Volume 647 Week 77 - Tuesday 17 June 2008 
Volume 647 Week 77 - Tuesday 17 June 2008 
[Volume:647;Page:16583] 
Tuesday 17 June 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Chamber—Sound System 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you have had work done on the sound system but I tell you that absolutely no noise at all is coming over here other than an echo that is reverberating around the Chamber. Something is actually not working. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes we have already notified the persons in charge of it of that fact. Thank you Mr Key. 
Obituaries 
Monte Rereamoamo Ohia 
Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. I seek leave to move without notice and without debate a motion in my name with regard to the deaths of two eminent New Zealanders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am most reluctant to raise this objection but I want to say that a number of us have had very senior members of the party die over the last year and previous years and very eminent people in Maoridom at that—Pita Paraone’s father for example who was one of the last survivors of the Maori Battalion recently died. But we would not think it appropriate to stop the business of the House with such frequency to debase the currency of the reason we do that for some people associated with Parliament in the past or for people of the stature of Sir Edmund Hillary. 
All I am saying to my colleague over here is that despite his approaching New Zealand First and being told that he has sought to put this before the House today. I hope it is not to cause some embarrassment to my party in respect of these people for whom we have the utmost time. We are very sympathetic for their families but it is the way this institution is being sought to be used here that New Zealand First deems inappropriate. That is the reason why we did not come to this Parliament to do that following the deaths of people such as the Hon Bert Walker—a longstanding member of Parliament—Edwin Perry’s father or Pita Paraone’s father. I put it to my colleague that this is an unfair use of Parliament and to seek to embarrass us in this light is most unfortunate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his contribution. As the member said the only course of action is to object to leave being given. However I am sure that members have noted what has been said and presumably if the practice continues members will take the course of action that is available to them. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. I move  
That this House acknowledge the passing of Monte Rereamoamo Ohia of Ngati Pukenga Ngai Te Rangi Ngati Ranginui and Te Arawa a nationally and internationally respected educational leader who advanced developments in wananga the New Zealand Qualifications Authority the Ministry and Department of Education polytechnics and universities for over three decades; acknowledge also the passing of respected Tuhourangi kaumatua Rangi Te Puru Sydney (Sonny) Sewell one of Te Arawa’s last members of the 28th Maori Battalion; and agree that this House express our sincere sympathies to the whanau and friends of these two men who have made such a significant contribution to our nation 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Violent Offending—South Auckland  
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What action if any has she asked for from her Ministers and officials in response to violent offending in South Auckland? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have asked senior officials to work on measures to support the Manurewa community to stand up against crime and violence in the area as was done in response to the number of homicides in Otara some 18 months ago; and also to work on proposals for changes to liquor licensing laws. 
John Key 
: Why should New Zealanders take her talk on liquor licences seriously when in November 2006 her then justice Minister Mark Burton promised a review of liquor laws which he said could include the consideration of the number of off-licences when it took a year for that review to see the light of day; and when despite the review there have been no recommendations from her Government to have changes made? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Indeed officials have done quite a lot of work on what changes could be made; and the member and other members will have an opportunity of course to permit Mr Hawkins to introduce and have a first reading of his bill. 
Dail Jones 
: What steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the South Auckland community and the Sikh community in South Auckland in particular are involved in the police inquiry into the cold-blooded murder of shopkeeper Navtej Singh and that the inquiry will also look into the effect of excess liquor outlets in the area? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that the police will be reviewing the manner in which they responded at the time of the tragic killing but the police are advising my senior officials that they consider that the density and proliferation of liquor outlets in the area are certainly contributing to crime among the young and that is why in response to that I have ordered that we speed up the review of what we are doing in the liquor licensing law in this area. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Tena koe; tena tatou katoa. Is she aware that the Sikh community plans to lay a formal complaint against police over their actions in authorising the delay of more than 20 minutes in allowing ambulance staff on to the premises to help the late Navtej Singh and will she be calling for an urgent inquiry into the actions of police in emergency situations? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand from a statement issued by the secretary of the Sikh Council of New Zealand yesterday that the Sikh community is not planning to lodge a complaint. I understand that they are of course very interested in the review the police do on their response at that time. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister recall a statement made by her then Associate Minister of Health Damien O’Connor when he said back on 8 November 2006 that “The review would take into account changes that have taken place since the age was dropped to 18 in 1999 such as the increase in the number of outlets supplying alcohol”; and I put it to the Prime Minister that she has had 9 years of full review which is a long time to make changes and that she has failed and is it not time for a new Government that will actually take action? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A great deal of work has been done on reform of the law. That member might have more credibility if he had not consistently voted in favour of liberalising the law. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the view that the Sikh community would be bringing a complaint against the police is an erroneous one promulgated by the National Party Manukau East candidate one Kanwaljit Bakshi which has been disowned by the Sikh community? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have indeed seen the statement from the secretary of the Sikh Council to that effect who said that they were utterly disappointed at the singular lack of understanding and compassion shown by those associated with the main Opposition party and further said that right from the first day that party seemed more interested in having its views aired by the media rather than in consoling the grieving family. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister still hold to the view that New Zealand should have a predominantly unarmed police force particularly given overseas evidence from countries like America that putting extra arms into the police force is usually accompanied by a higher level of criminal violence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I still do hold to that view as do the New Zealand police who say that general arming of the police is not an option for them. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister is right and a great deal of work has been done by officials—work that started in November of 2006—why under her Government has nothing happened and is not that just the statement from her Government the whole time that there is always another review coming but absolutely no action? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Unlike that member we do not just go off slogans; we do the hard work. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Sikh Council secretary Verpal Singh who said yesterday: “society needs to look inwards and identify the causes of this kind of behaviour and come up with projects/initiatives that address these causes.”; if so what does she think the real causes of such violence are and what is her Government doing to address them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think there is a lot of wisdom in the statement from the secretary of the Sikh Council. The causes are complex as we found in response to the Otara youth gang killings some 18 months ago. This was not a matter of young people who were unemployed or not in education. Indeed they tended to be in work or in education be at church on Sunday and be involved in community activities. But something else was going desperately wrong in their lives. It is more complex than saying that this is just about deprivation. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Would the Prime Minister agree with the comment of a former High Court judge that family breakdown is the major driver of violent crime in South Auckland and elsewhere; if so would she support a royal commission to understand and address that issue as called for in the petition of Larry Baldock and 296000 others recently delivered to the Office of the Clerk? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have any evidence to suggest that family breakdown would be the predominant cause but I do think that those who grow up in homes without love and who experience violence are certainly more likely to have a predisposition to it. We need to break that cycle of violence which is what a great deal of our Government’s activity has been devoted to. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: What action will she take to investigate claims she made on Radio New Zealand that “I suspect a lot of police cars carry firearms more routinely than you or I know.” in the light of her later statement that she believed people do not want routinely armed patrol cars as “they won’t want to up the ante where you end up with LA style shoot outs with gangs.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The latter reference was of course to routinely armed police patrolling the streets on the beat. I have said that probably there are firearms in the back of a car more often than people realise but that is part of what the police would call a moderated or differential response according to the circumstances as they assess them. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that New Zealanders think that crime is improving under her watch when they know as she knows that violent crime has increased 43 percent since her Government came into office that there are now 20 more robberies per week since her Government came into office; and maybe even more pertinently when looking at the results of today that back in 1999 when we look at what has been happening in Counties Manukau not only has violence gone up by 64 percent over the last 8 years but in fact robberies have now doubled and gone up by a staggering 149 percent; and if she calls that success what would she call failure? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am advised that a very significant reason for the increase in recorded violent crime is actually recorded domestic violent crime that people are now taking to the police and that is a good thing. 
John Key 
: Well is the Prime Minister aware that her own member and former Minister of Police George Hawkins in his own words has described violence in Manurewa as the worst in 25 years and that that escalation has occurred under her watch; and if that is not failure what is? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Again if more people are reporting domestic violence that is a positive thing to do. But overall crime is down in New Zealand in Manukau City and in Manurewa which the Leader of the Opposition cannot even pronounce properly. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Police why when compared with other police districts the number of sworn officers per head of population in Counties Manukau is the second-lowest in the country and if she has not asked why has she not bothered answering? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is not my practice to accept any figure that that member offers prima facie. 
John Key 
: Will the Prime Minister be continuing to reject the very sensible policies that the National Party has outlined which actually have a real chance of resolving some of the crimes— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Name one. 
John Key 
: Well I will. What about the youth justice initiatives that we have announced—$35 million on dealing with young violence and on army-style camps—what about putting more police on the streets what about changing bail laws what about getting tough on gangs and what about dealing with the issues of P? On this side of the House we have some answers and on your side of the House there are no answers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If members go to the website of 2005 they will find that that is New Zealand First policy not National’s policy. That is a fact. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know it is the first day back but I remind members that this is question time and not the general debate. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would like to address that ill-informed question because adding 1000 more front-line police in this 3-year term is of course a major contribution and when I became Prime Minister we had to reverse the National Party’s cuts to the police. That was National’s policy because it preferred looking after its friends at the top of the income tree to basic policing in our communities. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table a statement made by Mark Burton where he advocates that there will be a review looking to examine the number of liquor outlets— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a document that more than one question has referred to—that is the statement issued yesterday by Verpal Singh the Sikh Society’s secretary. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a relevant document and that is a report to the Minister of Broadcasting in April 2004 by the TV Violence— 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the 2005 law and order policy of New Zealand First which will demonstrate who thought of this idea. 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The second document is a report on the Integrated National Crime Information System which cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and was an utter total loss to the taxpayer. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table a report from the  
New Zealand Herald  
today reporting that Labour MP George Hawkins is assisting members of the Sikh community to lodge— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave of the House to table the coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First in 1996 which advocated the introduction— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Improvements 
2.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What improvements is the Government making to the operation of NCEA? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As part of the roll-out of the New Zealand curriculum launched late last year I have today announced that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Ministry of Education have begun reviewing the achievement in unit standards that students will be assessed against from 2010 when the new curriculum is fully in place. This is part of a package of continuous improvements that the Government is making to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). Those improvements have been described as “cynical” and “calculated” by the National Party but are warmly welcomed by prominent educators who actually use the system. Principals like Brent Lewis of Avondale College Roger Moses of Wellington College and Julia Davidson of Wellington Girls’ College have all spoken in support of the ongoing NCEA programme. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What other improvements is the Government making to the operation of NCEA? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The standards review is part of a package of improvements designed to increase student motivation provide more detailed achievement information and further improve consistency in NCEA. Other recent improvements include introducing achievement endorsements last year to NCEA certificates which has improved student motivation; appointing 33 permanent moderators—I guess Mr Key would call them bureaucrats—whose task is to ensure that assessment in schools is of the highest quality; and making national assessment reports available online so parents can check that their child’s school is meeting standards. These improvements allow us to demonstrate the rigor of NCEA while also supporting the development of new educational pathways for students as envisaged as part of our Schools Plus programme. NCEA is working well but like everything we can improve it with refinements. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why is it that fewer than 3 weeks ago the Minister was brushing off criticisms of NCEA and claiming that it was “a modern well-researched assessment system that is preparing young New Zealanders well for the 21st century.” yet this morning on the back of an impending election worried parents schools and teachers and successive poor poll results it has been announced that NCEA will have its largest review since it was introduced? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I stand by my earlier comments. How can this House have any confidence in anything that member said? Some 3 weeks ago when I made those comments that member was in the House claiming that New Zealand Qualifications Authority officials had given documents to her select committee that showed that 30 percent of marking in NCEA was not accurate. I left this House to try to find that report. No such report was given to the select committee. I then wrote to the member outlining the mistakes she had made and I told her that I understood that she did not understand NCEA very well and that we would give her a briefing. Has she replied? No she has not because she does not want to know the facts. 
I seek leave to table the letter I wrote to that member pointing out the inaccuracies she gave in this House— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Election Advertising—Third Party Registration 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it the Government’s policy that groups intending to spend more than $12000 on election advertisements must register with the Electoral Commission as a third party; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is a requirement under the Electoral Finance Act 2007. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister consider that the parliamentary Labour leader’s office must register as a third party given that the brochure I am holding was produced entirely on the initiative of that office and that the cost of producing and distributing the brochure nationwide is likely to exceed $12000? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not the role of the Minister of Justice to provide this advice; that is a matter for the relevant authorities. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that both Mike Smith the general secretary of the Labour Party and a spokesman for Helen Clark Prime Minister have said that the New Zealand Labour Party had nothing to do with producing this brochure; if that is the case does not that mean that the parliamentary Labour leader’s office is in fact the promoter and should have authorised it and not the Labour Party which has said on public record that it has nothing to do with this pamphlet? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is not a matter for the Minister of Justice. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that under that Electoral Finance Act—if she has actually read it—any organisation separate from the New Zealand Labour Party that wants to spend more than $12000 promoting the Labour Party must register as a third party; and why would it be different for the parliamentary Labour leader’s office than for any other group of people? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have read the Electoral Finance Act as have other members in this House and I presume that when the National Party has put out policies so far on its website it has an authorised website and has the parliamentary crest on it. That party is not intending to register as a third party so what is the difference? 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister give us advice about the only two options that are available under the legislation: either the brochure is produced by the parliamentary Labour leader’s office in which case that office must register as a third party or the brochure is produced by the New Zealand Labour Party in which case the brochure needs to be counted as an election expense because it cannot possibly have a parliamentary purpose? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not my role to give advice; it is the role of the appropriate authorities. 
Hon Bill English 
: Who will decide then on the provisions of the Electoral Finance Act requiring third parties who spend over $12000 on election advertising to register—will the Minister decide will the Electoral Commission decide or will the Minister leave it to the courts to decide after the election? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If the member had read the Act he would know that it is not me who decides. 
Gifted Education Centre—Support 
4.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What support does the Government provide the George Parkyn one-day school for gifted and talented at Owairaka District School and does he consider the level of support provided equitable? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 For the period September 2006 to June 2009 the Government will provide the George Parkyn Centre now known as the Gifted Education Centre with $117596 through the contestable talent development initiative fund. The Owairaka District School is the location of one of the centre’s 17 one-day schools. The school does not receive direct funding from the centre but the school’s deputy principal and teachers have received professional development support as part of the contract with the Ministry of Education. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister think it fair and equitable that the poor parents of these children not only have to pay the teachers’ salaries but also have to pay the Ministry of Education for the rent of the classroom? They have to pay twice: once through their taxes and again through their fees. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The teaching of gifted and talented children is part of our core education business. Mostly it is carried out in mainstream classrooms which of course in the last 8 years have benefited from the extra $5 billion invested in education. There are separate programmes that parents can choose to have their gifted and talented children go on and the Government recognises the value of them. Indeed I have just outlined the subsidy that this particular centre receives. I know that the member visited the one-day school at the Owairaka District School yesterday. His support for the school—no doubt—and for the activities happening at that particular centre are much appreciated. I too have been visiting some of these one-day schools. Great things are happening there. But most of the education for gifted and talented children is taking place in mainstream education which as I said has had an injection of an extra $5 billion in the last 8 years. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What is the Government doing to support the education of gifted and talented children? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have already outlined the extent of our commitment to education overall which I would like to remind the House is the third-largest in the world. Only Iceland and Denmark spend more on schools as a percentage of GDP than New Zealand does. That we are the third-best in the world is a pretty wonderful statement about our commitment to education. Education of gifted and talented children is taking place inside mainstream classrooms but in recognition that we need to know more about the special needs of these particular types of students we will spend about $1.5 million in the next year on this area. We are doing a research project we will have a national coordination position and we are doing professional development of teachers which is very important. Earlier this year I launched a new resource for parents that enables them to develop programmes at home for their children who are gifted and talented. 
Rodney Hide 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer is he telling the House that the value that his Government places upon the centre is just $117000 a year and does he not think it would be more equitable and fair for the Government to actually fund students to go to a centre of the parents’ choice particularly when he is so convinced that the State school sector is providing what these students need? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No. What I told the House is that this Labour-led Government is absolutely committed to resourcing education—an extra $5 billion in 8 years. The amount of our GDP that goes into education is 4.7 percent which is the third-best percentage in the world. The member is asking me whether we value education. Yes we do. Have we resourced it? We have resourced it extraordinarily well. 
