then Government. That was slightly embarrassing to the Labour members of the committee because they were not aware that Mr Goff had had a bit of a change of mind and that was where the bill was going. There was a bit of a lack of transparency as to why there seemed to be that reluctance but we got there in the end. 
It is sad to note that some parties in the Committee are not in support of the bill and it is a long time since I have heard a call from the Maori Party or the Green Party articulating clearly the reasons why those members are not in favour of it. I recall that the last time we were in Committee on this bill the Maori Party had a number of concerns around people with interests in multiple-owned property particularly land and around what effects for instance a restraining order or a seizure affecting one person with an interest in the land would have on the other parties with interests in the land. I know of a number of instances of cases where pockets of land have been used by certain members of a family or an interested group to grow cannabis or to store stolen property. If that land was then seized or restrained in some way it would deprive those people with an extended interest in the land from exercising that interest. Anyone would recognise that that situation is unfair particularly if those people had no knowledge of what was actually going on on the site—and the vast majority of those people would have had no such knowledge. 
But within Part 2 which we have just been discussing we have tried to explain the terms of the sections that allow for people to come and give evidence to elicit and adduce evidence and to make applications before the court. This recognises that they will have the opportunity to speak to the court and to take action against the removal or the restraint of the land or property if they had no knowledge of what had been going on there. Where for instance 20 or 50 members of a group might have an interest in the land but the criminal activity that had been going on on that land related to only one or two of them I cannot see a situation where a reasonable application would be made that that land should be taken by the Crown and that the property rights of the other interested parties should be removed. 
I understand then why the Maori Party has had those reservations about the legislation in the past but I fail to see why those reservations are maintained in the light of the ramifications of the provisions within Part 2. I have also yet to hear from the Green Party as to why it is opposed. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Kia ora. I am happy to take a call on this matter. The first thing I will make a point of is that the title of this bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill is an absolute misnomer. It is totally deceptive. This bill does not deal with just recovering the proceeds of crime; it also deals with the forfeiture of tainted land—that is land that may have been used to grow crops that could be used to produce drugs for example. I reiterate that the land might have been used for those purposes because the bill deals with issues where there is suspected crime not just where crime has been proved. The bill relates to land where there is a suspicion that crime has been occurring. 
With regard to the matter that was dealt with by Mr Borrows—that procedures are in place for owners of Maori land to able to speak to this matter—I have a concern about that. In order for those people to be able to make an application to the court so that the land they have an interest in is not forfeited in this way they have to be aware that the matter is coming before the court. When the Crown makes its application to the court will it send out notices to all owners of Maori land so that they can come along and make this application? There is a real problem here because as owners of Maori land we do not know what is going on on our land because we are not living there. I have made this point before. We are not always aware of what is happening on our land. We are not always aware that the police have arrested one of our whanaunga members and that that person will be coming to court and that he or she is also an owner of land in this block. 
There are real problems with this bill and they have not been dealt with. Those are the reasons why the Maori Party is opposed to this bill. Those problems have not been adequately dealt with. Although it is good news that this issue will be dealt with at the High Court level rather than the District Court level there is already a precedent at the District Court level where Maori land has been taken by the Crown. It has been ordered to be forfeited by the court and given to the Crown and it will continue to happen. This is of concern for us. Kia ora. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. I note that the Labour Opposition has been somewhat disappointing. Those members have been complaining about this Government dragging this out yet the same members become vitriolic when we do not debate bills. When we give them the opportunity to debate bills they sit there and look dumbfounded about what they are supposed to be doing. The reason I make that comment is that this is a very important bill. 
Hon Members 
: Our bill! 
PAUL QUINN 
: Those members are claiming victory and saying that it is their bill. This bill was introduced on 13 March 2007. We are now over 2 years down the track—2 years. What have you been doing for the last 2 years? That is what I say to you. You claim this is your bill and for 2 years you have done nothing. It is only because this National Government has come along that this bill is being progressed. National has acted to make our streets safe. This bill is part of a suite of actions we have taken to bring safety to our streets and to address the issues around crime while those members on the Opposition benches have done nothing. The bill went to the Law and Order Committee where through the wise counsel of the National members on that select committee it was enhanced. 
Having said that I do not want to focus on the negative of the Labour members’ inaction; I want to focus on the positives contained in this bill. Firstly in addressing the title component of this bill we should focus on what the objectives are. They are to confiscate property from persons who have engaged in or who have profited from significant criminal activity to reduce the rewards from crime for individuals and to reduce the attraction of crime to potential offenders. The bill is all about hitting criminals where it hurts and getting into their piggy banks so that when they come out of jail after they have served their time there will be no nest egg left. The current legislation the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 is not working so it is necessary to repeal it. This Government is acting to achieve that. Instead of sitting on this legislation we are bringing it into place. 
 I want to contrast the activity and leadership shown by the Minister of Justice in pursuing this suite of activities with the previous Government’s inactivity. For instance during the 2005 election the previous Government promised to “hit gangs where it hurts” by removing the proceeds of crime. 
Hon Member 
: What happened? 
PAUL QUINN 
: It took the previous Government 2 years to introduce a bill and still it did not get that bill through. 
Shane Ardern 
: It sat on the Order Paper for 18 months. 
PAUL QUINN 
: There we are; there was total inactivity. We have come along and placed this bill before the House because we attach much importance to it. 
It is the gangs that we are hitting in this process. They are the modern-day mafia. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understood that we were talking about the commencement aspect of this bill. It is a very small area of debate and it is not wide ranging. In fact the Government has been filibustering and it has taken 14 speeches. I think it would be really great if when speaking on our bill that the Government supports Government members could stick to just the commencement aspect of this bill. 
Hon Simon Power 
: Of course the Opposition whip will know that when discussing clauses 1 and 2 in the Committee stage the debate is wide ranging and offers members the opportunity to sum up their arguments as they put them in other parts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I draw members’ attention to the review of the Standing Orders in December 2003. This is an unusual thing to do. I refer members to page 63 where the Standing Orders Committee which the House endorsed said: “However we consider that when debating the preliminary clauses at the end members should have some latitude to summarise and make concluding remarks about the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” So the member has some latitude to raise wider issues. 
I just advise the member that from time to time he tends to use the word “you”. He talks about “you” doing this and “you” doing that. I do not do any of those things nor do I want to. It is a difficult convention to debate in the third person. I invite the member to continue and to take on board the comments that he is entitled to summarise but I advise that he should still speak on the bill. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Thank you for your guidance Mr Chairperson and I deeply apologise for dragging you into the discussion. In fact it is a discussion that the National members seem to be having amongst themselves because there is a lack of engagement from the Opposition benches in respect of the very serious and important bill that we are discussing. 
As I was saying in terms of the organised crime that affects New Zealand we are talking about gangs and they are our modern-day equivalent of the mafia. The gangs are wide ranging. We talk about Black Power the Mongrel Mob Highway 61 the Killer Bees and the Tribesmen. They are endless and we can review the literature. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on this but I was up in my office listening to the rant from Mr Quinn. When I left the Chamber the Minister in the chair the Hon Simon Power had just made an intervention. I thought it was a very good intervention of a very positive nature around the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill given that the previous Labour Government had authored the bill and the current Government is picking it up. 
But I must say that Mr Quinn is doing his usual. I will enlighten him about why members on this side of the Chamber are not taking multiple calls: firstly we wrote most of the bill; secondly we support it; and thirdly the Government wants it passed. I am sure the Minister in the chair is on his second wave of smelling salts to keep himself awake—I do not mean any disrespect to him. 
Hon Simon Power 
: None taken. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I know why! His own members are trying to filibuster the bill. So I say to Mr Quinn who speaks in his own very uncharitable way that I think this bill is absolutely supported by all or most parties or certainly by parties on this side of the Chamber. I tell Mr Quinn that the reason why Opposition members are not taking multiple calls on this bill is that we wrote it while in Government and now his party in office supports it. I would have thought that Mr Quinn the Minister in the chair and the New Zealand people would like the thing passed. I say to the new member who chirps like a parrot from the back row that rather than being uncharitable and trying to score political points he might actually want to address the bill. It is good legislation. When it comes into force 8 months after the day it receives Royal assent it will actually do a lot I tell that member towards addressing organised crime and gang activity in New Zealand. So I would have thought that as we go through the commencement and title clauses this is not a time to start scoring cheap political points. 
I say to Mr Quinn that in this place of robust debate there are times once or twice when you do actually put politics aside when you do put aside the colours of red blue green and yellow the political flags of the House and when you do actually support what the people want— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As Chairperson you discussed with me particularly the fact that I had used the word “you”. I have listened to the member saying “you” three times in the last minute; I would ask you to address the same comments to the Opposition member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member makes a point but when the word “you” is used it is very often in the context of a sentence. If someone talks about “the party” etc. then goes on to mention “you” the person is connecting the word “you” to the principle of the sentence. On most of the occasions that was the case with Mr Cosgrove. I invite Mr Cosgrove to continue his speech. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will say that that intervention was better than the speech I heard on the TV. The best Mr Quinn can do is to be advised by his colleague as she sits beside him on the Government benches to raise a point of order and break up a speech. I suppose we all did that as new members maybe but some of us have learnt. 
I say to Mr Quinn that now is not the time for cheap political points. Now is not the time to play politics. On this side of the Chamber we support this legislation. We support its commencement date. We support the provisions and the new amendments that have been lodged to strengthen it. We have not taken calls because we will not waste taxpayers’ money; we support the legislation and we would like to see it passed. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I will stand up for 5 minutes because I think it pertinent to address the impertinence of that member who has just spoken. I say to Mr Quinn that maybe this is a good learning experience for him. Perhaps other members who are sitting around him like Mr Ardern for whom I have respect will take Mr Quinn aside in the dinner break and suggest to him that there are one or two occasions in this Chamber when we should act in a bipartisan way for the good of the country. I am sure that people watching today hope that we will act in a bipartisan way that we will support the Minister in the chair—it is now his bill although it was formerly ours—and that we will get on and pass it. 
I believe that the Government has taken 14 calls. Mr Power might want to get the Parliamentary Library to examine the record of filibustering from his own Government but I am sure he would like to see this legislation expedited and passed rather swiftly. We on this side of the Chamber support it. We wrote most of it. We support it even though the Government has put it up. I think it will address substantially gang and organised crime in our country. I invite Mr Quinn perhaps over a good feed of bangers and mash in the dinner break to reflect on his own conduct. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 8. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for its consideration. 
The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to make it easier for older New Zealanders to travel or live overseas. Personally I find it quite hard to imagine why anyone would want to live anywhere but in New Zealand; I cannot quite figure out why those superannuitants would want to go and retire overseas. New Zealand may be facing some tough times but this is still the best place in the world to live. However National is the party of choice. We have a commitment to encouraging New Zealanders to make their own choices. So if people currently wish to move to places such as Pitcairn Island Guam or Samoa we agree that they should be freely able to transfer their New Zealand pension entitlement. 
There are a variety of ways that older people can be paid overseas depending on where they intend to go and for how long. Those living overseas temporarily can receive full payment for up to 26 weeks and are not affected by the amendments of the bill. There are three methods of paying older people who wish to leave New Zealand to live in an overseas country. First there is a network of social security agreements that allow pensioners to receive up to the full rate of payment depending on how long they have lived in New Zealand. Second there are special provisions for persons who go to live in certain Pacific countries. I admit that some of these Pacific countries have a fantastic climate and I can see why some people would want to go there particularly when they are battling against Wellington’s wind some days. Finally there are provisions for people who move to all other countries and those are known as the general portability provisions. Older people who leave New Zealand to reside in one of these countries are paid a flat rate of 50 percent of the gross rate of their pension. 
The amendments in the bill relate solely to the general portability provisions and will not affect New Zealand’s social security agreements or the special provisions for certain Pacific countries. This bill is necessary because the rules prevent many of our older New Zealanders from retiring to a country of their choice or travelling overseas long term. Three main issues will be addressed by this bill. The flat rate of 50 percent provides insufficient income to allow a reasonable standard of living in many countries. The current rules restrict the ability of older people to move to more than one country because payment is linked to residence in one particular country. And because payment overseas is linked to residents in a particular country retirees who wish to undertake long-term travel or to travel between countries have been unable to continue to be paid their superannuation. In these days of global villages eftpos and email these rules are long out of date. Consequently the bill will make three changes. 