Schools Plus—Finalisation and Implementation 
5.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When will the Schools Plus policy be finalised and when will the finalised policy begin to be implemented? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Schools Plus is a major reform of secondary education that is designed to upskill students who are not currently succeeding in our schools—surely something that every member of this House would support. The first phase of the formal consultation process on Schools Plus ended last month. We received over 509 formal submissions in addition to the feedback received from meetings held around the country over the last 8 weeks. This information will be analysed as we finalise policy details. The Government has always said that any extra costs for schools associated with the development of Schools Plus will be funded by the Government. 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked the Minister when the policy would be finalised and when the finalised policy would be implemented. Neither of those two questions was addressed in any shape by the Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I listened very carefully and although the answer was long the member did actually address the question. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why after National’s Youth Guarantee announcement did the Prime Minister play catch-up and hurriedly announce she would lock all Kiwi students into school until they are 18 yet 4 months later in the Budget in May there was no extra funding for schools to implement this policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Schools Plus in no way represents any policy that the National Party has come up with. We are not planning to lock students in schools. The National Party may be planning to lock them in boot camps; we want to lock them into education. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What response has there been to Schools Plus? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: There has been overwhelming support. Parents—like every member of this House I hope—want their children to succeed in education. Currently 25 percent of young New Zealanders leave school without the equivalent of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 1. Schools Plus will give those students a new learning environment that hopefully will capture their interest in education. Only National seems to be against this excellent policy. John Key said last week on bFM radio that he was not prepared to provide any extra resources to schools and would not support Schools Plus. I wonder whether he told that to Alasdair Thompson of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) who has come out so strongly in favour of the policy; to the Post Primary Teachers Association which has come out so strongly in favour of Schools Plus; or to school principals and the wider community who are all welcoming this chance to make students who are not currently succeeding in our school system into successful learners. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why did the Prime Minister announce a policy that was so poorly thought through that it took another 2 months after the announcement to release a discussion document; and why 5 months after the announcement is the policy so poorly understood by schools that according to the Minister every complaint schools have made is disingenuous a misunderstanding or completely unfounded? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have not heard of a single person or organisation that does not support Schools Plus except the National Party. Every parent—every New Zealander—wants children to succeed in education. This 25 percent of students who are currently leaving school without NCEA level 1 are the future of our country. We want them to have skills. We want them to be citizens that will contribute to New Zealand. The member should support Schools Plus not try to drag down our education system. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does the Minister think it is good policy-making to announce the skeleton of an education policy in January; put out a discussion document that was all questions and no answers in March; provide no extra funding to schools for the policy in the Budget in May; and then in June when schools start to criticise the lack of funding for Schools Plus sneer at them publicly through the media and say that it does not really matter what they think because they have to implement the policy anyway? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Why does the member never listen? In my primary answer I said that any costs associated with Schools Plus would be funded by the Government. The Prime Minister said that when we launched the programme earlier this year. This programme is a fundamental revolution in secondary education. It has to be implemented carefully collaboratively and with consultation; it cannot be rushed. Sure we can lock kids up in a boot camp but it will not change their attitude to education. We are talking about resourcing a programme that will change people’s lives. 
Anne Tolley 
: What support will the Government be giving to businesses who have been aghast to hear that according to the Schools Plus discussion document for every one of their workers under the age of 18 they will have to provide “ongoing education skills development or structured learning through on-the-job learning or through flexible work hours that allow the employee to attend offsite learning opportunities.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Where does the member come up with these lines? We are in a consultation process—actually an initial consultation process—where businesses trade unions schools industry training organisations and tertiary institutions will contribute to a discussion. I said that the member never listens. I quoted Alasdair Thompson of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) who was full of praise for Schools Plus. He is just one person among many in the business community who see this as a chance to lift the skills of young New Zealanders. The member should be applauding this programme not tearing it down. 
Anne Tolley 
: What does it say about the Minister who dubbed himself “the great communicator” when in response to criticism of his Government’s flagship policy of locking kids into school until they are 18 all he does is fire pot shots at school principals through the media skip post-Budget meetings with them and instead offer such sage and inspiring advice as “It’s time to stop moaning and start teaching.”? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise with you the content of that question. How can a question be a parliamentary question if it begins “What does it say about Somebody?” and then is followed by a ramble? Where in any Westminster democracy would one hear someone asking a question that way? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to ask such a question which in effect asked for an opinion. Presumably the answer will reflect that. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would hope that every teacher and principal in New Zealand is absolutely focused on teaching because that is the core business of schools. Our Schools Plus programme is about lifting the opportunities for the 25 percent of young New Zealanders who are currently not succeeding in education. It is a fantastic concept. It has to be worked through carefully. It is about real change. It is not about slogans about locking kids up in boot camps; it is about providing a realistic solution to a very real problem. 
Anne Tolley 
: The Minister asked me where I had got my quote about businesses which I read out. I seek leave to table the Schools Plus discussion document that that was— 
Document not tabled. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that New Zealand spends 4.7 percent of its GDP the third-highest amount in the world on schools. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Given the policy and the wonderful sentiments expressed about how the extra years will make a difference to children’s achievement in schools can the Minister identify how those few extra years in school will make a difference to children who have failed in the previous 6 years of their school lives; and how will this programme identify the educational failure of Maori and Pacific Island children and assist in addressing it? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: These children may well not be in school. The school will be responsible for their individualised learning plan and it will be responsible for their attendance and for monitoring their progress. But these children might well be out of school 90 to 95 percent of the time in a Youth Apprenticeship programme or an expanded Gateway programme. Some of them might even be in tertiary education because they are ready for it a bit earlier. It is about providing alternative pathways new pathways for students who are not currently succeeding in the existing pathways available in schools. 
Cluster Munitions—Convention 
6.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control 
: Did New Zealand achieve its objectives at the Dublin Convention on Cluster Munitions? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) 
: 
 Yes. We achieved a superb outcome in Dublin and I am proud to say that New Zealand played a key role in that. Our first objective was to get a ban on cluster munitions because undetonated sub-munitions spread over a wide area such as in the Lebanon effectively act as landmines killing civilians long after war has ended. The outcome of this convention in line with our objectives was to virtually prohibit all cluster munitions and to require that stockpiles of such munitions be destroyed within 8 years. Our second objective was to get widespread support for the ban. We did that. The convention was supported by the United Nations by non-governmental organisations across the board and I think by all of the countries participating in Dublin. The key Cluster Munition Coalition described the event as an extraordinary convention that would save thousands of lives. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: How important was the role that New Zealand played in achieving this wonderful outcome? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think we can say justifiably that New Zealand played a key role. We were one of six countries in the Geneva process last year that when it failed yet again to address the problem of cluster munitions took that process outside Geneva in something called the Oslo process. It was the Oslo process that achieved in 18 months what the United Nations in Geneva had failed to do in 10 years. In February New Zealand hosted a conference in Wellington and that laid the framework for Dublin. In Dublin we led the core process in defining what cluster munitions were and defining those that would be prohibited. As a result New Zealand I think very deservedly has won widespread acknowledgment for playing such a leading role. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: Have the process and the convention received sufficient buy-in from countries to make a real impact on the ground in removing these weapons? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think that we were seeking two things: to have a strong convention but also to have a breadth of support that would make that convention meaningful. We did that; we got overwhelming backing from the 111 countries that were participating in Dublin. I am very pleased to say that this convention has had a major effect even before it comes into force with countries such as France the United Kingdom Switzerland Germany and Japan announcing the withdrawal of cluster munitions. Even for those countries that are not participants the wide-ranging consensus that was achieved will stigmatise and make more difficult the use of cluster munitions just as was the case with the Ottawa Convention which stigmatised and stopped the use of landmines. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Households Compensation 
7.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What compensation mechanism if any is the Government proposing for households affected by the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 This issue has been raised by support parties and it is one that we are discussing with them. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Government intend to follow the Greens’ compensation policy for funding to make homes more energy efficient more subsidies for public transport and a citizens’ dividend as a flat payment to all households or will it follow New Zealand First’s policy of having a rebate payable to superannuitants for rising power prices? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The member will have to wait and see. Suffice it to say that efficiency and price support are both being considered. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that there is actually no conflict between what the Green Party is asking for which is a mix of energy efficiency improvements and payments and what New Zealand First is asking for which is—so far as we know—some cash on the SuperGold card for superannuitants and that both could easily be combined into a good compensation package? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Whether or not that is true I will not comment upon it in the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With the greatest of respect to the questioner to get up in the House to state a party’s political position that has not been announced at this point of time is simply not parliamentary and it is likely to lead to disorder. New Zealand First has not had a discussion with the Government yet or concluded it. I do not think that we should have our policy depicted in a way that is totally false. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You do that all the time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The member should take a tablet. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I simply make the note on this point of order that that is exactly what Winston Peters does on most days. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I was commenting on what the media had reported but I am interested to hear from Mr Peters that he is not asking for a payment on the SuperGold card for superannuitants after all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: These are not really points of order. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can I ask the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues whether the compensation package that is being considered will be one that is applied to all New Zealand households or is to be a much more targeted regime designed to appease the interests of those parties with whom he is currently negotiating and will ensure that most New Zealand households will not benefit from such a package? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: These issues are being discussed with support parties. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does the Minister believe the Government can find a compromise between the Green Party’s policy that opposes direct subsidies on electricity because that undermines the very purpose of the emissions trading scheme and New Zealand First which will support the bill only if there are direct subsidies on electricity prices? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The man is talking gobbledegook and he is putting it in a parliamentary question and trying to give it the colour of right. It is simply false. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a point of order. Members are entitled to ask whatever sorts of questions they like under the Standing Orders which are very broad as I have noted in the past. The answers normally reflect the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I find the support parties more honourable in their dealings than I do some other parties in this Parliament and I expect that we will find a way through. 
Hon Bill English 
: What is the basis of the reported commitment by the Government to offer a rebate on electricity bills to every superannuitant if it is not in discussion with New Zealand First; and can the Minister tell the House what is the cost of the commitments that the Government has made so far? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I could but I will not. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What excuses has the Minister seen for opposing action on climate change? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have seen a long list of pathetic excuses from the National Party to justify its inaction on climate change. One example is that National says in its minority report and in press releases that it opposes the emissions trading scheme asserting the Government would reap $20 billion in revenue. In reality the Government is unlikely to break even until around 2020—more than a decade away. It is plain that National’s excuses will not wash with the electorate. New Zealanders know that National says one thing and does another not just on climate change but also on superannuation police numbers and any number of issues. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister confirm first that it was the National Party that signed the Kyoto Protocol; secondly that it has argued for an emissions trading scheme that it took that decision in 1999 that it repeated that statement in 2006— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —I know that it is right as unlike the member I deal with the facts—can the Minister confirm that that is the National Party’s position so why on earth is it holding out now? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister may answer the first part but not the second. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have to ask the reason for the second part of your ruling because although that confirms previous rulings you have previously ruled today that a Minister could be asked a question about how he reconciled the political positions of two other parties even if the description of those two positions was not accurate. It seems to me that if one can be asked to reconcile two different positions on the basis of no particular facts about those positions one could be asked to reconcile two different positions by one party which is the standard question about the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Of course the question we are asking is directly about ministerial responsibility given the Prime Minister has said she has the numbers for the emissions trading scheme and we are simply asking the Minister how he reconciles the directly conflicting policy goals of the two parties he is meant to be negotiating with. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has to respond in terms of ministerial responsibility. The Minister is not responsible for the policies of other parties. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm the public statement made by the Government that the proposed compensation package will be $140 million and how much is left of the $140 million to fund the Greens’ citizens’ dividend and subsidies for public transport and energy-efficient homes given that again on the public record he has already made a commitment to New Zealand First to provide a subsidy for electricity prices to over half a million superannuitants? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is cobbling together deals consisting of bits and pieces of contradictory policies in a desperate attempt to rescue something from 5 years of policy wreckage on climate change and that he is doing it with no regard for the practicalities of implementing the policy because he does not believe he will be around to implement it? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I cannot. I can confirm that the emissions trading legislation has come back from the Finance and Expenditure Committee—despite the best efforts of the National Party to undermine it—in very sound condition with its fundamentals preserved. Further I confirm that deforestation emissions are down; that electricity-related emissions are down albeit there will a blip this winter; that transport emissions for our first time in history are projected to level off; and that the research into agricultural emissions is bearing fruit. We are making very substantial progress which is why the UN—on World Environment Day—chose to showcase New Zealand’s efforts in this regard because we are amongst the best in the world. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of people supporting an emissions trading scheme but saying that an emissions trading scheme should have no cost to anybody and nobody should have to change any behaviour; if so is he able to name those people? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Indeed that seems to be the position of National Party members. They say we should use a price-based instrument to influence behaviour without changing prices. It is impossible to do that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to table the advice to the select committee from Meridian Energy that it is expecting a windfall gain of $750 million to the Government. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table the estimates as to Crown revenue that show that the Crown is unlikely to break even on the emissions trading scheme until around 2020. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Petrol Pricing—Review 
8.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What initiatives has the Government announced to investigate competition in petrol pricing? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The Ministry of Economic Development has engaged independent consultants to review and analyse petrol pricing in New Zealand in line with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report. As I have said the commission found that prices are largely driven off crude oil prices the US exchange rate and the international market for the refining of petrol. There will be no difference from that here in New Zealand. However the commission did consider that consumers were entitled to know more about how petrol prices are set and believed there were some marginal gains to be made by improving the competitive dynamic of the market. That is what the New Zealand review will assess in the New Zealand context. 
Dave Hereora 
: What does the Government hope to achieve from its inquiry into petrol prices? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Of course we are not conducting an inquiry as the National Party spokesperson has suggested. However I believe it is important that there is total transparency around petrol prices and that any myths around petrol price-setting are identified and dispelled as occurred with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report. It is also in the interests of New Zealand consumers that we consider whether there is potential here as there is in Australia to improve the competitive dynamic of the market because even though the difference may be marginal it is worth it to consumers who are feeling the pain at the pump. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister explain how establishing a FuelWatch bureaucracy will lower motor fuel prices for consumers; if she can can she tell us whether any price decrease she might anticipate will compensate for the additions to the petrol price that are coming from regional fuel tax the biofuels obligation and emissions trading scheme costs? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member is heading into the pathway of making a determination as to the outcome of the review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report. That report found that the FuelWatch system that has been operating in Western Australia should be rolled out across the rest of Australia in areas with large populations—not in rural areas but in the cities. The Australians have discovered that that would transfer the power of information to the consumer and away from the petrol companies. The petrol companies are able to monitor their competitors’ prices on an instantaneous basis through informed sources. FuelWatch gets the information to the consumers rather than to the petrol companies so consumers can make an informed choice as to whether they buy before 6 a.m. or after 6 a.m. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a very interesting elucidation of the Minister’s thinking but the question asked whether she thinks a FuelWatch bureaucracy will lead to lower prices for consumers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to add anything to her answer? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I will say that the commission’s report which has recommended rolling out FuelWatch to all of Australia not just Western Australia where it operates has determined that indeed there is benefit to consumers in having the information that is currently now available only to the petrol companies. The differences between New Zealand and Australia are that Australia has seven oil refineries and we have one and that Australia has a significantly larger population than we do. I think it is sensible to see whether the model would work in New Zealand and that is what the review will do. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was virtually the same answer with a little more added to it. The question asked whether a FuelWatch bureaucracy will lower prices. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think if the member had listened carefully he would have found the Minister did actually address the question. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister answer specifically could this inquiry lead to the establishment of a FuelWatch ombudsman or some such person as in Australia; if so who will pay for it—will it be similar to the Electricity Commission and fall as a charge against users? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was a recommendation of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to appoint a fuel commissioner to the commission and that has been in place for a relatively short period of time. I would expect the independent contractors to look at how that has panned out in Australia and to make appropriate recommendations. I think it is too early to say how it would be funded if the decision was made to go down that track but I think the jury is still out on that recommendation. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When will the Government address the underlying reality that petrol prices are rising because demand for oil is exceeding the available supply and when will it pull New Zealanders together to develop a long-overdue plan to reduce New Zealand’s dependence on oil? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: This Government has taken many initiatives to ensure that we are addressing the reality of peak oil when we get to that and also to ensure that New Zealanders take appropriate steps to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. 