The key change is a new more generous maximum payment. Instead of the current flat rate of payment older New Zealanders will be able to receive up to 100 percent of their pension depending on the number of years they have resided in New Zealand. The bill will also free up the rules that restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around once they get overseas. It will allow payment to be made to those people who wish to reside in any country with which New Zealand has no social security agreement whether they remain in such a country or begin travelling. For example if an elderly couple were to head to London buy an old combivan and decide to travel around Europe they would be entitled to continue to receive their pensions with comparative ease. The bill will also allow payment of superannuation and veterans pensions for those pensioners who wish to travel to a country or between countries. 
The amendments contained in the bill address the three main issues with the current general portability provisions. I am confident that the amendments will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel or reside overseas. The new provisions will represent a modernisation of the payment overseas policy that has been in place since 1990. The rate was originally set at 50 percent partly because the superannuation surcharge was not applied to payments overseas. Now the surcharge has gone and therefore has no relevance to the amount of pension we pay overseas. Forcing older people to remain in one country or preventing their ability to travel to a variety of countries serves no particular purpose and is not in tune with the desires and aspirations of today’s retirees or with the philosophy quite frankly of this National Government. Some older people wish to go out on a boat and travel for a couple of years. Some people who reach the great age of 65 think they would like to sail around the world and actually take the time to do that. They will be able to take their superannuation with them. That is a great thing. 
The National-led Government is committed— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: This is a Labour bill. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Actually Labour had 9 years to bring in this bill and did not bring it in. 
Simon Bridges 
: 9 long years. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Labour had 9 very long years and did not bring in this bill and now it is trying to claim it as its own. Labour had 9 long years to actually do something about it but chose not to. Labour chose not to give New Zealanders that choice. It is fantastic that we are stepping up now and actually making this measure happen. There can be a lot of talk and a lot of chit-chat but this Government is one of action. That is where it is at. 
We should not prevent any elderly person from having his or her “grey OE”—I quite like that. Our silver surfers can head off overseas and do what they want to do and this bill gives them that ability. They may choose to be near their family and whanau and as much as we might like them to stay this party believes they should have those sorts of choices. We are committed to ensuring that our older people are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in their community whether that community is really local here in New Zealand or whether for them it is in another country. 
For those countries that we currently have social security agreements with—which include Australia Canada Denmark Greece Ireland Jersey the Netherlands and the United Kingdom—those agreements are already in place and this bill will not affect them. I know that one of the other MPs in this House will raise issues about Australia—he has certainly raised them with me and he is quite correct—and say that if a New Zealander moves to Australia then he or she goes on the Australian superannuation scheme. The Australian scheme is income and asset tested. That currently means there is a difference between the Australian and the New Zealand schemes. This bill will not touch that. It will not change those arrangements but one could move to another country where superannuation is not income and asset tested and as this bill will allow receive 100 percent of New Zealand superannuation. If one moves to Australia and has assets then those assets could be tested under the Australian scheme. However we did not want that to hold up this scheme from going ahead. 
I want to give members a bit of an understanding as well of how many people are currently paid New Zealand pensions or benefits overseas. Currently a total of 19542 people who live overseas are receiving New Zealand superannuation or a New Zealand benefit. Of this number 18715 are covered by agreements 575 are covered by the special portability arrangement and 252 are covered by the general portability rules. This bill will open up those categories to a whole lot of other people. I know that when members sit with people in their electorates—and my electorate is a classic; I have a lot of Croatian people in it and we have certainly been talking about social security agreements with them—we find that many of them want to go back and spend some of their retirement years in their home countries. If those people have been in New Zealand for 10 years or more while they were under the age of 65 then they will be entitled to take 100 percent of their superannuation with them and I think that that is a fantastic thing. Many of them have approached me and said they would like to do that. As I said earlier—and I cannot quite stress it enough—there are people who want to take the time to go sailing and to leave New Zealand to sail around the world. I just cannot see why they cannot take their superannuation with them. 
We estimate the cost of this measure to be around $6.4 million but the reality is that that is for those who would have lost their pension because they had left. It does not really cost us more because people are entitled to that pension and they should be able to take that superannuation with them. 
We are committed to our older people. So it is with pleasure that I stand and move the first reading of this bill which supports them in having that choice of where they want to live and of how they want to live and in being able to take their superannuation with them. As I have said Labour had 9 long years to do this but did not. Yet again we have stepped up and we have done this for those people. It is with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Labour supports the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. I hoped there could have been just a little bit of charity from the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett her knowing that this bill was introduced into this House in September 2008. I think that if I am right the Government of the day introducing this bill was a Labour-led Government— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: No one remembers. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If the member does not believe it I suggest she picks up the Order Paper for 31 March—for those who do not have it before them—turns to the second page looks under the fourth item on the agenda and sees that this bill was introduced on 22 September 2008. This is a Labour bill. This is a Labour bill that is being passed under a National minority Government. 
I am very happy that National members have picked up this legislation and are taking it through the House. I thank them on behalf of superannuitants pensioners and veterans in New Zealand. But I would have thought it would not take a lot of effort just to acknowledge that two major parties accept and approve of this bill rather than to make a speech and try to make out that Labour did nothing in respect of it. A lot of work was done on this bill. In fact we consulted on it and I suggest that members look at the explanatory note of the bill under the heading “Consultation”. They will see that Labour consulted with the National Party the Green Party New Zealand First and the Progressive party before the election and got support for this bill before the election. The honest National members will acknowledge that that consultation took place the details of which are included in the body of this bill. So to come into this House and say that the National Party is the party of choice is just another slogan; this bill was a Labour bill and it certainly gives choice to a lot of older people. 
The Minister said that she wondered why people would ever want to travel overseas. But before I address that I have to say I am pretty insulted by her views about Wellington’s wind. After all this is one fantastic place in which to live— 
Nathan Guy 
: Only in Rongotai. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —and I am pleased to see that the senior Government whip agrees with me. He said that this is a great place to live—the greater Wellington area. The wind does not bother us. The Minister cannot imagine why people would live in any other— 
Paul Quinn 
: Doing a mayoral speech? Preparing a mayoral speech for the super-city? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well of course I do not know why Paul Quinn lives here. I have no idea at all. He does not contribute anything except to have his tongue flapping for hour after hour. 
The Minister said it was hard to imagine why anybody would want to live overseas. But what has happened I think is that families have changed. I look at my own parents who are retired and living near their children. They live near one daughter and two children live in Wellington; we have only to go across Cook Strait to see them. They are very happy to stay put in New Zealand and they are well into their 80s. But then I look at the next generation and at parents like myself. My husband and I have children who live in Australia who have lived in Thailand and who move around the world. We want to have the ability when we reach that age to go and visit our children. Maybe they will come home; maybe they will not. But what has happened is that families have become mobile. They may be across the Tasman they may be back in the Pacific Islands and they may be in the United Kingdom and older people want the opportunity to go and visit them. Those older people do not want to have to go for just a month; they spend all that amount of money to be able to go for a much longer period of time. 
That is what this bill is all about. It gives those people the option—a choice given to them as a result of this Labour-introduced bill—to spend a longer time with their families and still receive New Zealand superannuation when they are overseas. I agree that the flat rate of 50 percent does not provide enough income in most countries where people would go and live so it is important that there is a higher level of income for those who want to live overseas—for them to be able to live overseas with some level of comfort. 
If members look through this bill they will see that people under the provisions of the bill will be able to receive payment overseas of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions based on a formula of 1/540th of the full rate for each month of residence in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65. A lot of work was done to find a formula that was fair—fair to New Zealanders who are taxpayers and who pay their money year after year in their working lives. It was to be a formula that enabled them to get the maximum amount but that still enabled those who had lived here for a shorter period of time to be able to have an increase over and above the flat rate of 50 percent. 
The bill provides for the ability to receive payments in other countries—not just one country but a number of countries. The Minister mentioned people who live on boats and who want to travel around the Greek islands or go yachting off the coast of Australia or who want to be in an old combivan and go around Europe. People often do want to travel and live between more than one country. If people have one part of the family in Australia and another in the United States they may well want in a number of months to be in a number of places. That will be able to happen under this bill. 
It is a good bill. It adds to the toolkit if you like of things we can do for superannuitants in their retirement. I believe that the previous Labour Government looked after the interests of older New Zealanders and veterans and I think this is another part of providing a much better ability for people in retirement. We are worried however about the future of superannuation under the new National Government and I think it is worthwhile mentioning that we put in place a superannuation fund so that our children and our grandchildren would have the ability to have superannuation when they retired. But we believe that that is under threat and we are interested to know what will be in the Budget and what money will be taken from or not put into the superannuation fund. Not to provide money into the superannuation fund is a short-term approach which could mean that our children and our grandchildren will be those who suffer. It is all very well taking the approach that we just look after today; we have done that for far too long in New Zealand when it comes to superannuation. 
I agree with Peter Dunne that we have agreement on superannuation in this House and across political parties whereby we have said we have to put money away for our kids and grandkids and for future generations. But now we have for the sake of short-term expediency a National Government looking at not putting money into that superannuation fund year after year to maintain its value. If money is not put in next year or in the year after then there will be a shortfall for our kids. Maybe the National Government does not care about that but I do. Our kids deserve as much as we have and in fact when their time comes maybe they will deserve more. We are very concerned about the National Government’s approach to superannuation. 
This bill when it is passed will provide an opportunity for superannuitants and veterans to take their pensions and go and live in another country for a period of time and with enough money so that they may be able to live far more comfortably than they did before this bill was passed. We will support this bill right through all stages. It is a Labour bill introduced in September last year but we are delighted that the National Government has picked up our bill and will see it through to its conclusion. We should be grateful for the sake of pensioners and superannuitants that there will be wide support for the bill in this House as it was consulted on before it was introduced and we had wide support from all parties for it. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise this evening to contribute to the debate on the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. I listened with interest to Annette King the member opposite who rightly pointed out that this bill was introduced by Labour and of course it is supported by National. I was a little concerned because although the bill had its genesis in the forty-eighth Parliament I waited for 9 long minutes to hear the member opposite talk about that. I was really worried because I heard only in the last few seconds the member opposite mention the bill. But what I also heard was concern from members opposite about National and about superannuitants and veterans. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: We’ll watch the Budget with great interest. 
JO GOODHEW 
: Members will have to wait only a few more hours. We do not have to wait for the Budget. Tomorrow 1 April and it is no joke New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension payments will rise by—wait for it—up to $15.64 a week for a couple who both qualify to $478.38 a week compared with 1 October last year. For a single person living alone superannuation and veterans payments will go up by $13.16 a week to $310.95. We will be waiting only a few more hours but not for the Budget. Soon the superannuitants and veterans of New Zealand will be feeling much happier about what is coming their way. I see that the heads opposite have gone down so clearly that was not good news for members on the other side of the Chamber. But it is good news for these New Zealanders. 
I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on the bill tonight which I enthusiastically support. I played a part in the genesis of this bill because I like many members of this House made representations in the previous Parliament to the previous Government about the problems with not supporting the superannuation payments of New Zealanders who are living overseas. Some of my constituents who were working as volunteers overseas got in touch with me. One partner was a superannuitant but his wife was not but now she is as well. They were not getting any support from New Zealand yet they felt they had paid their taxes all their lives. This is a very very good bill for the likes of those people and I know other members like myself have made representations to have this bill come before Parliament. 
What do we hope for our hard-working older New Zealanders when they choose to retire? We hope they will have good health they will have the wealth to enjoy the days of their retirement and they will be able to enjoy the pastimes that they have saved up so to speak for their retirement. But for some lucky New Zealanders retirement means a chance for them to travel overseas. Some will travel for the pleasure of travel some will travel to see their relatives and friends and some will travel as my constituents did to do voluntary work in communities that do not know the wealth of opportunity that we have in New Zealand. 