Immigration Service—Confidence 
9.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he have confidence in the New Zealand Immigration Service; if so why? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm reports by the Public Service Association (PSA) that at least two different immigration officers have made claims that staff under pressure from management in the Immigration Service are granting permits to unsuitable applicants—a similar allegation to the one raised by staff of the Pacific division in the Oughton report? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I cannot confirm that. The member will know that the PSA has made that claim— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why don’t you ask? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: If the member would just settle down! The PSA made that claim—[ 
Interruption 
] Just keep calm; I know that it is difficult for the member. The PSA as the member will know made that claim on the radio this morning. The member will also know that the radio report alluded to an anonymous claim—a number of allegations—and I say to the member that that matter is now in the purview of the Auditor-General’s inquiry. I will not pre-empt that inquiry and I say that if the PSA other members or other stakeholders in the community have information they should bring it forward so that the Auditor-General’s inquiry can duly examine it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What reports has the Minister received on the following comments made on  
Morning Report 
 by one Dr Lockwood Smith: “You know I’ve been getting this kind of allegation seeping out of the woodwork over recent months and it’s really troubling. I mean there’s really a serious culture problem with the management of Immigration New Zealand.” when in fact back on 30 June 1995 50888 people were progressed through the Immigration Service despite the fact that the then target was 25000; what is new and why has it not been fixed up? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am aware of the comments made by the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith that the member alludes to. I am also aware that Dr Lockwood Smith also noted on the radio this morning that the allegations that had been sent to the Auditor-General were anonymous and the veracity—and I use my words not his—of them has yet to be tested. He ought to be careful. I will say that half a million transactions per year occur within the department which is staffed by 1200 men and women. No inappropriate behaviour is acceptable. I will also say that under this Government an internal— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It’s a mess. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Settle down! An internal investigation— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It’s a mess. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I tell Dr Smith to keep calm. An internal investigations unit has been set up and that stands in stark contrast to the situation when the National Party was in Government. We do not have any figures on complaints made then because that Government never had any internal investigations unit. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can Parliament have confidence that the Immigration Service is protecting our national security when an immigration officer states—[ 
Interruption 
] Madam Speaker I am very happy to repeat my question if the members— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Just continue. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can Parliament have confidence that the Immigration Service is protecting our national security when an immigration officer states: “applicants from various high risk countries or dishonest applicants with high risk backgrounds are having their false jobs false qualifications false marriages all glossed over by immigration staff and getting their temporary permits all approved.” and: “managers pressure the staff and say “risk manage it’ just give all applicants a temporary … permit.”? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member quotes from a series of allegations made to the Auditor-General and the media today. As he himself said on the radio this morning we have to be guarded in terms of the veracity of them and it will be for the Auditor-General and the other reviews and inquiries to judge that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: To use the phrase of a previous questioner today what is the Government to make of this comment in respect of the population policy: “Officials noted that there was no point adhering to it when we have no population policy.”—the  
Independent  
of 8 December 1995? The same circumstance applies now but back then when a party and its leader raised the question of what was going on in the Immigration Service Lockwood Smith called that leader xenophobic and racist. That is hypocrisy at the worst level. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: All I can say is that the member’s question stands and the record will show that he is indeed correct. But I would also point out that as I have said before half a million transactions are done by this department and there are 1200 folks in it. No improper behaviour is acceptable. Many of the high-profile complaints that have been raised have been raised by staff and the processes in place to investigate them stand in stark contrast to the situation under that member’s Government. We have an internal investigations unit which is now separate from the Immigration Service; it is in the corporate division of the Department of Labour. Under the National Government no complaints were compiled and no figures were compiled or retained because there were no investigations unit investigations because there was no investigations unit in place at all. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How can the public have confidence in the Immigration Service given claims by an immigration officer that “There is an endemic culture within this Immigration office where staff just approve virtually all temporary work permits with little thought or concern of checking the authenticity of documents job offers viability of businesses or relationships.” and that “These work practises are endorsed by all tiers of our branch management.”? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member quotes from allegations that have been made. Those allegations have yet to be tested and I will not prejudge an Auditor-General’s inquiry. The member has already made his judgment on an anonymous letter; he has made his judgment and he has the right to do that. I welcome other stakeholders and other members in the community who have information; they should bring it forward and the Auditor-General’s inquiry will test its veracity or lack of it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why 1 year after the Auditor-General released his damning June 2007 report into the Immigration Service’s management of immigration identity fraud are we still hearing revelations about an “endemic culture” of approving applications with little concern for “checking the authenticity of documents job offers viability of businesses or relationships.”; why has nothing been done? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: In answer to the latter part of the question as I have said unlike his Government we investigate allegations and we have an investigations unit. [ 
Interruption 
] I think stretcher bearers are required again for those members! As to the first part of the member’s question he uses the correct word: they are “revelations” not facts and not issues whose veracity has been tested. They will be tested by the Auditor-General. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I seek leave to table a letter addressed to me by an official of Immigration New Zealand in which he makes very serious allegations. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Child Youth and Family—Complaints Process 
10.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that Child Youth and Family is a responsive organisation that is focused on providing excellent service to children young people and families? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Today I have announced an improved process for Child Youth and Family when responding to complaints. The new process will ensure that Child Youth and Family listens to all concerns firstly at a local level and tries to resolve the issues there and then. But if an issue remains unresolved clients can then apply to have an independent advisory panel review their complaint. The new process will be more transparent and more accessible. It is designed so that families know their rights and understand the commitment of all social workers to work positively with them. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has she received regarding the responsiveness of the Child Youth and Family national call centre? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Child Youth and Family call centre was recently awarded the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand contact centre of the year award making it the only contact centre to have won that award twice. The judges stated that the passion and enthusiasm of the staff was a key aspect of the win. The call centre receives over 4000 calls a day 88 percent of which are answered within 20 seconds which is 8 percent better than industry standards. A high-performing call centre is a vital tool for Child Youth and Family to help keep our children and young people safe. 
Petrol Pricing—Review 
11.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What does the Government hope to achieve from its inquiry into petrol prices? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I agree with the person who said: “It would be helpful for people to see how the petrol industry’s pricing structure worked. Everybody notices the price rises very very quickly but any price reduction is a great deal slower.” The member of course will recognise those words as they are his own. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen a copy of a letter sent by the Australian federal Minister for Resources and Energy Martin Ferguson to the consumer affairs Minister the Treasurer the finance Minister and the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd saying that FuelWatch in Australia would be “an anti-competitive waste of money”; and can she explain how the situation might be any different here in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why is the Minister considering a FuelWatch scheme for New Zealand when the Australian Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the departments of finance resources and energy and industry have come out against FuelWatch; and does she not think it might be a better idea to consider whether the Government should go ahead with its planned 2c per litre accident compensation levy increase in July its 5c per litre increase for biofuels in October and its up to 10c per litre increase for regional petrol tax next February? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Despite the member’s assertion I have not decided that New Zealand will adopt the FuelWatch scheme. I have said that we will look at the report of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission which includes a recommendation for a FuelWatch scheme. It is very interesting to note who has opposed the introduction of a FuelWatch scheme because it empowers consumers as opposed to petrol companies. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Minister has now decided that her inquiry is simply a review and that a FuelWatch scheme may not be such a good thing for New Zealand has she also decided to back down from her suggestion that New Zealand have a motor fuels commissioner; if not does she expect that that motor fuels commissioner will be as successful as the electricity commissioner who has presided over a 50 percent price rise for domestic consumers since his office was created? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have not recommended any of the things that the member has asserted. I have not recommended that there be an inquiry; I have stated that there should be a review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry. I have not recommended that we have FuelWatch; I have recommended that we look at all of the recommendations that are contained within the commission’s report. I have made it perfectly plain that I think the jury is out on whether we should have a fuel commissioner. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that identify what is pushing up the international price of crude oil; and how is it impacting on the price at the pump in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. The advice is that intense trading in oil futures contracts has been driving oil prices higher by the week with no end in sight. I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition recently asked Labour to say why petrol prices were going through the roof but I am sure that he as a former money market trader who speculated in currency would be much better placed to answer that question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table the various press releases and other statements from the Minister that according to her answers today were just a load of spin— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Violent Crime—Police Resourcing and Practices 
12.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she believe that police resources and practices to date are sufficient to deal with the rising level of violent crime in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Police advise me that resources and practices to date are sufficient but as the member knows recruitment is currently under way for the additional third tranche of police officers as agreed to in our agreement between New Zealand First and Labour. In the last 10 years there has been a 45 percent increase in appropriation most of which has taken place in the time of this Government. 
Ron Mark 
: What is going wrong with police leadership when at a time when they have never been better resourced with $500 million in extra funding and 1000 extra front-line police front-line staff are being hindered in their ability to deal with violent offenders? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I believe that we have very good leadership in the New Zealand Police from the top right down to our district levels. But it is a difficulty for the New Zealand Police as it is for our community to deal with violence in the community because no one group is solely responsible. Sometimes we are inclined in cases like the tragedies we have had to point the finger at the police rather than at the scumbags who cause these crimes. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does the Minister agree with the Police Association President Greg O’Connor that “only 52 percent of the first two tranches of the Government’s promised 1000 extra police have gone to the front line.”; if not how does she explain why general duties staff are declining as a proportion of sworn officers while the number of sworn staff in non-operational roles such as those in Police National Headquarters has increased? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not agree with the Police Association and I have said so on a number of occasions. The Police Association does not believe that community constables are front-line officers. It does not believe that detectives who are catching the criminals that commit crimes are front-line officers. It does not believe that the positions like those in Youth Aid are front-line officers. I believe they are. They are seen by the public to be right in the front line of policing in New Zealand. In my view to count only those who are considered in general duties and in I-cars as front line is not the right way to look at our New Zealand Police. 
Ron Mark 
: How concerned is the Minister that whenever a serious crime is reported in this country instead of the offenders being on trial the police face a trial by do-gooders and media; and does she think that the police leadership is contributing to this worrying situation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I agree with the member that too often when there is a violent crime in New Zealand the first thing that happens is that the finger is pointed at the police rather than at the perpetrator of the crime. That does concern me. However I do not believe that it does any good to point the finger at the leadership of the police either. I think we need to ask media people for example what role they play in terms of the reporting of violent crime when their first response is to ask what the police have done about it rather than to look at some of the other issues that contribute to violent crime. 
Ron Mark 
: Is not one glaring example of the lack of decisiveness in leadership within the police their inability to make a timely decision on the general issue of the Taser; and will the Minister show some leadership and demand that a decision be made public this week? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A decision on the Taser will be made very soon. I will not demand that it be made this week. I can tell the member that the decision will be made very soon. The commissioner has taken the time to look very carefully at the deployment of another tactical option and when he makes his decision it will be based on the best advice he could have received bearing in mind that this is a major change in terms of tactical weapons in New Zealand. 
Criminal Procedure Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 22 March 2007. 
Part 3 District Courts Act 1947 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Part 3 of the Criminal Procedure Bill amends the District Courts Act. It gives the District Court jurisdiction to try all indictable offences expect those in the schedule. The jurisdiction of the District Court will not change very much but the new schedule does correct some anomalies. 
The new schedule also permits changes to be made to the middle band of offences by way of Order in Council rather than by legislative change. This provision was added at the select committee and if passed will allow some class A drug offences to be put in the middle band to be dealt with by the District Courts rather than by the High Courts. This would ease pressure on the High Courts arising particularly from the volume of methamphetamine cases that are now being heard. One of the reasons we now see so many more methamphetamine cases is the very strong policing approach that the New Zealand Police takes to methamphetamine clan-labs. If we look at the number of clan-labs that were found by the New Zealand Police in 1999 we see that it was around three or four for that year. If we look at the number being found now we see that it is around 200 a year. A lot of work is going into catching those who produce methamphetamine which means they are appearing in the High Court. There is now a large backlog of those offenders in the court and this part would allow their cases to be heard in the District Court. This is something that judges have been asking for for some time. They believe that it is an imperative change to be made in this bill and they have asked us to get on and make that change. 
I am pleased that we are now back to debating the Committee stage of this very important bill which in my view and in the view obviously of the select committee who made no amendments to this part would make the workings of our courts much better. It would make access to justice fairer and faster and surely that is what most legislation should reflect. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 As the Minister has just noted this is very far-reaching legislation that has been delayed for a very substantial period in this House. It was first introduced in June 2004; it had its first reading in that same month and year. It went off to the Law and Order Committee but since it came back it has languished in the Committee stage. So I am certainly pleased to see the legislation being advanced. 
In the context of Part 3 the part we are talking about there are clearly two strong underlying themes that are core elements of policy. The first relates to transparency and the second really relates to management processes in the courts. The reality of the present is that there are very significant delays in the courts with consequences for accused persons facing trial for the courts themselves and of course for those who give evidence. I will make some particular comments on Part 3 reflecting some of the points that the Minister has made. 
Part 3 is concerned only with amendments to the District Courts Act 1947—old legislation. In general terms the Minister made the point that the District Court is being given jurisdiction to try all indictable offences except those listed in new schedule 1A inserted by schedule 3 of the bill. That may not significantly increase the jurisdiction of the court but as the Law and Order Committee made very clear in its commentary on the bill changes to the schedules are to be made by regulations. In constitutional terms that is generally undesirable. It is not appropriate for subordinate legislation to make changes to the work of this House—for delegated legislation to change primary legislation. That is why the issues that arise in Part 3 were considered by the Regulations Review Committee. It was because two of the clauses clauses 62A and 92A contained regulation-making powers. It was certainly the view of the Regulations Review Committee that new clause 62A raised a fundamental issue of principle in respect of the delegation of law-making powers by Parliament. In constitutional terms we are in a world known as “Henry VIII” clauses where the involvement of the executive trespasses on the work of this Parliament. 
I think that with some degree of sophistry the Law and Order Committee sought to get around that constitutional difficulty because it argued in the report it made to Parliament that the decision as to where a case is committed for trial will have no bearing on the rights of the person charged or on the sentence that may be imposed. Doubtless it was buttressed in the belief it took by dint of the support it had from the Chief Justice. I guess a better answer with regard to those issues might be that the Regulations Review Committee—because those changes will be made by regulation—will have jurisdiction to look at the issues and I hope that those who are at present on the committee and those who in the future will be members of the committee will take up the challenge to look at the regulations in a critical way. 
It gives me no pleasure to say that under this Government the courts have become truly choked. We have seen sadly a number of cases where accused persons have been able to walk free by dint of the substantial delays because they have succeeded in persuading judges to grant stays of proceedings. I hope that Part 3 with the other parts contained in this legislation will substantially ameliorate the delays that are occurring and that now that the issues between the major parties have been resolved we will see this legislation be put in place at the earliest opportunity. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 3 and the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 60 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) of section 28A(1)(c) in clause 60(1) “to any” and substitute “for any”. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Juries Act 1981 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The debate on Part 4 includes debate on the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call in relation to Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Bill. I find there is some irony that a bill designed to address delays albeit in the judicial system has itself been delayed more than 4 years. Having said that it is my pleasure to address Part 4 which in essence refers to juries and in particular to changes to the current requirement for a unanimous verdict in criminal jury trials to a majority verdict of 11:1. If the jury has deliberated for at least 4 hours and the jurors have been unable to reach a unanimous decision the foreman has stated there is no probability of the jury reaching a unanimous decision and the court considers that the jury has had a reasonable time to deliberate bearing in mind the complexity and the nature of the trial then in that case a majority verdict may be allowed. 