This bill is an important step forward in making it easier for New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners to travel overseas or to retire there. I take the Minister’s point and I also wonder why they would want to do that. I certainly hope my parents and relatives do not choose to live overseas but we would not stop them if they wanted to do so. We would prefer they stayed in New Zealand with family. But again those older folk may be travelling so as to live closer to family. National is committed to making the retirement of older New Zealanders a little easier and this bill gives them greater choice in where they may wish to retire to. 
The purpose of the bill is to make amendments to the provisions to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and also to the War Pensions Act 1954. The measures that provide for the payment of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions overseas have been in place since 1 April 1990. That is 18 years ago and I say that with no hesitation because our daughters were born just a couple of months later. 
The current measures provide for a flat rate payment of 50 percent of the domestic rate of benefit. I am just setting out the current situation and describing it so that we can see why there is a need for change. An important point relates to where a person leaves New Zealand with the intention of residing in a country with which New Zealand has no agreement relating to reciprocity of social security monetary benefits—that is it is not a specified Pacific country. This flat rate payment of 50 percent deters older New Zealanders from retiring overseas because it certainly provides insufficient funds or income to allow them a reasonable standard of living in retirement in most countries. My constituents were lucky. They were supported by the community that they were living in in part but it was particularly difficult for them not having any funds. This bill is again as the Minister described about giving more choice to older New Zealanders. 
Payment is also currently linked to residents in one particular overseas country which means that superannuitants or veterans pensioners cannot travel to or between multiple countries and continue to receive their payment. If they are doing their big “grey OE”—I do like that phrase—then going to just one country would seem to not be in the spirit of what they have saved for for their retirement. The status quo is not an option and that is why this bill has been brought to the House this evening. 
The current law creates many problems as I have outlined for our older New Zealanders. To qualify for New Zealand superannuation a person must have had 10 years’ residence in New Zealand since the age of 20 5 years of which must have been since the age of 50 and the person must of course be 65 years of age or over. New Zealand’s residence-based pension system contrasts with the contributory nature of most overseas pension schemes and it does not easily lend itself to situations where people move in and out of New Zealand. 
Two key issues have arisen as a result of the increasing international movement of people and they include the method of dealing with overseas pensions paid into New Zealand which effectively tops up the amount of overseas pension to the appropriate full rate of New Zealand superannuation. I certainly believe that every member in this Parliament would have received representations from their constituents on that one. It can be a contentious issue and it is difficult to administer but it has remained essentially unchanged for 70 years. The rules for payment of New Zealand superannuation overseas are overly restrictive and they prevent many New Zealanders from receiving payment while living in the country of their choice or from receiving payment while travelling without having the intent to live in one particular country. That is also problematic. 
It is time for change and this bill will from 2 November 2009 allow the qualifying superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel in or to or between any overseas country to retain their entitlement. That is an important word. When we hear from people who have paid taxes towards their superannuation they truly believe they have done their bit to prepare for their retirement. It is important that when they later become resident in a country with which New Zealand does not have an agreement they are able to collect their pension. For those who wish to reside in any country with which New Zealand has no agreement relating to reciprocity it will mean that they can retain their entitlement if they become resident in that country or even if they begin to travel. 
 The Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill is increasingly more and more relevant for older New Zealanders. New Zealand like most OECD countries has an ageing population. The older population is predicted to double by the year 2028 and the population aged over 85 years will almost treble during that period. That creates quite a lot of issues in the planning for that change in New Zealand’s demographic. By 2051 older people in New Zealand will make up approximately a quarter of the population. Older people want to travel. They want to keep connected with their families who are often spread far and wide across the globe. Despite older people being more mobile they suffer many problems which is a situation that National is committed to making easier over time. This important bill gets us started on that process. 
I look forward to participating in the select committee’s examination of this bill as we hear the submissions on it. I also commend this bill to the House as others before me have done. I am really very pleased that there is cross-party support for the bill and I believe that New Zealand superannuitants and veterans wanting to travel or live overseas will congratulate the whole Parliament on this bill. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. 
Paul Quinn 
: Bated breath! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well bated breath is not too bad I say to Mr Quinn. If the member does listen he will soon understand very clearly why I support this bill and it might be very different from that member’s understanding of my reasoning. 
I support this bill primarily because it is pro-family. It sets out to understand what is happening to the modern family and it continues to put together a whole series of policies from when Labour was in Government. Labour will continue to support every such idea that comes from the Government regarding this bill. It is also pleasing to support this bill because it is a Labour bill and no amount of criticising its time frame takes that away. 
Paul Quinn 
: Keep it clean! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: It does not take it away as that member will soon realise. The bill delivers on Labour’s pro-family commitment which is longstanding and can be seen in the purpose of this bill. The member may smile at that but we certainly can argue that point with him. 
This bill primarily modernises an aspect of New Zealand superannuation in response to the changing nature of life for our citizens who are over 65 years of age. It takes a little bit of thinking through to really appreciate the changing nature of New Zealand families and what that might mean for a series of social policies that are designed to support our families at various stages of their lives. This particular bill certainly supports families at the tail end of their lives post their working phase. If members consider for a moment the changes that have been taking place in the New Zealand family—which are not atypical in terms of the changes that families globally are facing as well—then the first thing to realise is that our families in the 21st century are globalised. They come from many different places and they have many different connections. If we understand the changing nature of New Zealand families and the changing nature of New Zealand society in terms of its ethnic diversification then in the future many of our older people will be from different ethnicities with strong connections to different parts of the world. They live here because they love this country and they have contributed to it. But it does not mean they have discarded their relationships with their old countries or do not want to ever go back there. What precludes them—it has precluded some I know—from going back there are the problems that this particular bill sets out to address. 
We have an ageing population so soon there will be more and more people in this particular stage of their lives. Life expectancy increases for all kinds of reasons—that happens. This population is increasing and therefore people’s needs and their interests both here and globally become particularly important. They do become very very important players in the globalised world. Families now live at the same time in a number of countries. My mother lives in Vancouver and she is 90 years of age. I am one of 14 children all over the world whom she is able to travel to see and spend time with. 
Paul Quinn 
: Does that mean you’re going to be 90? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Well my mother will be pleased to see Mr Quinn as well if he would like when she comes here. The member might find it very very useful to meet somebody who is a beneficiary of a similar provision elsewhere. My mother is able to travel knowing that she has the comfort of being financially secure because she is able to take her own pensions with her. 
Families live concurrently in a number of countries and they have connections to a number of countries. As family members grow older their grandchildren are now living in other countries and many of these families of ours in retirement want to go and live with their families overseas and to spend time with their grandchildren—and for a significant proportion of time as well. Therefore I find it difficult to understand why the Minister for Social Development and Employment would find it difficult to understand the motivation behind many of our superannuitants who want to take advantage of this particular— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: What a load of rubbish! I’m bringing the bill in! So obviously I’m supportive of it. I just said New Zealand was beautiful and I think that New Zealand rocks. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The Minister says that this is about driving combivans and living in the Pitcairn Islands—that is a cynical approach to the needs of our families. In time the Minister will understand what this is about. The Minister can crow as much as she likes but it is about trying to understand our families. The Minister shows no understanding of the changing nature of New Zealand families and how indeed this provision might address that. 
 Perhaps the Minister might be generous and at least acknowledge that that indeed is what this bill tries to do. Those are the kinds of provisions. It is very easy to talk about a provision in cynical terms. There is nothing cynical about this set of provisions. This is serious business. This bill was well-designed and well-thought-out and it addresses an aspect of New Zealand society at the present time. Indeed maybe it will be our mothers and our relatives who will take advantage of this. This measure is about understanding the importance of the ability to travel and to go and live somewhere else and perhaps more important than anything else to spend time with grandchildren and be of assistance to them at a time when families require that type of support. It is grandparents—and great-grandparents of course—who are able to provide that kind of support. But what precludes grandparents from doing so—apart from anything to do with distance—is believing that they would have to live overseas without financial support or security of income. Then the possibility evaporates. These provisions enable families to go and live with their loved ones support them and still be comfortable themselves. 
As I said in the last 20 years many many such families have migrated to New Zealand. They have made New Zealand a great society. They have increased our diversity. They have played an important part in our society as well but they have retained links to where they have come from and they do want to go back. The bill provides portability to superannuitants and to holders of the veterans pension who live in countries that have no agreement with New Zealand in terms of the reciprocity of social security benefits. 
As I have said it is likely that this will be a growing list of countries—some of which we might not have imagined a few years ago. I think it is timely to address this particular issue The bill is timely and it is responsive and many people will appreciate its introduction. But it is also urgent. It is urgent because the record of National in Government is not very good on superannuation. I remember very very well— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: It’s going up tomorrow. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The Minister is not old enough to appreciate the point so perhaps she might want to listen. Then she might appreciate the point through research or through listening. This may be a time for members opposite to listen. There was a period in the early 1970s— 
Paul Quinn 
: This is unbecoming of you! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I think Mr Quinn should listen and appreciate the fact that when all of us were enabled to open an account in our own names in our New Zealand superannuation system it was one of the greatest things that New Zealand society did. If allowed to carry on it would indeed have given this country a huge resource base in terms of financial capital. The National Party actually succeeded in telling the electorate that this would be used to socialise every aspect of New Zealand society and when coupled with the racist browning idea of New Zealand society that was promoted at the same time the then Muldoon Government in one fell swoop took this away. We have suffered ever since. We now have a multiparty accord and there are signs that the Government wants to tinker with that as well. The Government cannot be trusted on superannuation and therefore this becomes quite urgent as well. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill which from what we can ascertain at this stage at least simply makes a logical and long-overdue amendment to the way this country treats superannuitants and veterans who travel or reside overseas for more than 6 months. 
At the moment people who are eligible for superannuation or the veterans pension and who journey abroad for longer than 6 months or who go to countries that do not have reciprocal social security arrangements with New Zealand are unable to go on receiving their entitlements. This of course means that they have the option either to return home or to be reduced to seeking employment to penury or to dependence on others if they choose to remain away from New Zealand. In the current economic situation around the world the first option that of getting paid work will become even more difficult for our older citizens in the times ahead than it is already no matter what country they are in. Penury will be an even more likely outcome for many. 
It is therefore timely that the Government has decided to present this bill to Parliament and I hope it will go through the select committee and House processes with considerable alacrity. It is hard to imagine that any party in this Parliament will hold it up—and given the speeches so far I do not think that will happen—given that this bill provides for a significant improvement in the lives of our older citizens who choose to spend time or live permanently overseas. 
The only issue I can see at this stage as possibly creating a little angst is the provision that superannuation or the veterans pension will be paid in these circumstances at a rate of 1/540th of the full rate for each month of residence in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65 years. However for those who have spent a substantial portion of their working lives elsewhere this has the upside that should they receive an overseas pension for example from the UK it will not be reduced by the amount they may have earned during that period when they were not in New Zealand. Having sat through a number of discussions on various reciprocal arrangements we have with other jurisdictions while on the Social Services Committee over the last 9 years I can say that it is something of a relief to see a bill coming through in this area that is not dependent on the negotiation of exact arrangements with another sovereign nation and that aims to be inclusive in its effect rather than exclusive. 
The bill also appears to have a side effect of potentially removing the barriers that currently exist that preclude a social security agreement with the United States. I am sure that there will be many who will welcome this given the number of citizens of both countries who move between them. 
However this bill does not attempt to deal with the vexed issue that has come to the select committee and I am sure to all of our out-of-Parliament offices at different times relating to the operation and effect of the dollar for dollar deduction against New Zealand social security benefits imposed in respect of contributory pension schemes administered by Governments overseas. This matter has been raised time and time again by people aggrieved by the fundamental unfairness of arbitrarily missing out on the benefits of contributory pension funds that they have been part of—often for a substantial part of their working lives—because of the unfair provisions imposed by section 70 of the Social Security Act. 
 The issue is really quite simple. If overseas pensions are paid from taxation revenue gathered by overseas Governments as New Zealand superannuation and benefits paid under the Social Security Act are then a dollar for dollar deduction is totally appropriate. But if a portion of the revenue for such overseas pension schemes is from contributions by employees then the dollar for dollar deduction is simply unfair. Whether an overseas Government or a private fund administers the scheme should be an irrelevant consideration. 
The previous Government promised for most of its tenure to address this knotty issue. Legislation was promised to be introduced in the last parliamentary term. When this bill was introduced I expected the bill to deal with this issue also. It does not. Both New Zealanders living overseas and contributing to pension schemes administered by overseas Governments and immigrants to New Zealand who have contributed to such schemes for many years before coming here will continue to be unfairly penalised unless urgent action is taken. I heard National members talking about this in a most sympathetic and understanding manner in years gone by when they were in Opposition. I hope that in this new Parliament we might see some progress made on this broader and more significant problem. 
I invite the Minister to consider amending this bill to address this issue as an option and invite her to meet with me to discuss ways in which the gross unfairness of section 70 of the Social Security Act can be most readily addressed. If National remains true to the statements of its spokespeople when in Opposition this is an issue on which we could work together and I am sure on which other parties in the House could work as well. Meanwhile I commend to the House this minor but welcome amendment to our superannuation and pension laws. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 ACT supports the general thrust of this bill and supports its referral to a select committee. I thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett for her ready response to my request for additional information relating to this bill. I raised with her what I believe could be seen as—potentially at least—one or two unfair aspects of this bill and I take the opportunity to raise them in the House. 
I take the example of a New Zealander who has worked here for 45 years between the ages of 20 years and 65 years. If that person retires and goes to Thailand to live under this bill that person will get a 100 percent superannuation payment and that seems a reasonable provision. If we take the example of someone from a Pacific Island country who works in New Zealand for 20 years—240 months—or more then returns home that person will also get 100 percent of his or her superannuation rights. On the other hand if we take the example of a New Zealander who was born in New Zealand who worked in New Zealand from say the age of 20 to 65—for 45 years—and who moves to Australia that person could get zero superannuation payment as a result of the reciprocal social security agreement we have with Australia. 
In other words a New Zealander who has worked for 45 years and then lives in Thailand will get a full superannuation right another person who has come from one of the islands and worked here for 20 years or more then returned home will also get 100 percent but a New Zealander who has lived in New Zealand for 65 years and worked here for 45 years who has a few assets or has a bit of other income and who goes to Australia will get absolutely zero because of the social security agreement we have with Australia. Such people will get zero from New Zealand but also they will get zero from Australia. In other words they will get no pension whatsoever. 
I think a lot of New Zealanders will see that as an anomaly that we need to address. Why should it be that if one goes to Thailand or a Pacific Island one gets 100 percent of one’s pension yet if one goes to Australia—or potentially to other countries with which we have social security agreements—under the arrangements we have made with Australia one receives no superannuation at all? 
I have raised that issue with the Minister and I thank her for the information she has given me. She has been very open. But I think the issue should be addressed and thought about at the select committee. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
A tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatau e te Whare kia ora tatau i tenei po. Ara ano te whainga matua te matapono ranei o te ao Maori ara ko te whakanui ko te whakamana i te hunga kuia koroua ranei. Kei te putake ratau o nga tumanako ko ratau tonu te tauira mo te whakatipuranga hou. No reira he oranga ngakau kua tae mai tatau ki tenei pire. Kai te tautoko ake matau i tenei pire i te mea he hangai tonu ana ki te tiaki i tenei ahuatanga o te tiaki me te manaaki i te hunga koeke me te hunga tumatauenga me ki. Me ki ko te ahuatanga o tenei pire he mea kua roa e korerohia ana e te Pati Maori ara kia whakahou i te hiahia kia whakarahi ake kia whakapiki ake te utu a superannuation tae ra ano ki te hunga kua haere ki tawahi me te mohio ano hoki me whakaheke whakararo te taumata a-tau nei mo nga ropu e mate moata ana ki tera o te wa o te nuinga o te rahinga me ki. 
Kua roa te Pati Maori e korero ana kia heke whakararo me ki te tau e ahei ai te nuinga ki te whiwhi i te peneihana tenei mea te superannuation ki te 60 tau mo nga ropu me ki e moata rawa te mate. Me ki i te katoa o te motu mo te ao Maori me ki nga ahuatanga katoa kai raro tonu te ao Maori e putu ana. Me ki ka mate te ao Maori te nuinga o te wa tekau tau i mua noa atu o te ao Pakeha. Ko ta matau e ki nei he pai ke me whakaheke te tau e ahei ai te tangata whiwhi penihana te putea ranei a ka mutu he painga ano ra ka puta ki nga mea katoa o Aotearoa nei. Mo te ao Maori me ki nga tatauranga o te ao Maori 4 ira 5 pai heneti o matau kua eke ki te 65 tau pakeke noa atu ranei. No reira ki taku mohio taku titiro ko tetahi o tera hunga me ki te 28260 o te ao Maori nei he mema tonu o roto i tenei Whare Paremata. Me ki mo te hunga Pakeha 14 ira 5 pai heneti kua eke ki te 65 tau pakeke noa atu ranei. Me ki penei au o te hunga makawe hiriwa o Aotearoa 5 ira 3 pai heneti o te katoa o Aotearoa kua eke ki te 65 tau pakeke atu ranei he Maori tonu. 
E rua nga take nunui kei roto i enei kaute. Tuatahi e ai ki nga korero whakatau tata me ki ki te 6500 Maori o te 65 tau pakeke noa atu ranei kai Ahitereiria e noho ana. Tuarua e ai ano ra ki nga tatauranga kua rahi ake te hunga koeke Maori a nga tau tata kai mua i te aroaro ara mai i nga tekau tau e 2 e 3 ranei kai mua i te aroaro. No reira ara noa atu nga take e tika ana kia whakariterite tatau i a tatau ano mo nga tau kai mua i te aroaro. Mo te aha? Mo te hauora o te ao Maori i Aotearoa nei. Ehara i te mea kai te whakaaro noa ake matau mo Aotearoa me tona kotahi i roto i te ture nei. Kei te titiro ano hoki matou ki nga Kuki Airini ki Whiti ki Kiripati ki Niue ki Hamoa ki Tokerau ki Tonga ki Tuvalu Vanuatu me etahi atu me ki o Te Moana Nui A Kiwa i whakaingoatia i roto i te New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act o te tau 2001. 
No reira ko te painga o tenei pire e ahei ana te hunga koeke me ki me te hunga tumatauenga te hunga e hiahia ana ki te haere ki tawahi ki reira noho ai e haere ai ranei. Mena karekau he kirimana i waenganui i a Aotearoa me tetahi atu mo te utu hauora nei e ahei tonu ana ratau ki te whiwhi i te moni i te putea me te penihana e korerohia ake nei. Ahua whai tonu i te ahuatanga o nga pire pai kua tae mai ki te Whare Paremata nei e whakapai ake nei i te ahuatanga mo te hunga koeke. Ko taku e whakaaro ake nei ko te Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Act te SuperGold Card legislation tae ra ano ki etahi putea whakawatea ka ahei mo te hunga nohotahi nga tane wahine ranei kia whiwhi putea tonu ratou. Katoa o enei he ahua pai. No reira he pera ano hoki tenei pirei. Ehara i te mea kua mutu me ki te katoa o nga ahuatanga ka mutu me ngahau tatau. Ko ta te Pati Maori e ki nei mena hiahia ana tatau ki te whakamana i te hunga koeke me te hunga pakeke mena e hiahia ana tatau ki te whakamana i a ratau tae ra ano ki nga mea e tika ana kia whiwhi i a ratau ara noa atu nga mea hai whakariterite ma tatau. A ka mutu ara ano nga mea me ki ka kimihia e te Pati Maori i mua i te aroaro o te Kawanatanga Ko ta matau e ki nei me titiro tatau ki te ahuatanga me ki o te noho-a-whanau o te noho-a-kainga kia ahei ai te hunga pakeke ki te noho atu ki o ratou ake kainga mena e hiahia ana ka mutu kia whai wahi ano ra me ki e wha pea nga wa ki te whakata. 
He mea nui tenei ki a au i te mea kei te mohio tonu au ki te ahuatanga o te tiaki i tetahi o to whanau. I pera rawa te ahuatanga o toku ake tuahine. Ko tona oranga ko tona hauora he mea nui ki a matau o te whanau no reira kai te mohio tonu ahau i tona mutunga mai kia riro ma te whanau te tangata e tiaki. He mea nui tera ki etahi o nga whanau katoa me te mohio ano hoki tera pea mena ka pera ara noa atu nga painga ka puta. Ko te whakakore i te rarangi poka tinana he take nui tera ki a matou. Ka mutu ko te tuku o te kawanatanga i etahi putea mo nga ratonga mate whawhati tata nei me ki kia kaua ke e waiho ake ki roto i nga ringaringa o te hunga mahi kore utu nei. Ko ta matou e pirangi nei me kaha tatau ki te tiaki i te hunga pakeke a ka mutu ko te hauora he kaupapa nui tera ki a ratau me te mohio ano hoki ko tenei mea o te whanau ora ehara i te mea ko te rongoa i tona kotahi ko te mahere whakaora i tona kotahi. 
Ko te whanau ora ko te tiaki me ki te whanau ka mutu ko te whakanui i te whanau ko te whakapakari i te whanau kia whiwhi ratau i nga painga e tika ana i roto i nga ratonga katoa. Me whakanui i a ratou kia taea e ratau te puta me ki ki te whaiao ki te ao marama i runga i te mohio kua ora te tinana. Ko ta matau e pirangi nei ko te whakaora i te wairua o te whanau kia mohio ratau ara noa atu nga huarahi hai whainga kia puta te hauora ki tena ki tena o ratau. A no reira ko taku korero whakamutunga “He tira kaumatua tera te haere na.” Me kaha nei tatau ki te tiaki i wa tatau pakeke te tumanko ia mo te wa roa ka mutu me kaha nei tatau ki te whakaaro ake mo etahi huarahi hou ki te tiaki i wa tatau pakeke kia taea e ratau te tiaki i a ratau ano ka mutu ki te whai i nga huarahi e hiahiatia nei e ratau. Ka tautoko te Pati Maori i tenei pire. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker; and the House tonight greetings to us. A golden principle within Maoridom is that due and proper respect is accorded to our kuia and kaumatua—our elders. Our older people are the foundations upon which our hope sits; they are literally the walking legacies that we model ourselves on. How pleasing indeed it is therefore that we have come to this bill. We support it because it is about taking due care of superannuitants and veterans. The context for reading this bill is of course a longstanding call that we in the Maori Party have made promoting the need to raise the rate of superannuation and veterans’ pensions while at the same time lowering the entitlement age for groups whose life expectancy is lower than average.  
The Maori Party has always advocated lowering the age of entitlement to New Zealand superannuation to 60 yearsfor groups whose life expectancy is lower than average. The average mortality age for Maori across the socio-economic spectrum is around 10 years earlier than for non-Maori. It is our view that a lower entitlement age will allow more equitable uptake of New Zealand superannuation for all citizens.  
In the Maori population just 4.5 percent of us are 65 years or older—I have very good reason to believe that at least one of that precious community of 28260 older Maori is a current member of this House. In comparison with the non-Maori population 14.5 percent are 65 years or older. Putting it another way in that golden-oldie silver-haired segment of our society only 5.3 percent of the total population who are 65 years or older are Maori.  
But there are a couple of important riders to these demographics. The first is that it is estimated that some 6500 Maori aged 65 years or over are currently living in Australia. The second is the population trends which tell us that the proportion of older Maori will increase quite rapidly over the next two or three decades. Therefore there is every good reason to plan ahead to take ample consideration of the work we need to put in. For what purpose? For the health of Maoridom here in New Zealand —except that it is not just Aotearoa we are thinking of in this legislation. We are also including the Cook Islands Fiji Kiribati Niue Samoa Tokelau Tonga Tuvalu Vanuatu and the other Pacific nations identified in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.  
This bill will enable superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel or live in another country where New Zealand does not have agreements relating to reciprocity of social security payments to still have the ability to receive New Zealand superannuation and pension payments. It continues the passage of positive legislation that has advanced opportunities for our elders. I am thinking of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Act the SuperGold Card legislation and the progress made in extending the eligibility for the single or single living alone rate to include spouses and partners. Those were all initiatives that we were happy to support as we will this bill but that is not to say that everything is polished off and we should celebrate. The Maori Party is of the view that if we really want to value our ageing and older people if we really want to afford them the status they are entitled to then there are many things we need to deal with and will seek to raise with the Government. We believe there needs to be greater investment in whanau-based and home-based care options to enable older people to choose to remain in their homes with access to respite care at least four times a year.  