It was interesting to look back at some of the anecdotal situations way back in 2004. I have here an article from the  
New Zealand Herald  
about a situation with a jury in which comments were made that “ ‘People wanted to get home to watch Coronation St or see the kids or whatever they do. After 5 o’clock the whole situation became irrational beyond your belief.’ The last two to desert his viewpoint were smokers one of whom had been more adamant than himself at the outset that the accused could not have committed the crime. ‘But after 10 hours without a cigarette he would have locked his own mother up.” I think if one looks at anecdotal situations like that one can certainly see the merit in not requiring the unanimous verdict of a jury. There are obviously situations where one of the jurors may be intransigent for whatever reason or may not be responsive to logical argument—and often we see that even in this Chamber—and this amendment may certainly overcome that. 
In civil cases under the bill the majority verdict may be by at least three-quarters. I note that the New Zealand Law Society submitted that juries should not comprise fewer than 10 jurors but this submission was not carried forward in the bill. I would certainly be interested in the Minister’s comments as to why that recommendation was not listened to. 
There are also provisions for certain persons to be excluded from jury service—for example lawyers which is a fairly obvious exclusion—and for restrictions on the use of the jury panel list in an attempt to address juror interference or intimidation. Defendants in the case may be shown a copy of the list but it may not be left in the possession of the defendant or any witnesses or victims and reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that the list is not copied. Again anecdotally we hear of instances of juror intimidation which is a situation that really should be avoided wherever possible. 
There are also provisions whereby judges may discharge persons being summonsed for jury duty on the additional ground of having difficulties understanding or communicating in the English language. Again anecdotally we have heard of jurors who have sat through the duration of a trial but are unable to understand what is happening. That situation should be remedied by Part 4. 
Also of note is the reduction in the number of challenges available without cause. That has gone from six down to four although we are not sure why. Under the bill the jury districts are being expanded and the pool of jurors is being increased so why then reduce the number of challenges? Again I would appreciate the Minister taking a call on that point as well. 
I return to juror interference. If the Law and Order Committee and others were concerned about the possibility of juror interference or intimidation then the provisions of clause 82 in relation to sequestration of juries seem somewhat anomalous. Why let jurors leave before reaching a verdict and return to resume deliberations? Surely that is the very time that they may be subject to intimidation and subject to influence. They may be subject to uninformed opinions of family and friends. They could be swayed by external influences. Again I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call on the benefit that he perceives there is in abolishing that sequestration requirement which has worked in the past. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call Dr Worth I will just say that there is a change in the sound in the Chamber in that people having conversations in here are much louder today for some reason. I think it is to do with the changing of the sound system. It makes it hard for me in the Chair to hear the speeches being made. I ask members to lower their voices or keep away from those very sensitive microphones. It would be a very good idea. Thank you. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Kate Wilkinson has skilfully sketched out the changes in Part 4. I just want to focus on one particular aspect because it is a huge change in the criminal law. That is the entitlement to be judged by a jury of one’s peers and that all 12 of them must reach a unanimous verdict. This bill proposes a major change in that regard. The present law in New Zealand is that in all criminal cases the verdict of the jury must be unanimous. Now we are to contemplate this change to majority verdicts in criminal cases. The proportion we have chosen is 11:1. So to convict 11 jurors must say “guilty” but one may stand out. 
It is interesting to look at other jurisdictions to see what they have done. There is no doubt about it: there has been an increasing trend towards majority verdicts. I will pick a few illustrations. In the United Kingdom the proportion is 10:2 in the Northern Territory it is 10:2 in Tasmania it is 10:2 in South Australia it is 10:2 in Victoria it is 11:1 in Oregon it is 10:2 in Hawaii it is 10:2 and in Alaska it is 10:2. 
These majority verdict changes are just part of a raft of changes in this legislation. There are also changes relating to the very existence of juries in complicated cases and cases where juror intimidation might be an issue. I thought it was interesting that the Law and Order Committee heard some arguments to the effect that there was no evidence of rogue juror problems in New Zealand. The Law Commission took a quite contrary view in that regard and said that there was. It is difficult to identify the incidence of rogue jurors in New Zealand because in terms of the Juries Act what goes on in the jury room is not to be disclosed. But certainly my experience as a lawyer before entering this House was that rogue jury outcomes were not at all uncommon. 
I tell the Committee of one such illustration which I think is typical. An accused person faced charges of being a drug mule. This person had brought substantial quantities of cocaine into New Zealand for a dealer and was apprehended by the Customs Service and charged. My informant sat on that particular jury. That informant told me—and there was a hung jury in this case—that several of the jurors were not prepared to convict the accused person because the accused person had not admitted to the offence. Because there had not been an admission to the police the jurors were prepared and determined to stay out of a deliberation of “guilty”. It just shows what can go on in the closed confines of a jury room. 
I think it is interesting too that the Law Commission has apparently “found that in a study of 48 jury trials five were hung two of which involved rogue jurors refusing to participate in deliberations and three with rational dissenting jurors.” Members of the Committee may know that the reality of jury selection with rights of challenge is that defence lawyers seek to construct a jury of malleable and simple folk. That is a reality of the jury selection process. The reality is also that a number of jurors have had brushes of one sort or another with the police and often quite clearly have no sympathy for the police or Crown view of events—for the prosecution view of events. So I do not doubt for a moment that there is real merit in this plan to have majority verdicts as we stay with the jury system—a system that both English common law and the United States constitution recognise as a fundamental civil right. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I will speak briefly about payment of jurors referring to clause 82B. I think we should give a great tribute to all those New Zealanders who attend and take up the role of jurors sometimes for some considerable length of time. I think we probably all believe they do not get paid anywhere near enough for the wonderful contribution they make to our society. Clause 82B gives some recognition to the role of the juror and provides that the principal Act is amended by adding the following subsection: “The jury rules prescribing those fees and expenses may authorise the chief executive if satisfied in a particular case that it is desirable to do so to increase a sum otherwise payable under those rules.” I ask the Minister what consideration has been given to giving effect to this provision from time to time. I ask that he clarify just who the chief executive is—whether that is the chief executive of the justice department or of the courts department. There is no interpretation section here—the phrase “chief executive” must be in the main Act I presume. As I looked at it I was wondering about those words and just what they meant because we should do all we can to reward jurors as much as we can—and that is still nowhere near enough—for the wonderful work they do. 
Apart from that of course what we are doing in New Zealand is amending the provision of the Great Charter of 1215 in Runnymede which provided for the beginnings of trial by one’s peers—the barons in those days—and which has developed through history to one’s fellow man and woman. New Zealand First supports Part 4 of the bill and I look forward to any answers forthcoming from the Minister. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will just pick up on a couple of points. I thank Dail Jones for his contribution. I reply to him simply that the chief executive he refers to will be the chief executive for the department which is the Ministry of Justice. He asks when this has been done in the past—well it is only about 2 years ago I think that we increased jury fees substantially. I guess it is time to look at the matter again. This legislation makes the system to do that much easier than it was previously. 
The second point I make to Mr Jones is that if someone is quite distressed about the level of fee reimbursement they get and they are suffering financial hardship as a consequence of their service they can apply to the registrar of the court who can make an individual decision about that. So there are ways of relieving the pressure. But I would pick up on the point that he has alluded to which is that being on a jury—being part of a panel of people who sit in judgment of one of their fellow citizens—is in my opinion a very important part of citizenship. I think we sometimes need to remind the public of that—that if we want to have a justice system and to be tried and made judgment on by our peers then we have to make a contribution to that as well. We should see it not as an onerous burden but as a privilege of citizenship. The contribution by Richard Worth was as usual well made. He traversed the world as he is wont to do giving out the list of facts and figures on who has what— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: And the whole of his lifetime back to Henry VIII. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: —and as usual delved into history. I am surprised he has only gone back as far as Henry VIII on this particular occasion. But Mr Worth makes the point very plain that many other jurisdictions have moved to a majority of 10 for and two opposed. We have taken a more conservative approach—11:1—which I think says that we are being cautious in this regard. I support that. 
Kate Wilkinson made the observation that we could go down to 10:2 and asked why we did not make changes in that area. I refer her to page 24 of the commentary on the bill which states: “New section 22A does not permit juries of fewer than 10 except with the consent of both parties.” That is a sensible thing. It continues: “We considered specifying that a majority verdict should be permitted only if there are 12 jurors but decided against it. If defence counsel has concerns in any particular case about a verdict from a majority of fewer than 9 out of 10 they can choose not to consent to the trial’s proceeding.” So the decision rests with the defence in that particular case. 
The last observation I make is that the Criminal Procedure Bill is a bill that I think members generally agree is full of many good points. The debate shows the constructive discussion we have had and the constructive discussion we have had about significant reform and I welcome that. Just to recap I note that this particular legislation will do quite a lot for our juries in New Zealand. It will extend the jury districts from 30 to 45 kilometres from the courthouse. It will update the list of persons who do not have to serve or cannot serve. It will make the penalties for not serving go up so there is a bit of carrot and stick in here. It changes the rules around challenging juries and there are many other changes. This is a significant package of reform which I think will improve the jury system quite significantly. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 5 Summary Proceedings Act 1957 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Part 5 covers clauses 84 to 98. It includes debate on schedules 4 5 and 6. It also includes the Minister’s typescript amendment to omit proposed new clause 98A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 97 and 206 and the typescript amendments to clause 92. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Again it is my pleasure to stand and take a call. Part 5 basically relates to the abolition of oral preliminary hearings commonly known as depositions. We have heard arguments both for and against depositions and on whether they should be retained or abolished. Even the law profession itself is somewhat divided on this point. On the side of retaining depositions it is argued that oral pre-trial hearings frequently remove complexities thus narrowing the issues and often shortening trials. The display of evidence often results in guilty pleas by defendants and/or accommodations by the prosecution which may also lead to guilty pleas or withdrawals of charges. As a result there may be fewer trials trials may be shortened and the entire process may be streamlined. 
I was interested to have a response from the Minister for Courts to a question I lodged. In cases where depositions have been heard I asked how many of those cases resulted in the defendant or accused pleading guilty and how many proceeded to a hearing. In the 12 months to 30 September 2006 in the District Courts there were 1044 guilty pleas resulting from the depositions there were 485 guilty pleas after the defendant had been committed for trial and 736 cases proceeded to hearing or trial. 
On the side to abolish depositions is the argument that they are less important since the Official Information Act was passed and also since the Pearce decision relating to pre-trial disclosure. The arguments were also made that eliminating mandatory oral hearings will make the system more efficient and will eliminate preliminary hearings being used as delaying tactics and fishing expeditions and that witnesses will have to testify only once in court so the victim is not put through the ordeal twice thereby extending grief especially for families of murder victims. 
Further reasons to abolish depositions are that preliminary hearings are currently being used as a forum of disclosure—effectively a mini-trial—and that is not their intended purpose. I note that in other jurisdictions including the United Kingdom and Canada mandatory preliminary hearings have been abolished in favour of a robust disclosure regime. So if we are to abolish depositions we must ensure that our disclosure regime is also sufficiently robust. 
I also note the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper in relation to depositions which provides for the parties to apply for oral evidence orders and also for a review in 2 years’ time of the Summary Proceedings Act and we welcome that review. Bearing in mind however that this bill passed its second reading over 2 years ago it is not exactly the ideal example of how to reduce delays. An article in the  
Dominion Post 
 nearly 2 years ago on 10 October 2006 referred to the number of court hours spent processing depositions hearings as having almost doubled in the last 10 years consuming an estimated 8500 hours of court time in 2005. That article in the  
Dominion Post 
 went on to say that depositions “have been accused of clogging the court system delaying justice and costing New Zealanders millions of dollars annually.” In fact the latest figures—which again I have obtained from the Minister—show that judicial JPs spent in the year to 30 September 2006 something in the vicinity of 5118 hours nationally on depositions. So those are somewhat interesting figures in the context of this debate. 
One of the issues however is really that this bill is designed if you like or is intended to reduce the delay in the court times. If as one senior law lecturer at Auckland University Mr Scott Optican suggests we should be focusing on trial delays then one would have to peer very hard at this bill to see any suggestion that it addresses such trial delays. We have horrific statistics of trial delays and we have horrific statistics of stays of prosecution and unfortunately they do not seem to be getting any better. Although I support the good things in this bill it is unfortunate that there are some opportunities that I think have been missed. Certainly the Government has missed the boat on addressing the issue of trial waiting-times. In fact the recent figures in relation to those trial waiting-times do paint a fairly grim picture. The median waiting-time for High Court jury trials increased by 70 percent to 304 days—that is almost a year—since 2003 and 10 percent in the 5 months from July. Waiting times in District Courts have increased by 27 percent to 270 days since 2004 and by 11 percent in 5 months. I am hopeful that avoiding the need for depositions may reduce some of that waiting time but I would have to say that I do treat that with some scepticism although also with some hope. 
Some courts have waiting times of more than a year. The High Court at Wanganui has a median waiting-time of 383 days—that is over 12 months. Whangarei has a median waiting-time of 382 days. Those times have doubled since 2003 in Auckland Blenheim and Gisborne. District Courts in Rotorua have a median waiting-time of 389 days. Blenheim has 384 days and Invercargill 369 days. The longer the waiting list the longer the victims have to wait for justice and the more chance there is of people avoiding trial as happened in 2006 and 2007 when 18 people walked free 10 of them because of systemic problems in the justice system. 
I would like the Minister for Courts to take a call and not just tell us how much he has spent on the justice system but give some explanation as to why trial waiting-times are not being addressed in this bill. Having said that that answer may be self-explanatory because with respect if I may quote the Minister on 7 September 2006 he said: “I do not agree with the member’s assertion” that justice delayed is justice denied. I would have to say that for a Minister for Courts that comment is a very sad indictment. 
Under this Government waiting times in outstanding cases have got worse and worse. The Government is failing to ensure that justice is served in a timely manner. This bill was introduced 4 years ago but frankly I would have to say that this Government simply does not regard efficient effective justice as a priority. After 4 years it is good to see that this Criminal Procedure Bill is before the House. I understand that it will pass by a majority of the House and I hope that it will make some difference to court waiting-times and to the effective efficient delivery of justice. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in respect of Part 5 and I have to say that in offering these few words in respect of it the issue relates to a belief I have held very closely for a long time. Members will know that Supplementary Order Paper 50 in my name sought to remove this part from the bill. The reason why I wanted to do that was that it was part of the stuff that I believe I bring to this House and for me it is fundamentally a question of justice. It is not a popular or sexy thing to want to extend justice and rights to those people whom society abhors. I want to live in a country where people are innocent until they are proven guilty and where black-letter law supports that ideal. I believe that people should have the opportunity to be able to cross-examine those who would make assertions against them. 
In response to the people who have come to me and said that we are only wasting time and dragging our heels through the court process I guess that my question would be to ask them what we are trying to do here. This part of the bill has been sold on the basis that it will speed up the court process. In fact court delays are down to a number of things not to the existence of depositions hearings. If we look at the statistics supplied by officials from the Ministry of Justice we would think that 95 percent of the matters that went to depositions hearings went on to trial but in fact they do not. When we look at those statistics we see that 47 percent of them go on to trial but the rest of them fall over for one reason or another. Either the prosecution is found to be wanting and the charge is dismissed or guilty pleas are made at depositions hearings because witnesses come up to brief and defendants get the frights realise that they will be convicted and realise that it is best that they grab hold of the discount for pleading guilty at depositions hearings rather than waiting until trial. Or else as a result of counsel listening to the evidence after the committal has happened there is a discussion between the prosecution and defence counsel and pleas are made then. So around the country about half the matters that are defended initially and would go to trial fall short of going to trial. 
That means obviously that depositions hearings actually speed up the court process because without them and without the opportunity to examine some witnesses before the court there would be more trials. If we go on to remove depositions hearings in the form they are in now and if people are not able to cross-examine witnesses orally people will make section 344A applications and section 347 applications before judges. Those applications will have to be heard before the trial judge who is paid a heck of a lot more than the two justices of the peace who sit there for free listening to a depositions hearing. For instance if this had happened in the Jhia Te Tua homicide case which is travelling through the court process at the moment there would have been 3 weeks of applications in respect of those two sections and in that case the depositions hearing lasted about 8 days. 
There are probably four reasons why there are significant court delays. One is that judges frequently lack the force of personality needed to hold either the defence or prosecution counsel to account as far as timetables and disclosure rules go to ensure that they are met and matters rattle through the court process in a speedy way which is what the system is designed for them to do. The second reason for court delays is that prosecutors principally police officers do not disclose the information they are required to disclose. If we look at why depositions hearings are adjourned time and time again we see that one significant reason comes out more commonly than any other: a lack of disclosure on behalf of the police. 
The third reason for court delays is that some defence counsel within the system are milking it. They believe they have a right to milk the system because of inequities within the legal aid system—between the rates of pay between legal aid lawyers and Crown solicitors for instance. Crown solicitors are paid at the intermediate rate as per the legislation; in respect of depositions hearings they are paid for 15 hours’ preparation time and they also have 8500 sworn officers of the New Zealand Police to go about doing their bidding in terms of making inquiries. Legal aid lawyers are paid for 3 hours’ preparation time and if they want someone to make inquiries on their behalf they have to go back to the Legal Services Agency and ask whether they can employ a private investigator to make those inquiries. So there is a huge inequity of arms. I do not agree with having legal aid lawyers milk the system—nobody does—but that is the third reason. Another reason why some trials lag on is that there is an under-resourcing of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research in relation to methamphetamine trials. 
I think that the fundamental question is whether we want to live in a country where one is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty. If we do then this is the system that we would stick with. If we do not then we could go and live in a place like Zimbabwe or Fiji and no doubt we would be on the right side of the M16 and we would not have to worry about it. But I believe that this is a fundamental question and that what we are doing here today is extremely significant with regard to jurisprudence in this country. 
The reason why I have withdrawn my Supplementary Order Paper is that we have managed to get from the Government a couple of concessions. One of them relates to the provision where a person makes written submissions for an oral depositions hearing and is allowed to make only written submissions and not speak to them. It is fundamentally incongruous in what is supposed to be a judicial system that one cannot even speak to one’s submissions. The only other place in the criminal law where one does that is when the judge is deciding a banding in terms of which court the trial should be held at. To suggest that we could have something that is so fundamental to equity in this country and within our jurisdiction and that one could not speak to it is absolutely abhorrent. So thankfully the Government has rolled over on that provision. The second point is that after 2 years there will be a review as to how well the system works. I am somewhat reluctantly resting assured that there will be a review. Given a successful outcome at the election that is coming up I hope very much to be around and to be able to hold the Government and the Solicitor-General in particular to account as to how that review will be managed. 
I intend to ask questions of the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker shortly—so I hope he is paying close attention—about the measures he will put in place now so that when we want to look at this matter in 2 years we do not get the dumbarse response we get from a lot of officials saying they do not collate certain information and have never collected it. We will want to know which trials have been proposed and which trials have been abandoned for one reason or another. We will want to know the reasons given for that abandonment. We want to know which measures there will be to ensure that when we come to that review we will know how many were proposed how many were abandoned and how many guilty pleas were entered and at which stage—at depositions hearings or prior to depositions hearings with the threat of those hearings looming. For instance we will want to ask how many pre-depositions conferences were put off or would have been put off because the police failed to adhere to the disclosure laws as they exist under this legislation. At the moment no one can tell us about that. At the moment if we ask the Ministry of Justice why pre-depositions conferences have not occurred or why depositions hearings have been delayed no one can tell us whether it is because disclosure has not been lived up to by the officers in charge of the case. 
I want the Committee to realise that what is happening today is truly significant. I know this issue is not sexy; I know it flew under the radar as far as popular opinion out there goes. I know that damn near all the judges who lobbied members of Parliament—particularly the Government members—in favour of this part of the legislation have never stood in a criminal trial in their lives. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 That is a very good point at which Mr Borrows concludes his remarks because I wholeheartedly support him in that respect. Listening to Mr Borrows and Ms Wilkinson one would almost take the view that they will be voting against Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Bill. I know where their hearts lie in this matter—there is no doubt about it. New Zealand First will be voting against Part 5 of this bill. That was our policy at the last election and when we set out a policy we keep that policy. 
I was very concerned at the delay in this bill going through its Committee stage. After all I was a member of the Law and Order Committee from time to time at the end of its deliberation and consideration on this bill—way back in 2005. When I came back into the House in 2008 I expected this bill to be well and truly passed but lo and behold it is still on the Order Paper. Of course in one of the press statements Justice Randerson is quoted as saying that he wanted the bill passed because of the part that will allow methamphetamine trials to be moved down to the District Court. As we have heard today that is in Part 3 of the bill which was passed in 15 to 20 minutes—it went through in no time whatsoever. That could have been done quite easily in 2006. New Zealand First is delighted to have taken part in that work. 
One of the issues that has cropped up has been the great concern about giving evidence twice. Well as members have heard today from Kate Wilkinson—who made an excellent point—of those cases that go to depositions 1044 end in guilty pleas. Without depositions that means 1044 cases will now be going to the High Court for trial. What will be cheaper? What will be quicker? Instead of 1044 cases being considered by two JPs in a little courtroom somewhere hearing the evidence and at the end of it a guilty plea there will now be fully fledged High Court trials lasting for days with all sorts of discovery tying up District Court judges and possibly High Court judges. Well that is no saving. Treasury has got that one all wrong. It sold the Minister a pup on that particular issue. We have heard that another 485 defendants plead guilty before the trial comes to court. Well that is another saving as a result of doing a very simple depositions case. Then 736 cases go to a High Court hearing. That is fair enough. The evidence has been put before people in terms of our system. I make the point that in our system with our belief in the rule of law—and New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports the rule of law—every person in this country is innocent unless he or she is proved guilty. As the two National Party members have just indicated that type of situation is likely to go out the window. 
One of the issues raised by people concerned about having to give evidence twice was apparently in regard to a prosecution relating to a Mrs Elliott. But as has been made clear—Mrs Elliott was giving evidence on behalf of another person—it was revealed that Mrs Elliott was not required by either the prosecution or the defence to appear at the hearing. Her evidence could have been given in the hand-up paperwork meaning that she had to appear only at the trial. Her personal request to appear was granted by the prosecution yet she complained about having to go to the depositions hearing. If I look at this case my prediction is that her evidence will be used as part of an insanity defence and that is the reason why she did it. So there is more than one way of looking at things and I suspect the Minister cannot be using that as an example—and other people should not be using that as an example—of how one should consider this part of the legislation. 
I have appeared as counsel in depositions hearings. I have been involved in a depositions hearing as a victim. I had to give evidence at a depositions hearing where I was the victim. I was cross-examined by my assailant not by a lawyer. So I know what it is like to be a party to a deposition hearing and to be cross-examined not just by a lawyer but by the defendant. I know what it feels like to be there. I say to all of those people who say they know what it is like to be there that I sympathise with them but as I mentioned when it comes to making oneself available for jury service it is part of being a citizen of New Zealand to be ready to give evidence in a court to tell the truth as one sees it and to let the jury decide ultimately what will happen. In my case the person concerned had finally instructed a lawyer—I think the lawyer was sort of forced upon him—and we were going up to the High Court for the trial. When we were ready to go into the trial—I was waiting to give evidence before the case started—the lawyer was able to convince that person that the evidence was so overwhelming that the best thing he could do would be to plead guilty which he did and fortunately I did not have to go through the High Court jury trial. The point again is that the evidence was there at the deposition hearing it was there for counsel to advise the defendant on the facts and the lawyer was able to tell the defendant that he did not have a dog’s show in hell or whatever the phrase is—he was guilty. The defendant pleaded guilty and we did not have a time-consuming expensive jury trial. 
I heard in the submissions that have gone before that the New Zealand Police would like to do away with depositions. I have appeared at a depositions hearing for a person who was the subject of an armed offenders squad call-out. His house was surrounded by the armed offenders squad all the lights were put on it megaphones were used to order him to come out he came out he had a gun put at his head etc. and he was charged. We appeared at the depositions hearing where half the evidence was dismissed and the other half was dismissed before we got to the High Court hearing. That person was a police officer but when it comes to one’s own self it is a different story is it not? It is all very well for the police to say that they do not want depositions but if the people in the system happen to be police officers and they are charged by the police there is no doubt that as in this case they want depositions. In this instance it was a dreadful case that should never have been brought. The JPs tossed out some of it and the High Court judge finished off the rest. 
As I hope I have indicated what we are eliminating here today is a system that saves time and trouble. On the evidence and the facts given to us by the National member we will now move into a system that will be much more complicated. When I first saw this bill at the Law and Order Committee I was concerned that the only application that could be made was in a written form. As Mr Borrows has pointed out that can be strung out for a long long time if one wishes. Ultimately of course all of those cases that would have been dealt with at depositions hearings on a guilty plea basis or subsequently will now all have jury trials. That is an utter waste of money. I just cannot understand how that system could be permitted. 
Mr Borrows might be a little bit more up to date on this than me but as far as section 347 applications are concerned—which is when one can lodge an application with the judge to say there is no evidence and that the case should be tossed out—how will one get one’s evidence before a judge to lodge an application under section 347? There will be a whole lot of affidavit evidence and suchlike whereas now we have the deposition evidence at least to put before the judge and any other evidence that might be able to be provided to get rid of the case in terms of an application under section 347. That will be much more difficult and much more costly and a lot more legal aid will be involved in supporting Part 5. 
We oppose Part 5. We support the right of every person to be innocent unless he or she is proved guilty in a system that is totally transparent which is our present system—rather than what we are moving into which as far as I can see is really Treasury-driven and very little else. If Parliament had been keen to move things along on the methamphetamine situation that could have been done years ago and raising that as an issue recently is really just a very sick joke. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 This issue that we are now debating—Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Bill which National supports; National supports the whole bill—has deeply divided the legal profession and if it can be justified it can be justified only on the aspiration that it may speed up the criminal process. There is no doubt about it at all—the Government has realised how wrong its approach was either in the course of the Law and Order Committee hearing or more recently. The relevant provision is section 180 in clause 92 and is headed “Determination of application for oral evidence order”. Subsection (1) is the critical provision: “Before a District Court Judge makes an oral evidence order on an application … the Judge must be satisfied—(a) if the proposed order is for the oral examination of a witness who has provided a formal written statement that it is necessary to hear the witness in order to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to commit the defendant for trial;”. There are other provisions that are not relevant to the issue that we are now talking about. The reality of what was in that drafting is that no oral evidence orders would ever have been made; no oral evidence applications would ever have been granted. The reason for that is that there is always a substantial amount of material that would generally enable a judge or a justice of the peace to conclude that there was sufficient evidence. The Government has recognised that; it has made changes now by way of two Supplementary Order Papers and significantly for this particular part it has provided that where it is in the interests of justice to hear the witness such orders may be able to be made. 
Although I accept what the previous speaker has said and has said eloquently we need to look at the Criminal Procedure Bill as a whole. I think that National’s misgivings would have been even deeper if there were not these wide-ranging provisions for better criminal disclosure. As Chester Borrows has said with all the experience that he has as a lawyer and as a very senior police officer there are huge deficiencies around the criminal disclosure process. I hope that this Government in the short and further time that it remains in office gives urgent consideration to that issue and ensures that when this legislation is passed insufficiency of criminal discovery will warrant clear attention by the Parliament if it continues. We see some provisions in this bill that go some way to dealing with that issue. There are of course statutes such as the Official Information Act that bear on criminal discovery but unless criminal discovery has a true integrity then the arguments that have been so well urged on us by Mr Borrows will be real threats to the integrity of the legal system. 
I just say that this proposal which initially had as its object the elimination of mandatory preliminary hearings would mean that witnesses would testify only once in court. The argument was that by so limiting witness involvement it would free valuable court time. We have heard I think a credible argument that that in fact may not be so. Certainly there has to be a judgment made in the future as to whether these changes have merit and that is dealt with in the second part of Supplementary Order Paper 206 with the provisions relating to the review by the Solicitor-General or a person nominated by him or her. 
I leave the issue by saying that those who have listened to this debate will judge that National has some real concerns about supporting this part even in its amended form. It may well be that the review indicates that what has happened today was in fact an error. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution on Part 5 and firstly to say that sometimes a lack of balance is shown in debates in this Chamber. In this debate it has been claimed that if this part of the bill is passed then New Zealand will be somehow comparable with Zimbabwe and that one would need to be on the right end of an M16 rifle. I say that any sane New Zealander who is listening to this debate today will know that that view is extreme and irrelevant and that it devalues the currency of the contribution. We have heard also that out of the window today will go the rule of law and the principle of being deemed innocent until proven guilty. I assure the public that that is simply not the case whatsoever. Such extreme comments do not reflect particularly well on this very important debate. We should debate the issue as we have done. 
Richard Worth elegantly put his finger on the central issue. The central issue is about disclosure and speaking as someone who is not as deeply immersed in the law as some other members are I was somewhat surprised to learn that the rules on pre-trial disclosure vary across the country. They are unclear and not as specific as they should be. I was amazed at that. I was interested also to learn about and to get clear in my head the purpose of depositions hearings. The purpose is to give to the defence all of the available evidence that will be brought forward by the prosecution so that people can hear what will be put before the court for it to consider and have the opportunity to prepare themselves for the trial. It is so there will not be trial by ambush. I think that every New Zealander would reject trial by ambush. People are entitled to know what evidence will be presented at a trial. The central theme of depositions is that if all the evidence that has been presented were to be believed would a reasonable jury contemplate a conviction? The purpose of depositions was not about testing the veracity of the evidence; it was not supposed to be about testing whether the person was believable. The purpose of depositions was simply about disclosure. 
But over the years we have seen a change whereby in fact depositions hearings became a pre-trial. The witnesses were being tested as to the veracity of their evidence; it was tested in various ways. One has only to read the book by Louise Nicholas about her experiences in depositions hearings to come to the conclusion that some defence teams were using depositions hearings as a way of intimidating witnesses as best they could in order to make sure they did not turn up. 
Dail Jones 
: Aw! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Mr Jones groans but I say that central to our justice system will always be the idea of being deemed innocent until proven guilty and that everybody is entitled to a fair trial. There will be a fair trial. What is being changed here is the structure. It is being changed so that there are much more rigorous proposals for disclosure and the rules will be tightened up so that the defence can be assured that it has all the information. 
Some people are saying that if we do not have depositions hearings then somehow the information will not get to the defence. That is not true; the defence will have all of the information. The default in that logic is saying that if we do not have depositions hearings then those people who are contemplating their future at trial will not make the decisions that they did at those hearings and that somehow they will automatically go to trial. I say that is not necessarily true. Kate Wilkinson has put forward a figure of 144 people who have pleaded guilty prior to going to trial. It is very conceivable that an individual when presented with all of the weight of evidence by the prosecution will make exactly the same decision regardless of whether he or she gets the information in writing or orally. The information will be the same; there will be no difference in it. Those individuals who are likely to decide that the weight of evidence against them is so overwhelming that they will plead guilty now and not go through the process of the trial are likely to make exactly the same decision. Some members have argued that people who are given the information in writing as opposed to orally will make a different decision. But those members have not put up any evidence or made a case in order to argue for that view. 
We have also had the argument put that this bill will not improve the speed of decision making in trials. I want to put forward several things about that. Firstly Kate Wilkinson has identified from questions that I supplied the answers to that about 8000 hours of court time is taken up with depositions hearings—maybe the figure is closer to 6000 hours. Whatever the figure is the majority of that time will not be required for depositions hearings. Some time will still be required because from time to time someone will be required to present his or her evidence orally as the Supplementary Order Paper provides for. If thousands of extra hours of court time are to become available it is not a leap in logic to say that thousands of hours of extra court time that are not available today will then be available for court sittings. I expect that the availability of thousands of extra hours of court time will lead to cases coming to trial more quickly. I believe that this will speed up the process. There is no doubt that it will put more pressure on the prosecution to make sure that its evidence in a case is put together well or else it will suffer the consequences of failure to do so. 