This is something I have a particular passion for knowing the reality of the enduring challenges we faced as a whanau in the care of my late sister. Her care and ongoing well-being were of absolute priority to us so I am in no doubt whatsoever that whanau care is something many families would love to be able to benefit from. The elimination of surgical waiting lists is an important future goal to us. Also important is the need for Government investment in ensuring the provision of emergency services instead of relyingon voluntary community efforts. We want to see every priority given to our aged and elderly. Excellent health care is a key part of this. 
Of course whanau ora is more than just prescriptions and treatment plans. F 
amily well-being is also about uplifting and strengthening whanau: ensuring whanau are properly resourced and have access to all services invest in themselves participate in society and determine their futures. We want to restore a sense of confidence in whanau that whanau is and can be a meaningful and secure centre from which to care well for one another. So my closing statement is: “That which traverses there is a company of elders.” Let us insist that the path of ageing is steady sustainable and strong. We must be bold enough to think of new ways to care for our aged and elderly in a way that enables them to tend for themselves and to pursue avenues they desire. The Maori Party supports this bill 
.] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next member the issue of central heating in the Chamber has been raised with me. People feel a bit warm. I have asked my trusty assistant to check on the matter. I am advised that the air conditioning has now been cranked up a notch and things should cool down a bit in the Chamber. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing who knows? 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand in the Chamber tonight and support the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. As society changes it is important that legislation keeps abreast of those changes. This bill represents change because our society in New Zealand has changed. It has become a lot more multicultural and a lot more global. 
Many families now have children grandchildren and siblings who live overseas and who intend to stay overseas and not come back to New Zealand. My own family is an example of that. I have a mother who lives in New Zealand and a sister who lives in Sydney. I have four cousins. One of them lives in Sydney and another lives in Brisbane. In my own family we are global so when we need to get together as a family when grandparents want to see the grandchildren or when we want to visit our siblings to keep the family unit together we have to get on a plane. Our society has changed and people are travelling a lot more especially the elderly. They are travelling a lot more to keep that family unit together by visiting their siblings their grandchildren and their children. This bill is a result of change in our society that has meant that parents and grandparents now have to travel and they do travel. 
New Zealand has also become a very multicultural society where a lot of siblings and grandchildren live permanently in countries where the grandparents originally came from. For example grandparents are going back to India or Asia for months at a time to visit their family. 
This legislation is very positive and is keeping abreast of the times. Even though travel costs have reduced many people who travel are on fixed incomes. Many elderly people save to go away but if they lose their superannuation while they are overseas they get into a bit of financial hardship. Not everybody who travels is wealthy and a lot of people—especially the elderly—save to visit their family because that is a priority in their lives. 
This bill makes it easier for older people to travel or live overseas. The new provisions represent a modernisation of the overseas policy payment that has been in place since 1990. The Government is committed to ensuring that our older people are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in their community whether that community is in New Zealand or in another country and whether they participate in that community for 1 week 1 month or 6 months. It is important that they participate and that they have dignity while doing so because they do have income. Forcing older people to remain in one country or preventing their ability to travel to a variety of countries serves no particular purpose and is not in tune with the desires and aspirations of today’s retirees. 
The Government is amending the legislation as the current system offers limited options. The current rules are preventing many of our older New Zealanders from moving to the country where they would like to live or from travelling overseas. The current policies generally reflect the universal and resident-based nature of New Zealand’s system and provide good protection for most New Zealanders. However the recent review identified a number of specific issues with the policies on the treatment of overseas pensions and the payment of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension overseas. 
The key change is a new more generous maximum payment. Instead of the current flat rate of payment older New Zealanders will be able to receive up to 100 percent depending on the number of years they have resided in New Zealand. The bill will also free up the rules that restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around once they get overseas. It will allow payments to be made to those people who wish to reside in any country with which New Zealand has no social security agreement whether they remain in such countries or begin travelling. It will also allow payment of superannuation and the veterans pension to those qualifying superannuitants and veterans pensioners who travel to or in or between any countries. 
The amendments contained in the bill address the three issues with the current general portability provisions. The amendments will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel or reside overseas. The bill also proposes some technical amendments that will resolve some prior drafting errors and existing inconsistencies between the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. The bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to make it easier for older New Zealanders to travel or live overseas. The new provisions will represent a modernisation of the payment overseas policy that has been in place since the 1990s. 
The key features are first the payment of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension overseas based on a formula of 1/540th of the full rate for each month of residence in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65. Second payment of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions will be made to superannuitants and veterans pensioners travelling to more than one country. The National-led Government is committed to ensuring that our older people are able to live in dignity and participate fully in their community whether that community is in New Zealand or in other countries. 
The purpose of the bill is to amend the legislation as the current system offers limited options. The current rules are preventing many of our older New Zealanders from travelling and from seeing their families. Currently there are three main ways in which New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension can be paid to people resident overseas: general portability agreement special portability agreement and social security agreements. The current policies generally reflect the universal and residence-based nature of the New Zealand system and provide protection for most New Zealanders. 
However the recent review identified a number of specific issues with the treatment of overseas pensions and the payment of New Zealand superannuation. There are three main issues that this legislation will address: the flat rate of 50 percent provides insufficient income to allow a reasonable standard of living in many countries; the current rules restrict the ability of older people to move to more than one country because payment is linked to residency; and payment overseas at present is linked to residence overseas and older people who wish to undertake long-term travel in another country or travel between countries cannot continue to receive their payments. Because of those issues the bill will make the three main changes. 
The key change is the more generous maximum payment. Instead of the current flat rate of payment older New Zealanders will be able to receive up to 100 percent of New Zealand superannuation depending on the number of years they have resided in New Zealand. Secondly the bill will also free up the rules that restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around. Thirdly it will allow payment for those people who wish to reside in any country. The bill also proposes some technical amendments that will resolve some prior drafting errors and existing inconsistencies between the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. 
I look forward to this bill coming to the Social Services Committee and to the submissions that we will listen to. The last time this bill was amended in 2001 there were 269 submissions and I am sure there will be great interest in this bill this time as well. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Greetings and acknowledgment to members of this House. 
The Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill is a great bill and I am privileged to have the opportunity to take a call on it. We in Labour will fully support this bill through the legislative process; this bill is after all a bill that the previous Labour Government did all the work on. Under the previous Labour Government a review was initiated on the treatment of overseas pensions and the payment of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension overseas. 
This review began in 2002 and was completed in October 2007. Appropriately the review was undertaken by the Ministry of Social Development and Treasury. It is comforting to know that other Government agencies such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs the Inland Revenue Department and the Department of Labour were consulted and provided advice throughout the review. I am glad also that the review took into account the views expressed in correspondence to the Ministry of Social Development and to various Ministers at the time on the treatment of overseas pensions and the overseas payment provisions. 
I want to therefore acknowledge my friend and colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson for all her work and effort in ensuring that this work took place. The Hon Ruth Dyson as the previous Minister for Social Development and Employment had a good rapport with all of our communities throughout New Zealand and was in tune with the needs of our communities—in this case with pensioners and veterans. 
I also want to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development and Employment the Hon Paula Bennett for keeping this bill alive and for allowing it to proceed through the legislative system of this House. In my view the Minister has done an extraordinary thing and I suspect it would have required enormous courage to do so as I have noticed that anything that Labour worked on or introduced or that is associated with Labour suddenly gets dumped. We have seen examples of this not only with the dumping of Ross Wilson as the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation board but with the further dumping by the Minister for ACC of other board members. I acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill through. Some in this House might ask why we should acknowledge the Hon Paula Bennett when she did not do any of the work. I would like to think that she had the courage to convince her Cabinet colleagues that even though this bill had been introduced by the previous Labour Government she should still advance it through this House. So I salute the Hon Paula Bennett. 
Advancing this bill is also extraordinary because of the environment that the National Government has created around superannuation generally. I want to give members some context for the bill that we are now debating. I would say to members of this House that the National Government has created a lot of worry and uncertainty around superannuation. Earlier in the year the National Government created uncertainty around the future of the Superannuation Fund with its comments about borrowing to fund it suggesting investment losses and never for one minute recognising that the Superannuation Fund operates on a long-term strategy. 
National has always been uncomfortable around superannuation and is now refusing to rule out plundering the fund. In fact comments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were captured in newspaper headlines. The  
National Business Review 
 on 27 February this year stated: “Stopping super payment inevitable”. Another quote from the  
Southland Times 
 on 25 February stated: “Key won’t rule out Super Fund suspension”. These kinds of headlines only remind Grey Power and senior citizens throughout New Zealand of the National Government in the 1990s. Members will know about the comment: “no ifs no buts no maybes”. Then the National Government of the 1990s broke National’s pre-election promise to scrap that surcharge and instead increased it from 20 percent to 25 percent and lowered the income exemption so that more superannuitants were affected by the surcharge. In 1998 the National Government linked superannuation to the level of the consumer price index. At the same time it cut its relative level from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage which was estimated would lead to between one-third and one-half of New Zealand’s elderly living in poverty. 
Hon David Parker 
: Who was Minister of Finance? 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Yes that is right. The newspaper headlines captured the National Government’s attitudes towards superannuation in the 1990s. I quote from the  
Evening Post 
 of 13 January 1999: “Govt looked at bigger super cuts”. Another one is from the  
Daily News 
 of 2 February 1999: “Super sacrifice”. That is the kind of background against which we now debate this bill. It is one of the reasons why I said that it must have taken courage for the Hon Paula Bennett to advance this bill particularly when the rest of her front bench is intending to do other things with superannuation. 
We come now to the bill the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. As I said Labour is supporting this bill. It is aimed at ensuring that New Zealanders who wish to retire overseas are able to do so comfortably in the country of their choice. When I look through the bill I see that it is pro-family as my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad has said. 
This bill recognises that we the ordinary New Zealand or Kiwi family have international links. The Minister mentioned Croatia. In my electorate we have Maori whose family live in Japan and in China and the parents like to visit their kids there and to stay a little. We have Pacific people who are linked to family in Rome and family in the USA. We have Latin American people Chinese people and people from the UK in my community. We have parents and grandparents who are travelling and wanting to spend time—sometimes a year sometimes 2 years sometimes more—with young relatives who live overseas. 
I would be very much interested in hearing the views of some of these families with regard to this bill. I am pleased that it will be going to a select committee. In particular we have church organisations that send out elderly people on missions sometimes for 2 years 3 years 5 years or longer and I would be interested in hearing their view in terms of what impact if any this bill may have on them. I am also particularly interested in the views of Pacific communities. This bill specifies 22 Pacific countries that we will have relationships with under the bill and I would be interested to know the views of some Pacific individuals in those specific communities who have experience in this regard. 
I also heard earlier a member of the ACT Party mention the potential problems associated with our relationship with Australia. I have had a couple of families come to me with similar problems with Australia. Australians who have come here or New Zealanders who have gone to Australia have had difficulty in securing their particular pension. I would be interested in hearing the views of families that have had difficulty in transporting their pension to or from Australia and New Zealand. 
I can see that you are getting tired Mr Assistant Speaker Roy and my time is running out so I am pretty pleased to speak in favour of this bill. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker Roy may you find this contribution even more electrifying! 
It is wonderful to hear the member for Mangere and his colleagues all declaring their great support for this Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. But yet again they seem to find all sorts of ways of talking around it. In particular I was astonished to hear that member Su’a William Sio remind the House yet again about the shambles in accident compensation that his party bequeathed to the new Government. Instead of his shedding crocodile tears over the future of Mr Ross Wilson I say to Mr Sio that I think Mr Wilson will probably applaud this bill more than most members of the public because the likelihood is that he will have plenty of chances to enjoy some travelling in the next few years. 
I commend our excellent new Minister for Social Development and Employment for bringing this important bill before the House. As she noted in her introductory remarks it is yet another example of a measure that the previous Government claimed it was promoting but that languished on the Order Paper throughout its 9 long years of inactivity. 