The other part of this issue which I think is very important is that it has been made public by numbers of people that a pre-trial depositions hearing is a traumatic experience. People do not mind going to trial for a trial but to have to go through it twice is incredibly damaging to the family. It traumatises people again. We have only to look at the television coverage over the last 12 or 18 months to see case after case of that happening. To those people who want to keep the pre-trial oral depositions hearing I put this challenge. If it is so worthwhile they should put forward a case that justifies retraumatising the victims of crime twice—once completely unnecessarily. That is it. If there is any justification for doing that let us hear the evidence. I have not heard a particularly compelling argument for it. 
Putting that to one side we then come to the other key part. There are various opinions about this change but time will be the test of it. I come back to the point that has been made about the review and I give the Committee an assurance that the review will happen in 2 years’ time. It will be led by the Solicitor-General and it will be thorough. At the start of this process there will be a requirement for those who are to carry out the work to set out the information that needs to be collected and captured so that we can make a serious analysis of the situation. In 2 years’ time—or 6 months after that by the time the report comes forward—we will have a very clear picture of the situation. My prediction is that cases will come to trial more quickly that the processes will be improved and that a large number of people will still plead guilty prior to going to trial because the weight of evidence against them will be such that they will see the inevitability of the outcome. 
I personally do not think there will be a great deal of change but I do predict that it will be much better for the victims of crime. People in this Chamber have often talked about the victims of crime and here is one occasion when this House can do something to improve the circumstances of all victims as they have to pass through the criminal justice system. This is one area where I think we will make a significant difference and a very big positive move for the victims of crime. I think this Committee should welcome that with open arms. 
Having said that there is an acknowledgment by me and by others in the Chamber that there are serious reservations about this proposal. I do not treat them lightly. I accept them as serious and genuinely held views. We will come to a point in 2 years’ time where we will then assess those predictions against the reality of the outcome. If we find that the circumstances that the naysayers have put forward have come true then the House has its own power to make changes. I am absolutely confident it will do so if the weight of evidence supports doing that. If on the other hand the predictions made by those who promote the bill and the changes are true then I look forward to people such as Mr Dail Jones saying they did not think so at the time but they now accept that it was the right thing to do and was certainly the right thing to do for the sake of victims. Thank you. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to make a couple of clarifying points in respect of comments made by the Minister Rick Barker. Initially I made a comment in respect of people who believe that people who are arrested and brought before the court do not deserve to be called innocent until proven guilty and that was that it was they who should go and live in Zimbabwe or Fiji as I asserted. I stand by that but it was not said in respect of this legislation. That would be to inflate the issue far beyond where it was. 
I want to make two or three points. One of them is that I was earlier described as a senior police officer. Well I never was. I got one rung off the ground as a detective sergeant. But what I did do as an officer in charge of a case was appear before 50 or 60 depositions hearings if not more. Later on as a prosecutor I probably ran another 30 or 40 depositions cases and then as defence counsel I probably appeared in something like 20 or 30 of them. I have got my head around depositions. The Minister said that the purpose of depositions was to lay out all the evidence before defence counsel and before the court but that is not true at all. All the prosecution has to do is supply sufficient information to prove there is a prima facie case to answer; that is it. As a prosecutor in a rape case for instance especially given the law as it was amended in 1985 I would put the statement of the complainant. I would probably call the mother to prove age and then present the case of the officer in charge of the case and that was it. I had only to prove a prima facie case. I did not have to trot out all the evidence. 
I want to say a few words for the  
Hansard 
 record. When the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 came in the police lost a number of cases because they did not adhere to that Act. I predict that when this legislation is enacted the police will lose a whole lot more cases because they will not take this legislation seriously as it relates to disclosure. If the public thought it got its ears bashed around with three not guilty verdicts in the last few weeks they had better be prepared to lose a lot more. I cite for instance the Kahui case. On the Thursday before the trial was due to start on the Monday the defence counsel found that there had been very shoddy disclosure in the form of toll records from a cellphone that was in the company of Macsyna King. The dates of all the cellphone transactions were listed on the jobsheet except for the one that showed one particular transaction that happened in Mangere in the window of time that could have allowed somebody other than Chris Kahui to have committed the offence against the children. That was not disclosed. The police did a number of inquiries. They interviewed Macsyna King and her friend at length. They made a number of jobsheet inquiries. None of it was written down and it was never disclosed. I do not know when that was brought out before the jury because I could not interrogate them and neither could anyone else and I say “Good job.” to that. What was the effect of finding out that that fundamental fairness around disclosure was shown not to have happened in that Kahui case? I wonder how that played on the mind of the jury members who having adjourned for lunch and then deliberated for 10 minutes came back and gave a not guilty verdict? 
I just want to have on the  
Hansard 
 record that there is an expectation I believe that where the police do not adhere to disclosure laws as they are written—and let us face it at the moment the police are already bound by common law; they are already bound with heaps of jurisprudence and they tend to ignore those from time to time in significant cases—where it is in black and white within this Act that it is the expectation of the Parliament that the police will adhere to those laws and where they do not adhere to those laws then the cases could easily be dismissed. There is a public expectation of the police acting in fairness on this issue. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I wholeheartedly support what Mr Borrows had to say. I sincerely hope that the police and the Ministry of Justice take his comments to heart and that we do not have endless problems with jury trials in the future. From the point of view of procedure New Zealand First will vote no only once and that will be against Part 5 as amended rather than voting on all the amendments. We will be supporting the bill as a whole because in principle the bill as a whole is sound apart from Part 5. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to proposed new clause 98A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton be agreed to: 
To omit this clause. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new clause 98A as amended the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in his name to Part 5 the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 206 in the name of the Hon Annette King to Part 5 and the following amendments in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 92 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 178(1)(c) “sections 109 110 or 111 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 or”; 
to omit from section 180(1)(c) “section 109 section 110 or section 111 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 or”; and 
to omit from section 181(1)(b) “section 109 section 110 or section 111 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 or”. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 18 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Independent: Field. 
Abstentions 3 
ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Part 6  agreed to.  
Schedule 1  agreed to.  
Schedule 2  agreed to.  
Schedule 3  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 4  agreed to.  
Schedule 5  agreed to.  
Schedule 6  
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Annette King to the amendment to omit the item relating to the Evidence Act 1908 and substitute items set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton be agreed to: 
to omit this item. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to omit the item relating to the Evidence Act 1908 and substitute items as amended the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in his name to schedule 6 and the following amendments to schedule 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from the item relating to section 28A(1)(c)(ii) of the District Courts Act 1947 “before or during the preliminary hearing” ( 
Hon Annette King 
); 
to omit the item relating to section 28A(1)(e)(ii) of the District Courts Act 1947 ( 
Hon Annette King 
);  
to omit the item relating to the Evidence Act 1908 ( 
Hon Annette King 
); and 
to omit the item relating to the Criminal Justice Regulations 1987 ( 
Hon Mark Burton 
). 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in respect of clause 1 which is the title of the Criminal Procedure Bill. As has been said several times in the last few minutes this legislation is going to change significantly the way the courts do business in respect of matters going to trial in this country. It is obviously a step that is not taken lightly by any of the parties in the House. Over the last 2 years we have had discussion after discussion in relation to what is going on here and we have sought to make accommodations at various times. 
I guess what really drew matters to a head in the last few weeks was comments made by the Chief High Court Judge Judge Randerson in respect of this bill and the fact that it has in his words languished before the House. It was disappointing for me to find out today that New Zealand First was actually voting against the transition of Part 5 of this bill because previously when I spoke to its members they indicated that they would not be supporting my Supplementary Order Paper now withdrawn. Over the last 2 years there has been a cross-party understanding on how this legislation would proceed so one had an unusual example of the Green Party the National Party the Maori Party United Future Taito Phillip Field and Gordon Copeland all supporting the premise that depositions should remain in situ as they were. The ACT party had not declared its hand at that time and as far as we knew New Zealand First was voting for the bill in the form as it was presented. It is interesting to note that of all the parties within the House in the circumstance as it was before we knew how voting was going to go today in fact it would have been Labour and Jim Anderton voting against it. 
I think it is a bit of a shame really that it has taken as long as this to have the sort of measured debate that we could have had. We tried to have the debate and when the judge made his comments he was talking about banding of methamphetamine trials because this bill—or Act as it shortly will be—allows for methamphetamine trials to be run in District Courts and go through the court process a lot quicker than they should because they are not horribly complex they just have serious consequences and that does not necessarily mean that they are complex. 
Then we had the argument around double jeopardy which also came up in the last couple of weeks and the speculation for instance from the Prime Minister that if National would only get off its bum and vote for this legislation then the double jeopardy rules would be in it and they would be relaxed so if evidence could be found against someone previously found to be not guilty then he or she would be able to be tried again. Neither of those issues had anything to do with depositions at all. 
Then we had an example played out on television of a lady who had witnessed a tragedy—the murder of her daughter in horrifying circumstances—and she made the point that if depositions were to be only in written format then she would not be retraumatised. But I think it is only fair to point out in a very measured way that in that particular case neither the prosecution nor the defence required her to give evidence. In fact quite bravely she chose to give evidence so that she could do good by her daughter and to nail home the strong evidence that they had against the killer. In that case she took the opportunity to give the evidence that she very dearly wanted to give and I believe it was her right to do so. If I were the officer in charge of that case I would be very proud that she did. But I do not believe that one incident should create the law. I believe that in the jurisdiction that we have which is about justice justice should also be extended to those who do not deserve it because the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in our country actually extends to everybody. It extends to the most despised and the most hated and to the least deserving within our community just as it extends to those who deserve it the most. Thankfully that is something we can bask in in this country—that we actually live in a country with a justice system that allows us to have all the privileges and freedoms that a Western democracy can have. 
But it is interesting to point out that one should not bend the law on emotions. As much as we can relate to the emotions and as much as we can try to understand thankfully most of us will never have to undergo the sort of tragedy that Mrs Elliott had to witness which she then bravely gave evidence for or the point that Louise Nicholas made when she made the same call. Hopefully our loved ones will not be involved in those traumatic events. The fact is that one should change laws because it is right to change them. One should not be swept along on some tide of wanting to speed up a court system because it is expensive or because it reflects badly on a ministry or because it reflects badly on those who are administering it. I believe—and I am sure members of this House believe this in their heart of hearts—that if we are going to change something as fundamental as the criminal law we should do so because it is right to do so. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3) the Criminal Disclosure Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 5) the Juries Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Victims’ Rights Amendment Bill  
divided into Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3)| Criminal Disclosure Bill| District Courts Amendment Bill (No 5)| Juries Amendment Bill| Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 4)| Victims' Rights Amendment Bill 
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper205. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Graffiti vandalism 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairperson for the opportunity to speak in support of Part 1 of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. In speaking in support of this bill it is easy to say that the bill is symbolic because it does not really add to the wilful damages offences that currently exist under the Summary Proceedings Act and perhaps that is right. But then perhaps this bill will send a message to those vandals out there who take great delight in defacing other people’s property that this is unacceptable behaviour that it is a cost to society and that it needs to be stopped. 
This bill is a step in the right direction although the Law and Order Committee report in the accompanying commentary on the bill states: “We do not expect this bill alone to solve the problem of tagging and graffiti”. But the public I think has had enough. We have not heard very many submissions on the bill and I would have to say that the Law and Order Committee worked in a very constructive way on it. The majority of submitters were in favour of the bill. Some of course were not in favour of the bill. 
We heard along the way that graffiti is art. Well my view is that graffiti is not art. Admittedly some of it may be quite clever but when it is done on someone else’s property without that person’s consent then it is pure and simple vandalism. If a tagger or graffiti artist wants to draw on and deface his or her own property then that may well be art but when the tag or graffiti is on someone else’s property without that person’s consent it is vandalism it is a scourge and it is simply not acceptable. 
Graffiti has a huge cost for our society. We heard amongst the submissions from Local Government New Zealand for example that the annual public cost of graffiti alone is about $10 million. That is not the private cost; that is the annual public cost to ratepayers. We heard for example that the Manukau City Council deals with about 300000 tags a year and that costs the ratepayers $1.2 million in that council district alone and it is estimated that a further $5 million is being spent by the private sector. We were advised that the cost to the Hamilton City Council was in the vicinity of $500000 and that the cost to Wellington City Council ratepayers was about $600000. The figures go on and on and they reflect the monetary cost alone of taggers and graffiti vandals. This money could be better spent on positive youth activities rather than on trying to combat negative vandalism by a few. 
The bill itself is quite simple and straightforward. When we come to Part 2 I will put forward an amendment in relation to the storage of spray-cans. Part 1 relates to the offence of graffiti vandalism and tagging and as new section 11A in clause 4 states it basically covers anybody who “damages or defaces any building structure road tree property or other thing by writing drawing painting spraying or etching on it or otherwise marking it—(a) without lawful authority; and (b) without the consent of the occupier or owner or other person in lawful control.” The penalties imposed for that offence consist of a community-based sentence or a fine not exceeding $2000. 
When the bill first came to the Law and Order Committee there was an omission that the committee felt fit to address and that was in relation to the offence of having in one’s possession graffiti implements. Accordingly new section 11B in clause 4 has been inserted at the recommendation of the select committee so that: “A person is liable to a sentence of community work or a fine … if without reasonable excuse he or she has in his or her possession a thing capable of being used to commit an offence against section 11A in circumstances in which it can reasonably be inferred that he or she intends to use it to commit such an offence.” That covers a wide array of implements. Part 2 is more narrowly defined to spray-cans because again we heard from submitters than an estimated 90 percent of graffiti is spray-can - related. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I am pleased to rise to support the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill and to speak to Part 1. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Without seeking to question your decision at all I was wondering whether you could offer an explanation to the Committee as to why you have chosen to take two National Party calls one after the other. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. The member should look at Speaker’s ruling 25/4. Once I have called a member that is it. The member should also look at the issue of proportionality. 
Ron Mark 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member is challenging my ruling he had better be careful. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a new point of order. How can you assume that I am challenging your order before I have even opened my mouth? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Mark I made a decision; you rose to question it. Please make your point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: My point of order is that you rabbited that section off so rapidly. Could you please repeat it so I might be able to read it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: 25/4. 
Ron Mark 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: In rising to speak to Part 1 “Graffiti vandalism” I say that it is with a sense of sadness that we in this Chamber are dealing with an issue like tagging and graffiti vandalism in the wake of three brutal murders in Manukau. I know that other MPs in this Chamber—the Hon George Hawkins Ross Robertson and Pansy Wong for instance—feel very deeply that— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Did you say  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 or the Standing Orders? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Speaker’s ruling 25/4—which relates to the fact that once I have called a member I cannot take the call away. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am sorry that Mr Mark wishes to interrupt all the way through my speech. Perhaps that is an indication— 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just for my clarification is it perfectly acceptable for any member to ask the Chair at any time about a reference to the Standing Orders? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the member can go one too many sometimes. One has to be careful about how one raises issues in the Chamber. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I was referring to the issue of the three appalling deaths in just the last week in Manukau. Certainly I know that other MPs would join with me in saying that this is a blot on the landscape of New Zealand. People like me who live and work in South Auckland are disgusted that other people have to live with this sort of threat hanging over them. I know that there are people who will say: “Well graffiti doesn’t kill people. This isn’t killing people; this is just a little bit of resistance painting.” I do not hold to that view because the graffiti is being done to mark territory in relation to street gangs—street gangs that currently swagger around the streets thinking they control them; street gangs who have the audacity to go to a liquor shop and kill a father because that is apparently what people do when they run out of booze at a child’s birthday party. That is the sort of disgusting behaviour that we do not want to see in South Auckland or anywhere else. 
There are people in my electorate who say they do not want to be referred to as South Aucklanders any more because the words have such a bad connotation. Well I say that I rejoice in being a South Aucklander. I am one by choice because South Auckland is full of really good people. It is full of people of different ethnic backgrounds people of different incomes and people who respect other people. But there are a few others—the people who wish to tag areas the people who wish to intimidate. The reason these “graffiti artists”—and I use that term in quotation marks—wish to mark their territory is to show who runs the place. They think they run South Auckland and they think they run Manukau. Well they do not and it is about time this Parliament stood up to them. 
I know that restricting the sale of cans will not stop all these people but it does send a signal to the people of South Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand. It sends the signal that we care enough to say that it is not OK to do this to other people. It is absolutely not OK. I congratulate George Hawkins because his member’s bill was the forerunner to this bill. His Government did not back him; George backed himself—and good on him! We over here backed him and I congratulate him. I know that civil libertarians will be deeply worried about someone’s right to mark someone else’s property. Well too bad for them! They should get with it. All they need to do is let them go and mark their own property and they should be very happy. 
I suggest to people who do not understand what it is like to live and work in this area—and to fear as so many people do—that they come out of central Wellington and come to South Auckland to see the good people who live in fear on their own properties. They will see the good people who have decided to rent out their properties because they are too scared to stay there. That is what I saw yesterday. And I suggest they go to Mrs Singh and explain to her as I did what we can do—which is not an awful lot. 
I also think that they should back the police and not bag them. The police do their very best. We do not have enough police in South Auckland. The other thing we do not have enough of is people in the hierarchy of the police who are caring enough to have less political correctness. I think it is funny that Ron Mark should make all sorts of gestures across the Chamber. We know that he is known for that but I say to him that some people in this Committee care a lot more than just making silly gestures. Some of us care enough to think that Part 1 is extremely important. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For clarification and in my own defence I tell the Committee and you that the only gesture I was making was the signal that you yourself often use to indicate to a member that the debate is narrow. Part 1 is narrow so I ask you Mr Chairperson whether you would bring the member back within the range of Part 1. She has not spoken once actually on either of the clauses in Part 1. She was rambling on as if she were making an election speech and my hand gesture to her was simply to say “Please narrow your comments to Part 1.” It was not meant to make some other sort of statement as she seemed to be implying quite mischievously and quite erroneously. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. The member’s time has almost expired. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I will end with the comment that the people of South Auckland and the people of New Zealand have had enough of graffiti. I congratulate the people who are voting for this bill on having the courage to do so. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I think having travelled to Auckland quite frequently and quite often into that member’s electorate that I can tell that member that what people in Auckland are sick of is piety pomposity and snobbishness. People in her electorate are saying to me that they are sick of pomposity piety and snobbishness and the higher-than-mighty attitude that she exudes all over the nation and the airways. And her comments about my hand gestures— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Where’s this in Part 1 Ron? 
RON MARK 
: Well I tell Jonathan Coleman that we get what we deserve. He does not need to blow smoke in our faces over here to get away from the fact that his party’s speaker—the one who has just resumed her seat—was not even on the committee did not understand a piece of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill and did not even bother to read it. Part 1 I tell Dr Coleman is quite clear and quite specific. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Mark might think he knows a lot but he does not know the fact that I have read the bill. I do understand the issue and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am sorry the member will be seated; that is not a point of order. 
RON MARK 
: Perhaps in relation to National members’ speeches we could have given some recognition where it was due—that is to Chester Borrows. If Ms Collins had bothered to read Part 1 she would have seen standing out there new section 11B inserted by clause 4 “Possession of graffiti implements”. Ms Collins would have known had she read the report that her colleague Chester Borrows was the person who instigated and initiated much of the debate on this Part 1 as it resulted. The section there is quite clear for Ms Collins to read because it has a big black line underneath it and the big black line I tell Ms Collins indicates that it is a new section. I tell the member that it also indicates that Chester Borrows argued very well and very clearly. He drew upon his experience as a front-line police officer and as a lawyer who understands that simply prosecuting people and making illegal the activity of spraying someone else’s property with paint is not going to cut it. He pointed out quite clearly to the committee that we needed the powers to actually charge people who were found to be in possession of a can who were holding the can up to a wall but who had yet to press the button and begin their vandalism. It was a point that was well made and there was a lot of discussion in the committee about that. Hence we have the “Borrows clause” and it will sit there for all eternity. As the chairman of that committee I am very confident that that one clause in itself will do a lot—a great deal—to empower police officers to arrest detain and successfully prosecute graffiti vandals. 
Clause 4(1) deals with the issues of making it an offence—and it is making it a specific offence. I have to hand it to Mr Borrows again because here once more he made very clear to the officials who came before us that it was no longer acceptable just to deal with this issue under the Crimes Act but that we needed to be specific and clear that this act stands alone as an offence against property and people. The great thing about the Law and Order Committee is that it has an ability to work across parties very well and cooperatively. Again I thank the National Party team for its contribution in those two areas because it has added substance. 
The area where I tried to make some input was in dealing with the question of community-based sentencing. I have sat in this Chamber for 12 years now and time after time I have seen various members of the Opposition parties raising the question of unpaid fines. It seems ludicrous to New Zealand First to continue to impose more and more fine ceilings on people when we know full well they will not pay the fines and that simply eventually they will have those fines remitted. So taking away from young people who graffiti and vandalise walls the one thing they value more than anything—that is their time by requiring them to do community work—makes sense. I say at this point that I would hope we see them in pink vests. I would hope that the officer out in Porirua whose good work has been so severely undermined by the do-gooder critics there is able to continue doing what he has been doing—that is putting graffiti artists in pink vests and making it very very clear to the community they have vandalised that they have been caught tagging and have been sentenced to community service. We should give these people a taste of what they definitely need: a bit of humiliation. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 First of all I thank the members of the Law and Order Committee for the work they did on this bill the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. The bill has come about because at the end of the day this Parliament and the people of New Zealand have had enough of graffiti vandalism. I agree with the member Judith Collins that graffiti is not art; it is vandalism. 
There is a difference between graffiti art and graffiti vandalism. No doubt members of this House have seen some wonderful graffiti art done by artists. But what we see on the properties of New Zealanders—individuals and businesses—around this country has nothing to do with art. It is offensive and it is a violation of people’s property. There is a cost to it and it leaves people feeling very angry indeed. They do not know why someone would come along with a spray-can or a felt-tip pen and write mindless rubbish on their property. They cannot understand what it is about. 
This bill tries to address the graffiti vandalism problem we have in New Zealand. It is not peculiar to South Auckland; it is found in all parts of New Zealand. The problem is worse in some of our big cities and we see a greater cost in those places but no area is free of it. This bill builds on the work done by George Hawkins and I say to Judith Collins that he was supported. His bill came to our caucus and it was supported. But the problem with the bill was that it related only to Manukau and as I have just said graffiti vandalism is an issue for all New Zealand. A bill that dealt with only one area was not going to work. As we know people can cross the boundary of Manukau City go into another area pick up spray-cans return to Manukau and spray as much as they like. This bill however will have a nationwide effect. 
I say to Ron Mark that I agree with many of the comments he made about the work done in the Law and Order Committee. I thank Chester Borrows for his contribution in terms of adding to Part 1 and in my view making it better. I agree with imposing community sentences. We know that many young people will not and cannot pay a big fine. This bill allows for a community sentence and/or a fine to be imposed. I imagine that in many cases where young people go out and violate somebody’s property they will if they are caught be carrying out a community sentence. 
The police officer who has put a lot of effort into this issue comes from Miramar which is in my community—my constituency. I support totally what he has done in cleaning up graffiti in Miramar. We had a real problem there. He went out as a community constable—in my view a front-line officer—and helped clean up graffiti in that area. I do not apologise to anyone for the way he has gone about doing it because the people of Miramar are delighted to see that those who were committing graffiti vandalism in the area have got their just rewards for what they did. 
Part 1 as members have already heard introduces two new offences relating to tagging and graffiti vandalism. I think it is part of the solution but it is not the whole answer. It can be only a part of the strategy as I think Kate Wilkinson said in her contribution. There is more to this issue than legislation but legislation is part of the answer. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I recognise that very often when the law is being interpreted there are those who seek to defend actions by asserting what they believe was the intent of Parliament at the time the legislation was passed. I want to take this opportunity to add to the comments from New Zealand First about community service sentencing. I want it to be absolutely clear in the minds of those people who will prosecute defend and adjudicate on the crime of graffiti vandalism exactly what was in the minds of the people who are passing this legislation through the House in respect of community service sentencing. 
There is much debate out there and there was even when submissions were being taken on this bill on what denotes community service sentencing or what community service sentences can comprise. We have in the time I have been in this House discussed a range of initiatives around the country that were implemented by police officers and were part of diversion programmes. These were sometimes later pulled to pieces by people whom I would describe as hand-wringing liberals as being offensive or humiliating for the poor souls on the receiving end. I think the power and strength of Part 1 is that we in this Parliament are making it clear that judges have the ability to give a community service sentence to these people—to take from them the time they would use to go out ironically to vandalise other people’s property by graffitiing them; to take from them the time they would use to enjoy themselves with their friends and their cobbers. New Zealand First expects judges in the enforcement of this law to give people community service sentences that are quite substantial. Where the judges think of a heavy fine we would like them to think of “heavy time”—time on the streets of the offenders’ communities cleaning up the vandalism. 
We heard from various district and city councils. Auckland is a classic example. Anyone visiting Auckland who gets into a taxi drives out of Auckland airport and heads into town is struck by the amount of graffiti. Imagine how many people hours could be involved in cleaning it up; imagine how many labour hours would be needed to fulfil the task of cleaning it up. We in New Zealand First ask the judiciary who will be applying this legislation and who will be making the decisions to please focus on the man hours to please focus on community service sentencing. We see the ideal solution as being one where all those young people—or old people if they are tagging—are out there in their pink vests being seen by the ratepayers of the area as they paint over and clean up their mess. We agree with Kate Wilkinson that this bill is not the be-all and end-all. It will not solve it all but the sight of so many people who have been caught tagging out there cleaning up the mess would be an encouragement to ratepayers and citizens. We believe that it would actually send them a message giving them confidence that things are working in their favour that the House does recognise what they are being subjected to and that the judiciary and the courts are doing something about it. 
We would despair if we saw the judiciary handing out $2000 fines. We know that they are meaningless. Boy racers take it as a badge of honour and a mark of pride if they have a glove box full of tickets and are able to tell their mates “Yeah I’ve got $30000 worth of fines racked up.” At a certain point the level of the fine is meaningless to them because they have no intention of paying it. There was an example on the West Coast about 3 years ago of three young men who had $250000 of fines remitted and written off. Well we would say what an absolute waste of time that exercise was. By how much did it undermine the justice system? They should have been given community service right at the outset that community service should have been enforced and it should have been done in such a way that it was humiliating for them in such a way that they were seen by the wider public and in such a way that they themselves decided that they never ever wanted to be put in that situation again. 
This provision is very powerful and is a very useful tool in deterring people from continuing their vandalistic behaviour. We hope to see it being used to its fullest extent. We would despair if we saw taggers being reported in the paper as owing $15000 worth of fines when actually community service was the appropriate sentence. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to take just a short call in respect of Part 1 of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill. Members will realise that there are already a number of provisions within our law that deal with criminal damage—that is wilful damage or intentional damage as it is called under various pieces of legislation. There is section 33 of the Summary Offences Act which this legislation alters; there is section 11 of the Summary Offences Act which relates to “wilful damage”; and there is section 269 of the Crimes Act which relates to “intentional damage”. Obviously it is sort of a graduated scale. 
Section 11 of the Summary Offences Act as it is at the moment allows for a penalty of imprisonment and this falls short of that by providing for community work or community service. My question—and I wonder whether the Minister can help me here because we did raise it several times within the select committee process—is this: when a young person under the age of 17 appears before the Youth Court and the court wishes to impose a penalty that involves community work or community service does that young person have to agree to it? I cannot remember which section or subsection it is in but there is a provision that states that if the Youth Court wants to sentence an offender under the age of 17 to a penalty that involves community service the young offender currently has to agree to it. 
I understand that there is a clause in the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 6)—which I think is currently before the Social Services Committee—to remove that subsection so that they can be sentenced to a term of community service. I guess the question for the Minister is whether under this piece of legislation the young person would still have to consent at least until that legislation is transacted through the House. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Spraycans  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill which deals with spray-cans. The sale of spray-cans to people under 18 is to be prohibited except in certain circumstances. Some concern has been expressed about the extra costs this will bring and the extra trouble it will put on retailers to lock these cans away. I can tell people that in my electorate in South Auckland many people already do this—they already lock them away they already put them behind the counter and they try not to encourage spray-can usage by young people in any way. As well as trying not to encourage spray-can buying by young people who might then commit graffiti offences they are actually trying to protect their own property too. These spray-cans are often stolen—shoplifting is rife particularly by the people who do not think anything of vandalising other people’s property. Why would we be surprised that they have no respect for the property owned by shopkeepers going about their lawful business? 
The fact that graffiti has moved on to etching and other sorts of damage probably says to many of us that restricting the sale of spray-cans will not stop graffiti vandalism. Again the point can be made that we know it will not stop it but it will certainly slow it down. It will in fact send a signal that we take this offence seriously. It is important because although we in these premises at Parliament do not indulge in graffiti vandalism and are lucky enough to work in a place where we do not see it all the time the fact is that many other people do. Many other people have to live in it and they have to work in it. Many shopkeepers have to. I noted the comment from the Minister of Justice before about the cost to businesses and she is quite right. The cost to businesses is huge. It is not just the cost of the paint to paint out the graffiti it is also the fact that it has to happen every morning—it is the person time that is used when dealing with it. 
Then there is the time spent trying to make complaints to the police and taking photographs of it so that the police can add it to their catalogue of vandalism and there is the wasted police time spent having to deal with the offenders. I think the idea that was used in Wellington of putting the little graffiti artists into pink vests with “tagger” on them was excellent and I am glad that the Minister supports it. When I first became the MP in Clevedon in the Papakura area the police there put young taggers into orange outfits with “police” on them so that people knew what they were doing—cleaning up the graffiti. It was also a safety issue. They were stopped from continuing with it because a Queen’s Counsel came through town obviously on the way to something important saw this and decided it was humiliating the children who were dressed in their orange outfits. Too bad about the humiliation of the people whose property they had been defacing! We would not want the children’s little tender hearts hurt. 
Actually the parents of those young people supported the police in their actions. The parents gave permission for this to happen yet they were overruled by a namby-pamby outfit that thought we had better not upset the civil libertarians. Well I am all for civil liberties. I am all for people being allowed to live in their own homes without them being defaced. I am absolutely all for people being able to go to their local dairy without getting their handbag snatched off them and then being run over. I am absolutely all for people having the civil liberty to go about their lawful business of selling their goods from their shops and I am certainly not for people trying to stop it. That is what we are about here—we are trying to say that it is not OK for this to happen and it is not OK for people’s property to be threatened and vandalised. 
Of course it is not just about property. It is about what it does to people living in fear. The restriction of the sale of spray-cans says that people should not have to live in fear in their own homes. Although the legislation may upset some people who lawfully want to buy a spray-can and who may have to go through a slightly longer rigmarole because of it I do not think there are any good New Zealanders who will resent that. I do not think their civil liberties will be offended one bit. In fact I think they will rejoice in the fact that it will make it more difficult for people who want to buy these cans so they can deface other people’s property. 
On my way from the northern part of my electorate to the southern part I go past a fence in the country that is routinely targeted by taggers. Almost every week it is painted over. I know that a comment was made today by the Rev. Mark Beale a person for whom I have a huge amount of respect. He runs the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust. He said that businesses have to get out there and get them cleaned up. He is absolutely right. However he is not saying and I am not saying that it is the business people’s fault if someone tags their property. All they can do is try to make it less likely that the taggers will want to come back again. What he is saying is what we are trying to say with this legislation. We are trying to make it more difficult for them to get the implements. We are trying to make it something they have to put their names down for and show some ID for so that it is more unlikely that they will go ahead with it. Maybe it will restrain them from tagging every fence in the neighbourhood or in our case in Kirk’s Bush in Papakura every tree in the bush. I see my colleague thinking: “How can that be?” but that is what happens. There are also streets where the actual asphalt is covered in graffiti. That is the sort of thing we are talking about here. We are not talking about graffiti art legitimate art for people to view and have pride in; this is about vandalism. It is about tagging and marking territory. Although restricting the sale of spray-cans to people over 18 will not stop graffiti it will slow it down and it will send a message that people in New Zealand care enough to say that our civil liberties—the civil liberties of people who go about their business are law abiding do not vandalise other people’s property and do not threaten them—are worth something too actually and it is about time people recognised that. 