Amy Adams 
: It’s a long time. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: As my wonderful colleague Amy Adams points out in her long and distinguished career in this House almost every measure that we have had to work on falls into this category. So it is great that we have at long last a Government that is getting on with the job. I suggest to members opposite that they reflect on why the previous Labour Government was so strong on the talk and so weak on the walk. It is no wonder that New Zealanders are overwhelmingly describing this Government as a breath of fresh air and as a Government that keeps its word and tackles the issues that matter. 
It was a pity that the deputy leader of the Labour Opposition like her colleague the member for Mangere could not remain focused on the bill. 
Amy Adams 
: Who is it? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Mrs King I think her name is—at least this week. Instead she opted for more Labour Party scaremongering just as Mr Sio has just done over future superannuation arrangements generally. Well let us put that issue to bed straight away because I want to remind the House and I am proud to remind the House that the Prime Minister has repeatedly stressed his personal commitment and that of our Government to maintaining existing superannuation arrangements. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Just borrow more. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: It is not only dishonest I say to Mrs Chadwick for the Labour Party to suggest otherwise but also actually cruel for her party to do that because many retired people may be listening—in fact I am sure that during this contribution the number of retired people listening has gone up fourfold—to the contributions of Mr Sio Mrs King and others and wondering why a measure that is broadly supported in this House and very much in the interests of our retired people should be hijacked in such a misleading and dishonest manner. It is an irrelevant contribution; it is also a very very unfair one. 
As the chair of the Social Services Committee has noted many will benefit from the provisions of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill and no doubt they will be chirping merrily over their cornflakes tomorrow morning as that memorable title trips off their tongues so effortlessly. 
As Jo Goodhew noted the status quo is no longer an option. I doubt whether many members of this House have not been contacted by constituents who are concerned about the inflexibility of the present arrangements. I know that Mr Woodhouse has had them beating a path to his door almost every day on this matter and what a fine member he is in the way that he handles the whole issue. 
Sad as we are to see older New Zealanders depart these shores it is understandable that some take that option after watching their children and grandchildren settle overseas. Of course as we all know that was happening at an alarming rate during the term of the last Government and it is to be hoped and expected that the exodus will slow considerably now that sensible government has been restored to New Zealand. It is certainly understandable that some of our older people opt for extended periods of travel after a lifetime in the workforce—and do they not deserve it? We are grateful to them; let us make it possible for them to go off and have that overseas trip that many of them have worked for literally for decades. 
It was initially good to hear Dr Prasad make a more constructive contribution than the deputy leader of the Labour Opposition did. But even Dr Prasad resorted to dancing on the head of a pin as he tried to portray the Minister in charge of this bill—this wonderful Minister—as being somehow dubious about the bill that she is actively promoting through the House. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: You heard what the Minister said. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Maybe the Labour members are dancing on the head of the pin I say to Dr Prasad because they have had to drag themselves away from watching  
Dancing with the Stars 
 tonight. I suggest that being on that programme would be a very good way for the member to occupy his time. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Very cynical. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: She is a very very good Minister. As I said the Minister is actively steering this bill through the House. She is fully committed to it. She has the strong support of all her colleagues on this side of the House including those on the front bench despite the nonsense that we had to listen to a few minutes ago. 
We can only come to the conclusion that it is obviously a very strange and disconcerting experience for the members opposite to find themselves in Opposition and to realise that they face being in Opposition for a very very long time. They are struggling to function as an Opposition when in their hearts they know that they are facing a National Government that is firing on all cylinders keeping its promises and delivering so positively for the country. 
Despite those members’ curious contributions I welcome the indications from members opposite and from the minor parties that there will be broad support for this bill’s passage through the House. As a member of the Social Services Committee I look forward to our work during the select committee process and to bringing this bill back to the House for enactment at the earliest opportunity. 
 As Sue Bradford noted the previous Government promised throughout its tenure to adopt this measure. We in the National-led Government are to get on with the job and do just that. Why our predecessors could not do it after 9 years at the helm is utterly baffling. 
The Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill gives our senior citizens the options they deserve. The current rules prevent many older New Zealanders from travelling overseas as they would wish which is unfair and distressing for them. It is within the power of this House in the next week or two to alleviate their stress and to reduce that obstacle to the fulfilment of their aspirations. That is because this National-led Government is committed to ensuring that our older people are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in their communities wherever they may be whether in New Zealand or abroad. Forcing older people to remain in one country or preventing their ability to travel to a variety of countries serves no particular purpose. It is not in tune with the desires and aspirations of today’s retirees and it is far far short of what we should be able to offer in a civilised and prosperous nation. 
The bill that we are debating will also free up the rules that restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around once they get overseas and that is a very important part of this particular measure. It will allow people who wish to reside in countries with which New Zealand has no current social security agreements to access their entitlements and to travel freely between such countries. They will have none of the current stress that if they begin in a country with which New Zealand has no such arrangement they will find that their entitlement dries up right at the outset. 
The bill will also allow the payment of superannuation and the veterans pension to those qualifying superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel to or between the countries—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Assistant Speaker— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Pull the pin! 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I have 2 minutes to go—wonderful! I can see that members opposite are hoping for an extension of my time. 
The amendments contained in the bill address the three main concerns that arise from the general portability provisions which are a very important aspect of this measure. As I have mentioned the amendments will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for superannuitants and veteran pensioners who wish to travel or reside overseas. I am sure that most members of this House will be acquainted with people who will really appreciate this legislative change. I am particularly pleased that it is an acknowledgment of the wonderful contribution that our veterans have given to our country and our Commonwealth over many many years. Our Government is committed to ensuring that our older citizens are able to live in dignity enjoy their retirement remain in touch with family and friends here and overseas and contribute fully to their communities wherever they choose to make them. Let us help them to do just that. 
I commend this bill to the House and I thank members for the broad support it clearly enjoys even though from time to time we seem to have to listen to discussion of everything other than the bill. 
NATHAN GUY (National—Otaki) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to rise and take a call in the first reading of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. It is a very exciting bill for the constituents of the Otaki electorate because we have the highest number of people aged over 65 per capita of all electorates across New Zealand. Indeed like many of the previous speakers in this evening’s debate who have been lobbied by their own constituents for me this is an important bill which the National Party is supporting in Government. I commend the good work of the Minister for Social Development and Employment the Hon Paula Bennett for bringing the bill into the House this evening. 
I will make a couple of points. There are currently about 20000 superannuitants under this regime who are paid a New Zealand pension or benefit while living overseas. These changes will benefit approximately 500 veterans per year. The cost is somewhere in the order of $6 million to $7 million over 4 years. This bill is extremely important. When members actually step back from the bill and think about the contributions that these people have made in their lives whether it is through bringing up a family supporting their children paying taxes or making a contribution to society we ask why those people in their twilight years should not be given the opportunity to travel and collect their superannuation while they are overseas. 
The important point is that quite a bit of this work is happening already but the Government wants to make some further progressive steps to ensure that those veterans or pensioners who travel overseas will be able to collect this in a greater form. We currently have temporary absence provisions for those who are overseas for 26 weeks. We also have provisions for those who make a contribution to aid work. We have the social security agreement that is currently in place with countries like Australia the Netherlands Ireland Greece Jersey Guernsey Canada and Denmark. Indeed New Zealand superannuitants residing in the UK are entitled to the UK State pension. 
The other important area that I wish to make a contribution on this evening is the special portability arrangement whereby payment can be made at a rate of around 50 to 100 percent while the superannuitant intends to live for 52 weeks or more in 22 of the specified Pacific countries. I do not wish to name those 22 Pacific countries but there are a whole variety of them across the Pacific. 
In summing up I say that this is a very busy Government. Indeed it will be a very busy Social Services Committee that will work hard on this bill and hopefully report back to the House towards the end of the year. This side of the House wishes to support this bill which is particularly favourable to those superannuitants and veterans pensioners across New Zealand. That is why I commend this bill to the House in its first reading this evening. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee. 
Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2009 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
This bill fulfils part of the small-business relief package announced by the Prime Minister on 4 February this year by expanding the jurisdiction of a disputes tribunal to reduce the amount of time small businesses are tied up in District Court battles. The Government is very keen to smooth the way for these businesses so we will encourage the use of the disputes tribunal which provides a simple cost-effective and fast forum for resolving small civil disputes. The tribunal provides access to justice for New Zealanders through a more conciliatory approach to justice rather than the traditional adversarial court system. 
The Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill will increase the maximum claim levels of the disputes tribunal. The current maximum claim levels are $7500 or $12000 where both parties agree but these were last reviewed by the previous National Government in 1998. This bill will increase these levels to $15000 or $20000 where both parties agree. This will improve access to the disputes tribunal for individuals and small businesses reducing costs for up to 3600 additional cases annually. Many of these cases would currently be dealt with in the District Court with its higher associated costs including the cost of legal representation. The reduced costs for these cases will be more proportionate to the value of their claim than if they had been dealt with by the District Court. This increase in the maximum claim levels will therefore free up valuable time and money for small businesses and individuals. 
The decade or more that it has taken to increase maximum claim levels of the disputes tribunal has increased the gap between cases that can be taken to the disputes tribunal and those that are financially viable to be taken to the District Court. In other words this bill will improve access to justice for individuals and businesses pursuing cases that would otherwise have fallen through the cracks. Part 1 of this bill amends the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 to reflect the increased maximum claim levels. Part 2 contains a number of consequential amendments to reflect the change in statutes that confer jurisdiction on the disputes tribunal. 
I ask that the Justice and Electoral Committee consider this bill in a shortened period of time to allow the new maximum claim level to be implemented quickly thereby assisting small businesses across the country to resolve their disputes during the tougher economic climate we now face. We need to lighten the load on small and medium sized businesses so they can get on with the business of producing goods and services. Expanding the jurisdiction of the tribunal also fulfils National’s election promise to increase the jurisdiction of disputes tribunals to reduce pressure on District Courts. This increase in jurisdiction levels is a first step and we do not rule out making further increases to the threshold. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that New Zealand has a long history of dispute resolution that is freed from the rigours of the rules of evidence and from the formalities of the rules of common law. Labour sees the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill which increases both the default and the by-agreement jurisdictions of the disputes tribunal as a logical extension of that history. We will support the bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee where our members on that committee will listen carefully to the evidence to determine what our final position on the legislation ought to be. 
I referred in my introductory remarks to the long history this country has of these forms of dispute resolution. I respectfully refer the House to Peter Spiller’s excellent book on disputes tribunals in New Zealand because the history is well set out there. 
Hon Dr Richard Worth 
: Co-edited by Mr Chauvel. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: It is nice to see Dr Worth in the Chamber. I say “Namaste sir!” to him. 
I note that the Supreme Court was established in New Zealand in 1841. It heard the important cases—the big cases—of high monetary jurisdiction but it did so according to the rules of evidence in the English courts. As early as in 1844 the legislature of New Zealand set up another body called the Courts of Request. They were set up to hear claims for the easier and speedier recovery of small debts. Lawyers and advocates were not permitted to appear in these courts and their decisions were final in respect of law and fact. Then in 1846 Resident Magistrates’ Courts were established for the simpler and speedier administration of justice. They were required to give judgments according to the concept of equity and good conscience. The Courts of Request were abolished in 1858 and the Resident Magistrates’ Courts were renamed the Magistrates’ Courts after 1893. They became the only redress for dealing with small claims. 
The lawyers in the House will know that the equity and good conscience jurisdiction remains in the District Courts which is what the Magistrates’ Courts became after the Beattie commission in 1981. It is interesting to note that the jurisdiction continues in other fora such as the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. It is intended to allow the courts to hear the claims of a litigant according to their moral and equitable rights without the application of the rigours of the rules of evidence. 
Spiller records in his book that by the 1970s there were doubts about the Magistrates’ Courts’ ability to do justice in cases of small claims. He identifies four reasons for this: first representation by lawyers was costly; second laypeople felt overwhelmed by the legal process; third adversarial processes were unsuitable for the settlement of small claims; and fourth the equity provision was at the discretion of the presiding magistrate. These concerns coincided with general desires in the community for the promotion of better access to justice. It is no accident that the citizens advice bureaux and the community law centres in their current form date back to this time. 
Legislators in this Parliament looked abroad for examples of other low-level tribunals. There were the North American small claims or small debts courts which existed in Canada and the United States from the early decades of the 20th century. In this part of the world Queensland then Victoria then the other Australian states and territories led the way. At the 1972 election Labour in its manifesto promised to give favourable consideration to the setting up of small claims courts after having studied similar projects in other countries. 
In 1975 Labour’s Attorney-General Dr Martyn Finlay introduced a small claims tribunal bill. The legislation passed into law in 1976. The first referees were appointed on 3 June 1977 in Christchurch New Plymouth and Rotorua. The original jurisdiction of the tribunal was $500. From 1980 the tribunals were established elsewhere and by October 1985 they existed in 36 centres. The $500 limit was raised to $1000 in 1985 by Labour’s next Attorney-General Geoffrey Palmer who also reformed and updated the system significantly via the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988. The jurisdiction was extended and this included raising the monetary limits to $3000 by right and $5000 by consent—the first time that an as-of-right versus by-agreement dichotomy was introduced into the system. 
As the Minister in charge of the bill Simon Power said legislation in 1998 and 1999 raised the monetary limit to the presently applicable levels—$7500 as of right and $12000 by consent. I think it is correct to say that at that time credit contract and hire purchase claims were also included in the jurisdiction of the tribunals. By 2003 54 referees were stationed around New Zealand servicing 59 centres. The current bill is designed to extend the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals from $7500 by right or $12000 with the consent of the parties to $15000 or $20000 respectively. There are consequential amendments to the Consumer Guarantees Act the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act the Fair Trading Act the Fencing Act the Minors’ Contracts Act and the Retirement Villages Act. 
I said in my introductory remarks that Labour would support the introduction of this legislation and its referral to a select committee. We do so because of our proud tradition in this area. As I have shown it was a Labour Attorney-General Finlay who first introduced the legislation setting up small claims tribunals and it was his successor Palmer who introduced the legislation transforming them into their current form—the disputes tribunals. 
It is clearly sensible to continue to update the jurisdiction of a tribunal but I ask the Minister to consider the following matters as members on this side of the House consider their position on the bill. If we are going to be amending legislation such as the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act why not look at inserting provisions in that legislation that for example would regulate the imposing of usurious interest by pay-day lenders? I have signalled I think that ought to be done by this Parliament and I will seek to do it by a member’s bill if there is no other such legislation before the House. And why should we not think about an unlimited upper limit on the jurisdiction of the tribunals if the parties so agree? What is wrong with parties agreeing to seek access to justice in an informal forum like this and agreeing—provided that the agreement is made by informed consent—that there should not be an upper limit on the monetary claim? Why should we not be able to do away with lawyers altogether in that sort of situation? 
Hon Simon Power 
: Steady! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I can see by the Minister’s smile that he will consider this seriously. [ 
Interruption 
] If I could just be heard over the rabble opposite I will ask the Minister why we should not solidify the promises that have been made to community law centres as to funding this year. Why should we not announce a solution going forward given the hard times that New Zealand is going into and given that many low-income earners with claims of over $15000 will be forced to use the ordinary courts because they will not be able to get agreement from the other side that $20000 ought to be the limit? Those low-income earners will have to use legal aid and have recourse to community law centres at a time when the funding of those centres remains uncertain despite the undertakings that have been given to date by the Government. 
So Labour members on the select committee will be looking for solutions to the matters I have just raised but as I have said we will support sending the legislation to the select committee because on its face it addresses an important issue—the updating of the jurisdiction of the tribunals which should happen. We should always keep the monetary levels of jurisdiction of our courts and tribunals under review as circumstances change. But there are important issues as to consumer protection and access to justice that remain unaddressed by this legislation and that must be faced at some point by this Parliament. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill of course. It is interesting to note the words of the previous speaker Charles Chauvel. It is a bit of a worry for me that he made so much sense I found myself agreeing with him so maybe I should change my point of view! But a number of the points he made are very valid and one of them is the need to continually reflect on the tariffs and tenures of the various courts and tribunals we operate in. The disputes tribunals are ones that allow easy access to justice because people are allowed to come before the tribunals without the presence of lawyers. It is not that lawyers are all bad; it is just that most lawyers are quite expensive. So a couple of parties that have a dispute are allowed to argue that dispute in front of an adjudicator and one of the rules of course is that there is no legal counsel in the room as those parties argue before the adjudicator. The only real contest is that there must be a dispute. 
The tribunal is not a facility for instance for the collection of bad debts. It is not somewhere a person can go to obtain a summary judgment on the fact that money has not been paid or that money is owed. There must be a dispute to put before the tribunal. Obviously the use of the tribunal comes at a very low cost. I think that for the sum of $40 an action can be started. A person can go to the court and fill out the forms in triplicate. The forms are then served on the other party and the parties end up with their day in court. But over time the upper threshold has been so low that any real dispute that is causing angst has not been able to find its place for a hearing within the disputes tribunal process. If that ceiling is too low people are forced to go before the District Court and all of a sudden one tends to find an inequity of arms. The person with the dispute—for instance against the house builder the garage mechanic or the provider of goods and services—has far less financial grunt than the person on the other side of the contest and before the District Court the business owner usually has access to counsel. The person in dispute does not have access to legal aid for that particular argument and its cost and charges can then be put over his or her house property for instance in recognition of the cost of legal aid at that time. 
The cost of the dispute before the court may well be taken against the person on the sale of that property some years down the track. So it is good to see that the Government is taking the opportunity here to raise the ceiling to $15000 or to $20000 by consent of all parties. The point made by the previous speaker was that maybe there should be no lid or ceiling on it. The problem with that would be I guess the skill level the history or the legal experience of the adjudicator. For instance if the sum was $150000 then some serious jurisprudence might be made there and that is a bit of a concern for the people who would look at the adjudicator and ask where the skill base was and whether it was appropriate to have a person not legally qualified and judicially recognised sitting on a case involving those sorts of figures. 
Disputes tribunals provide cheap simple and fast access to justice. In Hawera where I live people who have filed papers in the local court can appear before the disputes tribunal within a couple of months. That is very speedy justice when compared with appearing in a courthouse and as I said earlier the filing fees are significantly lower. Therefore raising the ceiling will close the gap between claims that fall within the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal and claims that are financially viable to bring before the District Court. I guess it would be fair to say that even a relatively straightforward dispute before the District Court could cost someone in the vicinity of $8000 to $10000 and that would be seen as relatively cheap comparatively. If there was a $15000 debt a person could spend a heck of a lot of whatever satisfaction that person may have received on trying to satisfy legal costs. Whatever costs are awarded through the District Court are never sufficient to meet the actual bill sent by legal counsel. 
National campaigned quite heavily in the area of raising the ceiling in respect of disputes tribunals so it was obviously something that anyone working within the justice system had recognised as being needed for quite some time. There is significant backing for this move right across the justice system. National is working to increase the cash flow and make the enforcement of debts easier for small and medium sized businesses. We often find the ability within the disputes tribunal mechanism for businesses to be able to enforce a debt that is in dispute as well as the means by which a dissatisfied customer can exercise his or her right to argue the dispute in front of an adjudicator. 
This legislation has been required for some time. Access to justice in this country frequently boils down to access to the financial wherewithal to be able to bring a cause of action. It is very important in the interests of justice that access to an adjudicator and to justice is provided as cheaply and speedily as possible. It is interesting to note that the previous Government did not increase the jurisdiction during its entire 9-year term and the last increase was made by a National Government in 1998 just a year before it left office. It is a shame that the previous Government did not see as a priority the need to have a check and to see how things were progressing. For instance we can look at the rate of inflation over time and see that that ceiling is creeping down all the time. As we are now moving into a time of recession it is important to note that there has to be a way to bring these matters before an adjudicator quite quickly. 
A former colleague of mine who works in the document service business in South Taranaki has brought to my attention the fact that in 1999 he served 90 default notices and through to August 2005 that number had grown to 247. If we looked at last year we could see that the number was well over 350. That means that more and more people have been enticed into debt and although the disputes tribunal is not a mechanism for satisfying unpaid debts where a dispute arises there is a real need for people to be able to come before an arbitrator to state their case to do it cheaply and to do it in a timely fashion. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to concur with the previous speaker from the Government Chester Borrows. Labour has some areas about which we would like to see further questions raised by the select committee but we are happy for the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill to be considered by the select committee. My colleague Charles Chauvel raised some very good points in his speech. I will not dwell on them but I have some additional questions that I think it would be useful for the select committee to consider. 
The disputes tribunal as it currently stands was established in 1988 and it has come to be regarded as a well-respected body and one that serves a very important purpose in New Zealand’s legal system. Two of the aspects that make the disputes tribunal such a well-respected body are first its accessibility and second that it contributes to our overall status as not being an overly litigious society which is an important point and a situation that I think we would wish to preserve in New Zealand. 
What differentiates the disputes tribunal from our other court processes? It is important to point out these differences in order to test the suitability of the shifts in the claims levels that are being proposed in this bill. The first difference is that the referees’ decisions are based not on law but on the merits and justice of a case. That is an important point to make. The second difference is that the grounds for appeal are limited and can be met only if the proceedings were conducted in a prejudicial manner. I will go back to that point later in my speech. The third difference is that the disputes tribunal does not allow legal representation of parties. Again this contributes to the fact that this regime is an accessible regime not an overly litigious one. The fourth difference is that referees are not required to be legally qualified although many of us will know that a large proportion of them are qualified. Finally the proceedings are held in private and the discussions are not published which I think contributes to the openness of the discussions that are had when two parties are going through the dispute process. 
It is important to put a little bit of reality into this discussion and to start talking about the kinds of situations where the disputes tribunal is used. That will demonstrate to us the impact of these changes. The first point I make is that the tribunal is able to be used regardless of whether a party has put in writing or stipulated in a contract that no responsibility will be accepted or has explicitly said that a situation cannot go to a tribunal. That will not necessarily hold. This means that the disputes tribunal is always available to parties where they may fall under the criteria captured by the tribunal. 
What are the criteria? The kinds of claims that can be made to a tribunal include if work has not been done properly if a person has contracted someone to conduct work on his or her house—and the amount charged for work done—and if goods purchased are not the ones asked for. These are all circumstances where everyday citizens who are going about their daily business may incur some kind of injustice that could be righted through the disputes tribunal. 
The criteria also include damage to property and loss of property. Even if for instance someone lends something to his or her neighbour this may be captured by the criteria. Hire purchase agreements or someone denying that he or she owes money when an account comes in for settlement are other areas that may be captured by the criteria. This is where the small-business aspects of the disputes tribunal come in but it is important to remember that this bill has implications not just for small businesses but for private citizens. We have to keep that in mind when we are looking at quite a substantial shift in the claim levels. It is a reasonable leap to go from $7500 to $15000 if we are talking about private citizens and from $12000 to $20000 where there is at least some agreement around that amount. Also there are areas where it is quite explicit that the tribunal cannot traverse. 
One of the things we should keep in mind when this bill goes to the select committee is the disputes tribunal’s accessibility. Currently a number of fees are set around going to the tribunal but they are quite low—and for good reason. If a claim is for less than $1000 the fee that a private citizen or a party is likely to incur is about $30. If the claim is for an amount of $7500 or more then the fee goes up to $100. We need to keep the accessibility of the disputes tribunal in mind. If we are going to take a leap of up to $20000 is the Minister undertaking that that regime will stay the same? It is my hope that it would. 
I would also like to cross-reference again the remarks made by my colleague Charles Chauvel about legal aid. Many private citizens may choose to seek advice from a community law centre when faced with a dispute and we must consider the accessibility of those services when the maximum claim levels are ramped up. They are going to be lifted and given that there is no right to have a lawyer in the tribunal when a case is heard it may be advisable that the citizens have some kind of legal advice if the claim levels are going to be lifted so heavily. 
I will reiterate the reason why that is particularly important. In the disputes tribunal the grounds for appeal are extremely limited. One can for instance make an appeal only if one believes that the proceedings were conducted in a prejudicial manner. It is the process one can dispute but not necessarily the outcome. That is particularly important if we are considering private citizens accessing this procedure and a maximum claim amount of $20000. That is not an insignificant amount for a private citizen. 
Generally we have seen that these amounts that have been set down where the disputes tribunal does have jurisdiction have been suitable. They have been fitting to the types of cases that have gone through the tribunal. It will be up to the select committee to consider in more detail whether an amount of $15000 or $20000 will attract the same types of suitable cases or whether we might be going beyond the realms of what cases we previously considered the disputes tribunal should be considering. 
 Why is it important to make sure the cases are relevant? It is important not only because the grounds for appeal are limited but also because if a person has a limited right to appeal the consequences of a ruling are significant. If for instance a distress warrant is issued to a bailiff or a collections officer then those officers can come to a person’s property and demand full payment if a ruling has been made against that person. They may seize personal possessions—and rightly so if a ruling has been made against that person—but if there is a lack of money or assets the creditor can then apply to the courts to start bankruptcy proceedings. 
That may not be a situation we would see frequently when we are talking about claims around the $7500 mark but at the $20000 mark and with a significantly larger number of cases being taken to the tribunal as the Minister has talked about we may very well see that occurrence happening more often. The select committee should consider that situation. Perhaps the select committee would like to question officials on the proportion of current cases where that situation arises and whether that is a favourable outcome. The select committee must consider what both the Government and the select committee would wish to achieve in a regime that allows very little right for appeal and has very strong consequences for those who are involved and who have very little legal representation at the time. 
Given all those things it is still important to consider the merits of continuing to ensure a balance between having an accessible system and avoiding excessively litigious processes in our justice system. That balance is something we should continue to defend. It is something we have seen undermined in this House up until now particularly in the first 100 days of the current Government. We have always particularly when Labour was in Government strived to ensure that workers’ rights were intrinsically included in legislation and were not something that had to be established through testing of the courts. We have had measures like the 90-day bill and the cancellation of pay equity and we have the potential privatisation of accident compensation. We have already seen in Australia that experiment leading to a significantly larger number of cases being disputed directly with private insurance companies. In the United States model one would have no right to dispute any single case in that situation. 
We must continue to ensure that New Zealand does not become a litigious society. We have not seen that approach to date with the policies brought forward by the National Government which wants to see everything tested through the courts. I look forward to the select committee striking the balance between accessibility and assessing the merits of an individual case. Thank you. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is happy to support the referral of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill to the select committee. We find the rationale for the bill to be entirely fair and reasonable given the fact that the levels for claims were set over 10 years ago. We do have some interest in noting the three different options that are set out in the explanatory note of the bill. It will be our intent to pursue those further and other concerns as well in the select committee. But it is sufficient for the moment just to affirm that the Green Party supports the bill’s referral to the select committee and we will look forward to pursuing it there. Thank you. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this first reading of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. It is pleasing to see that this very sensible bill has good cross-party support in the House. The ACT Party endorses the comments of just about every speaker to date. The disputes tribunal operates as a cheap and effective means of redress for disputes such as consumer-to-business disputes business-to-business disputes or person-to-person disputes such as neighbouring fence issues and the like. 
Under the Disputes Tribunals Act referees are able to consider the merits of a case in reaching a decision. That is one of the advantages of using the disputes tribunal—the referees are not obliged to follow the letter of the law if doing so would for instance result in a perverse judgment outcome. 
As we have heard from other speakers disputes heard by the disputes tribunal are currently limited to the amount of $7500 but disputes up to the level of $12000 may be heard if both parties consent. This piece of legislation allows for the lifting of the level of claims to $15000 or to $20000 with the agreement of both parties. That is a very sensible and pleasing move that as I said the ACT Party is pleased to support. 
 The move is part of the Government’s small-business relief package and the ACT Party fully supports that as we have made very clear. It is aimed at improving the business environment by reducing the impact of taxes on firms’ cash flows by improving firms’ access to credit and reducing business compliance costs. 
The decision to increase the financial limit is also good news for consumers and it is important that we consider their rights. Community law centres and groups such as Consumer New Zealand and the Principal Disputes Referee have suggested for some time that the current limit is inadequate and should be raised. The limit is currently resulting in consumers and small businesses missing out on access to redress as many claims are valued higher than the limit and many consumers and small businesses are not in a position to take those claims to the District Court as they would have to do if the disputes tribunal did not exist. The Small Business Advisory Group and the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute have also advocated for a much higher limit. So it is good to see good general support for this move. In fact I would have been supportive of raising the level even higher so that many other cases would not have to go through the court process and through the legal system. 
The principal referee of the disputes tribunal Dr Peter Spiller has had quite a lot to say about this. He said he has directly communicated to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that he strongly supports a large increase in the limit and I think he has raised some very good points. Dr Spiller considers that the value of the limit has been undermined by inflation and rising court costs and that these have not been taken into consideration as the limits have stayed put. 
 There is a growing gap between the upper limit and the point at which it is financially feasible to take cases to the District Court. Dr Spiller has also advised that increasingly claimants are actually having to abandon part of their claims to bring them within the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal as they cannot afford to take their claims elsewhere. 
Before the bill goes to the select committee and is considered by the members of that committee there is one other issue that I would like to raise here and I have written a letter to the Minister of Justice in this vein. Publication of decisions of interest from the disputes tribunal currently is not allowed. I would like the select committee to at least consider that point. The representatives of community law centres have expressed a view that there should be publication of these decisions. They note that the majority of consumer disputes with traders are taken to the disputes tribunal rather than being resolved by other means—for example through the courts. Currently the proceedings are private and as a result it is difficult for the community law centres and other groups to show to those who use their services examples of how cases have been successfully resolved and how cases might best be approached. These representatives have said they do not necessarily need the publication of all decisions; instead they suggest that the Principal Disputes Referee could perhaps be given the ability to describe cases that are of interest and have their basis in consumer legislation. I think that is a very valid point. This would generally affect cases involving the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act the Credit (Repossession) Act the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Fair Trading Act. 
Consumer problems are the most common type of legal problem faced by New Zealanders and the disputes tribunal is the primary forum for hearing consumer grievances. So I think that it is a valid point to raise at this time. I would like the select committee to consider this and I have also written to the Minister of Justice in this vein. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: He’ll listen. 
Hon Simon Power 
: I always listen. I’m a listening Minister. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: I have asked the Minister of Justice to consider making a direction under section 57 of the Disputes Tribunals Act and he is very is reasonable. I am sure he is taking that into consideration. I have asked him to consider making a direction under section 57 asking the Principal Disputes Referee to periodically publish reports of cases that he considers would provide useful information to consumers traders and the general public. 
As I have already made very plain the ACT Party supports the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. We strongly support raising the disputes tribunal monetary limit to a higher sum. In fact we would have been happy to look at a higher level— 
Hon Simon Power 
: All in good time. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: Well we look forward to that. We strongly support raising the disputes tribunal monetary limit to a higher sum as it will help satisfy those issues and will allow greater access for consumers to a cheap and expert disputes resolution forum. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call on the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I do not feel too bad about taking the call off Lynne Pillay as I am sure we will be saying very similar things and both making good points about this bill. It is a very small bill of about two or three pages so I am sure that the Minister in charge of the bill Simon Power wants me to speak equally briefly and efficiently. The bill contains a powerful idea and that is access to justice and the gap between— 
Lynne Pillay 
: That’s what I was going to say. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: As I say great minds think alike. The problem is the gap between where we as citizens are able to go to the disputes tribunal—currently for claims of up to $7500 without consent—and where it is feasible and economic to go to the District Court. As we all know this bill expands the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal. Of course as a lawyer and having talked to many lawyers over the years I can say that something that people and lawyers have been particularly concerned about in the past has been quality issues in the disputes tribunal. Lawyers used to say flippantly that one could flip a coin to see how a case would go but that is no longer the case. Peter Spiller the Principal Disputes Referee has done an excellent job tidying up the disputes tribunal’s act and there is considerably more certainty there now. 
I do not think that we should overestimate the extent to which even in court cases there is a large amount of uncertainty in the process even in the best of cases. I remember a Queen’s Counsel once saying to me that even if the case is 100 percent watertight on paper one still only has a 70 to 75 percent chance of winning the case. Even in court cases certainty can be overrated and it is good that we have now a District Court where quality issues are being addressed; it does a good job. 
The threshold as I say has been lifted. Frankly we have a situation in New Zealand at the current time where any lawyer worth his or her salt who is advising a client would be very clear to the client that for a dispute of any amount less than $30000—some would say more than that—going to court is decidedly uneconomic. The uncharitable might say that part of that is because lawyers complicate matters through discovery through pleadings and so on but as I say there is a gap between where the disputes tribunal finishes and where it is feasible and economically viable to go to court. So for that reason alone it is very good indeed that we are raising that barrier. I thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for your wise choice in letting me take the call. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I am sure members have heard from my colleagues that Labour is supporting this bill going to the select committee. I think it is very important for the public to come and have a say on this bill. It is certainly quite a simple bill as Simon Power—not Simon Power; he is sitting over there—as Simon— 
Hon Members 
: Bridges. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Simon Bridges. There is a Simon thing in the National Party. As Simon Bridges said it is— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How do you tell them apart? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is very hard. It is the Simple Simon approach to bills in this House. This bill is actually quite simple yet still quite complex in what it does. It raises the maximum claim levels of the disputes tribunal from $7500 or $12000 to $15000 or $20000 respectively. That has to be with the consent of both parties. I think that is really relevant to this bill. The change is with consent it is a common-sense way and—as members opposite have said—it is about access to justice. The bill provides a way whereby instead of going through the full court process there is by consent access to justice to address these issues. 
If we look at when the disputes tribunal amounts were last set we see that it was in 1988. At that time as I said before they were $7500 or $12000. Since 1988 there has been considerable movement in terms of inflation and in terms of the costs. I have to be quite honest here in terms of the costs of access to justice in terms of people looking at a dispute that may not be huge and in terms of looking at what the remedy would be—what the solution is—versus what the cost would be if they were to engage legal assistance. I note that even though through the disputes tribunal the vast majority of cases use referees—people who are legally qualified—there is no actual requirement to do that. I think that is very important. It means that if people do not have funds to remedy what may be deemed a minor dispute in monetary terms they will have access to that. 
 If we look at the original claim level of $7500 we see that in this day and age that amount falls far short of the mark of a reasonable amount if one were engaging legal counsel. The bill increases that amount to $15000 or an upper limit of $20000 and that is certainly more realistic. The levels were last changed two decades ago and in that time there has been considerable movement. I see Mr Assistant Speaker acknowledging that fact. 
Members on this side of the Chamber support the bill going to the select committee and we think it is important for the public to have their say. In terms of the regulatory impact statement we note that other consideration was given to alternative options. The first option was no increase to the maximum claim level at all but as I said earlier there was agreement that that would just retain the current inadequate situation and make no allowance whatsoever for inflation. As I said there are rising costs associated with litigation and there are a variety of reasons for that. In terms of access to justice it is all about the viability of taking a case to the District Court for low-value claims. If it is not viable because the legal costs outweigh the cost of what the remedy would be then we see that justice is not served. So that first option was not seen as viable or sensible. 
The second option would increase the maximum claim level to $25000. That would allow the disputes tribunal still to be at a greater level to provide a cheaper and faster service but it is my view and the view of expert advice that those protections would need to be strengthened because of the amount of money at stake. I hasten to add that many people would not wish voluntarily to go through this system with those high stakes. 
In terms of the bill it is very sensible. I really look forward to the select committee having the opportunity to hear submissions because it is something that many many organisations and members of the public would wish to have a say on and I commend the Government for that. Many times more important bills have not had the opportunity to go to a select committee. I think that is very sad and I know that we can all recount a number of bills that have had quite detrimental— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: In the first 100 days! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Exactly! But it would seem now in the next 100 days or whatever that there is more of a responsible approach being taken by the Government and more opportunity for the public to have their say. I along with other parties in the House am very pleased to stand in support of the bill going to the select committee so that the public can make submissions and have their say. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I know the time is short but it is a very warm pleasure to hear Ms Pillay offer her commendation to us and I respectfully and humbly accept that commendation. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.