It is all very well always hearing about someone standing up for people who do not care about other people’s civil liberties but we deserve to have the civil liberties of good New Zealanders recognised and celebrated. People should be able to live in communities that are free of this sort of menace. I know that being a graffiti artist or a graffiti tagger will not necessarily make someone a street gang killer but show me a street gang member who has not started off as a tagger. Show me one. I do not think we will find too many. Show me one who has not at some stage in life started off that way. That is what they do to show they are part of the gang and they do so to show the gang’s territory. Well there should be only one gang in our country and that is the gang of good New Zealanders who abide by the law. It about time we said that and it is about time we supported other New Zealanders who want to live in peace and within the law. I am pleased to be able to speak on this part and I am pleased to be able to support the bill all the way through. We have supported the bill all the way through and I am proud of the fact that the National Party has put the rights of good New Zealanders first. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to make a brief comment about this admirable bill. It is a quite short bill of five pages but I think it will be very effective. I think the discussion on it has been useful and instructive and I would like to begin by thanking the Minister and Cabinet for bringing this necessary legislation before us. This is the sort of thing that we often do not address when we should because of concerns about people’s liberties because of concerns about education and because of concerns about other ways of controlling these issues. But I think that what a number of other speakers have said is correct in that we have had enough of what is only vandalism and quite offensive vandalism at that. I think the Minister’s earlier comments differentiated most appropriately between art—which some organised graffiti can be—tagging and graffiti vandalism which is really the substance of this legislation. 
I am delighted to see the National Party support the bill although not without some contradictions but we are used to that in this place and I will come back to that in a moment. During this call I want to focus on the restriction of access to spray-cans and the extensions in this part to other graffiti implements. One of the obvious things we can see when we look at how other jurisdictions have dealt with these issues is that tagging and graffiti vandalism are not restricted just to the ubiquitous spray-can. In fact during the course of the hearings and discussions at the select committee I heard that my own Anglican cathedral in the Octagon in Dunedin was vandalised by young men and women with large felt-tipped pens. Although I will not give the reference to the website just now it is not hard to find when one looks on the web that there are sites solely dedicated to bombing and the implements involved in bombing. It was quite important that we did not focus just on the spray-can because although it may be the main implement of choice in Manukau it is certainly not the main one elsewhere in the country. I think that the inclusion of the category of graffiti implements including glass-etching devices is welcome. Had we not included that extension to the bill we would have had to do so at a future date. 
The matter that was of the greatest concern to submitters on the bill is the matter I want to dwell on. It has been interesting to hear the soft human face of the National Party in terms of the previous speaker talking about the hard line the National Party will take on this but I am disappointed to see the amendment that has been put forward by a member of the select committee. The issue of how people access these cans is absolutely key to the whole debate. Young people who are about to go out tagging do not tend to buy these implements. That has been said to us repeatedly by the people who end up paying for it and the local authorities who end up doing the cleaning up. One of the concerns was about further restrictions potentially on the availability of spray-cans around building sites where they are used for road marking marking construction points and so on. A lot of those fluorescent paint spray-cans it is claimed are stolen by taggers for their later activities. So I think it is really important that we put meaningful restrictions in place around access to cans and I will focus just on cans in that respect. 
The initial bill did cause some alarm. I do not think it had problems necessarily but the wording which was that cans need to be secured did send expensive shivers about the redesign of displays shop configurations and so on around a lot of the submitters. I am sure—and I will explain why in a moment—that the rewording agreed to unanimously by the select committee is entirely desirable. I think it was agreed to unanimously; the chairman can correct me if that is not the case. In my view the wording confronts not only the shoplifting issue which is why I was so surprised to see the hard-line comments from Mrs Collins and the soft-on-shoplifting comments from Ms Wilkinson—both in the select committee and in the amendment she will subsequently put forward. In my view the wording we ended up with—possession and needing the assistance of the shopkeepers—is likely to cover all their concerns including the concern around shoplifting. 
When I have discussed this around the traps with people who have very large displays of these products they have explained to me some of their surveillance materials. In my home town the major retailer who has a very high level of trade in these products has in place in addition to quite extensive video surveillance of the spray-can area other security methods that ensure that those products cannot be removed from the current shelving in the shop without the support and assistance of the retailer. This bill was always good legislation but I think it is much better because of the submission process and I am delighted to support it at the Committee stage. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on Part 2 which is restricted to spray-cans. In my earlier speech I noted that one of the submitters had informed us that 90 percent of graffiti is spray-can - related so although this part has only a couple of clauses it is certainly an important part of this bill. 
In effect Part 2 prohibits the sale of spray-cans to a person under the age of 18 unless the spray-can is sold for school or educational purposes to enable the student to undertake a course at school or to complete an assignment or project. We have no difficulty with that. The difficulty is in the next clause clause 6 which inserts new section 14B into the Summary Offences Act and that is why I have put forward an amendment for the Committee to consider. The amendment relates to the section that restricts access to spray-cans in shops. Admittedly the bill in its previous form provided that the spray-cans had to be “kept secured”. That provision has been watered down so that spray-cans are “stored in such a way” that members of the public cannot access them without the help of the occupier but it is my suggestion that we do not need that provision. Why do we need a clause that restricts access to spray-cans when it is already an offence to sell spray-cans to under-18-year-olds? 
I think that we also have to look at the over-18-year-olds who want to buy spray-cans for legitimate purposes and also at the imposition on retailers of having to secure spray-cans when we bear in mind that it is already an offence to sell spray-cans to somebody under 18. It is my suggestion that surely it is up to shop owners to take all reasonable steps to ensure that spray-cans are not sold to under-18-year-olds and if they do sell them to under-18-year-olds then they are liable to the penalty clauses and the offence that goes with that action. 
If I can draw an analogy we do not have such a provision in relation to alcohol in supermarkets. Alcohol in supermarkets cannot be sold to under-18-year-olds but we do not have a special provision as to the storage of alcohol or access to alcohol in supermarkets. It is my suggestion that this clause itself is superfluous and if we look at it objectively then we have to wonder whether we need this provision relating to storage. We trust supermarket owners to control their premises so as to avoid the sale of alcohol to those under 18. Why then if we are to be consistent in our lawmaking do we not trust retailers such as the Mitre 10 PlaceMakers and Bunnings stores to keep spray-cans in a way they choose so as to minimise and avoid sale to those under 18? If retailers breach the preceding sale offence they will be subject to the penalties. So they will be accountable and they will not be able to breach the law without having to pay the price. 
If we look at this provision we see that it is also an imposition on the innocent law-abiding shopper who just wants to be able to go and buy a spray-can for law-abiding and proper purposes without having to seek the assistance of a shop assistant. Why should a law-abiding member of the public not be able to access spray-cans without having to seek the assistance of a staff member which involves time cost and inconvenience? 
The Law and Order Committee was told by some of the submitters that firstly age monitoring is not the problem—and if that is the case then we have a solution looking for a problem—in relation to the storage of spray-cans. I am refining my discussion to the storage of spray-cans not to their sale. We were told secondly that there is a significant cost to retailers. We were given the example of a cost of about $3000 per storage cabinet. I am aware that some retailers have already gone to this expense but worse than that we were told by one submitter that sales of spray-cans were down by 70 percent. If it becomes too hard for law-abiding citizens to purchase spray-cans legitimately then what does that achieve in terms of graffiti? It is a cost to law-abiding citizens and to retailers. My comments on this part of the bill are very limited to the provision related to the storage of spray-cans. I am not condoning their sale to under-18-year-olds; I am saying that the clause in relation to storage is unnecessary. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the member Kate Wilkinson for her contribution and for her amendment which she obviously believes in firmly. I believe that if we were to pass her amendment then we would actually make a mockery of the bill we have been debating. Although we have been putting in place what we believe are tougher measures around graffiti vandalism not addressing the issue of access to spray-cans would I believe dilute the bill considerably. You see what we are asking for is not onerous on shopkeepers. We are saying that spray-cans ought to be kept under the watchful eye of the shopkeeper. 
My colleague David Benson-Pope very clearly set out what our problem is. The problem is that often young folk who go out and carry out their vandalism do not bother to go to the shopkeeper to buy spray-cans; they help themselves to spray-cans. I have seen examples of shops where spray-cans are on the bottom shelf and near the door. It is easy to whip in take out a spray-can and do $10000 worth of damage—with one spray-can. So what we are asking of shopkeepers in my view is not onerous at all. The legislation does not require them to have complex security measures. It does require them to physically restrict access to spray-cans. They could have them behind the counter for example. We do not argue about the fact that we have tobacco behind the counter of a dairy. That is common in New Zealand. We say that we do not want under-18-year-olds to get their hands on tobacco. We have it on display behind the counter and it is easy to get if the shopkeeper is there to assist. So I do not believe that it is onerous. 
I also think that there is a difference between the storage of alcohol in a supermarket and the storage of spray-cans. It is pretty hard to get out of a supermarket unless one goes out through the checkout so supermarket staff do have a watchful eye over the product that goes out of a supermarket. It is much harder for staff in a dairy or a small retail outlet to have a product under a watchful eye if it is on a shelf. Spray-cans are easy to access there—one can stick a spray-can in one’s bag and leave. 
I do not want us to destroy the aims and ambitions of this bill which we have spoken about in a collective voice today. I also think that it is important for members to know that the Ministry of Justice intends to give support to local authorities and retailers in respect of this legislation. This will be in the form of advice leaflets and signage to clarify the responsibilities of retailers and their employees. We are not just leaving them on their own. There is support and back-up for them. But if we were to accept the member’s amendment—which I am in no doubt was put forward in all sincerity—I believe that we would undo much of the very good work in Part 1 which we have just passed. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to put New Zealand First’s position on record. We will vote against the National Party’s Supplementary Order Paper because we believe that fundamental to the effectiveness of this bill is some form of control over the way in which these items are sold or handled and stored. 
It is interesting that Kate Wilkinson has raised a number of questions about us not treating other products in this way. She has suggested that people would be deterred from buying their spray-cans of paint for legitimate purposes simply because they would have to go and ask the shop assistant to get access to them. I will point out a couple of things. In the weekend I was in Hunting and Fishing. I went in there with my partner Chris and we were looking at a couple of rifles that we thought we might like to add to our golf bag to enable us to do the sort of hunting we do. I looked at a .22 Ruger and a .22 Marlin—both of them semi-automatics. Both of those rifles were bolted to the wall. In both instances in order to be able to put them to the shoulder to see how they felt and how the line of sight felt for me I had to ask one of the shop attendants to come down. I asked him whether he would mind unbolting them from the wall. He did not mind at all. He came down and spent some time with us. We tried out the rifles for feel for weight and for sight picture. We made a decision at that point in time and the rifles were put back on the wall. Having to ask the shop attendant for assistance will not deter me when the time is ripe from going into that shop and buying a .22 Ruger—or not. I now have a better understanding of what the weapon feels like and is capable of and I will feel confident in the purchase. I am also confident about the advice given to me by the sales assistant because he gave his assistance. 
A few weeks earlier I was in the same store. I needed a couple of knives—a skinning knife and a boning knife—because we were doing a bit of home-kill. It is interesting that all of the knives—pocket knives pen knives skinning knives and hunting knives—were behind lock and key in glass cabinets. I was not deterred from asking the shop assistant to unlock the cabinet and pull out an array of knives for me to look at and he was not deterred from doing that for me—he was quite pleased. Eventually after looking at a number of knives I selected the two that I wanted and a sheath to go with them. I was not deterred from making the purchase of a boning knife and a skinning knife because they happened to be under lock and key. 
The point is that these spray-cans will not be under lock and key. They are simply required to be placed in an environment where there is restricted access to them. I point out that there are other things that could happen in this House that will not happen but in relation to which it could be argued they pose a similar threat to the community. A while ago I was buying some building materials in PlaceMakers on Moorhouse Avenue in Christchurch when I saw a Maori chap—very scruffy long hair very unkempt—wandering through the aisles with silver aluminium paint around his lips. He was clutching in his hand a plastic bag that he was putting up to his face and sniffing. What was he doing there? He was wandering up and down the aisles of paint looking for more paint. Now I could be forgiven for suggesting here tonight that there should be restricted access to that type of paint or some form of control because it poses a health hazard. But we are not doing that; maybe we should. There are some things that in the hands of the wrong people are being used in a very antisocial manner. They are being used in a manner that is detrimental to the health and well-being of the person who purchases them because we know that person will use them for illicit purposes for wrongful purposes and for the purposes of vandalism. 
Society has a right if it sees fit to pass laws such as this to restrict access to those products—whether they be tobacco or alcohol. I say to Kate Wilkinson with all due respect that I think alcohol was a bad choice because my understanding of the sale of liquor licensing laws is that certain people under certain ages are prohibited from going into bottle stores and being in certain places. They cannot go in there. They are not allowed in there. So there are restrictions on the way in which alcohol is sold. They are specific restrictions designed to ensure that as far as possible alcohol does not get into the hands of those who are not legally entitled to purchase it. 
The big issue that we were consistently reminded of as members of that committee was not actually about the purchase; it was about the theft—the stealing. And whilst we would all assume that good business people who were mindful of the stock losses that they would be incurring and the impact on their profit line would take all reasonable steps to ensure that their items are not being shoplifted or that they are secure it is not always done. That is why they get shoplifted. We also need to recognise that many of the people who own the businesses are not staffing the counter. They rely on competent effective efficient salespersons to monitor the premises to ensure that stuff is not stolen and to ensure that customers who wander over and pick up a spray-can and start looking at it are serious in their intent of purchase and are purchasing for legal reasons. 
We discussed in this clause—taking advice from the officials—the various ramifications that this law might have on the legitimate usage of these products. We talked about schools school projects and the fact that young people are required to do art projects using these spray-cans. Those issues are well catered for in this clause. The one area where we have some controversy and disagreement is in relation to the level of security that a retailer or wholesaler must place around the storage and keeping of these products. I guess it is up to those people who want to sell these products. They know that builder George Brown or developer Bob Clarkson will buy these products which may be markers to mark building sites. In terms of quantity they know that the developer will order maybe two cartons of them in different colours for different legitimate purposes and those orders will be met in the normal way. Bob Clarkson does not have to walk in and purchase one spray-can off the shelf and ask the shop assistants for assistance to get it down from the high shelf that he cannot reach; he does not have to do that. He simply puts in an order and it arrives. And that is how most farmers—who use them for marking stock—most builders most property developers and most schools will meet those orders. This clause is designed to prevent or at least in some way deter shoplifting and stealing and the vandalism that results from such actions by the particular people who would do that. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of my colleague’s amendment in respect of this matter. The point that our colleague the Hon David Benson-Pope made was that most businesses are already taking these steps so what is the point of penalising them for not taking those steps bearing in mind that they do not want to lose stock and they are putting in place measures to make sure they do not. Why should they be penalised when somebody comes along and steals from their shop or later uses a spray-can? If a shop has sold a spray-can and if information or verification that the purchaser was over the age of 18 was not provided then the shop will be penalised for that and this legislation is relatively punitive in that respect. 
What bothers me is that time and time again we see that the actual perpetrators the offenders are being patted on the head and told that it is not their fault. In these circumstances the law seeks to penalise a legitimate business person for trying to put it beyond the capability of some young person to be able to get hold of a spray-can—not everybody just those who are under 18 years. 
What that means is that shop assistants do not have to bother securing spray-cans from people over 18 years of age. In actual fact what happens now and what will continue to happen is that they have measures in place to do that. Why do we need to have the punitive aspect of fines if they do not measure up to where a local inspector tends to think they should be? Why is it not enough of a disincentive that they would lose the value of the product they are trying to sell or that there is the threat that if they do sell to the wrong person without seeking verification they will be charged and are likely be convicted and fined in respect of that? 
I think we also need to draw a bit of a line under the comments in respect of obtaining firearms and knives and the hoops that have to be jumped through in order to be able to have a decent look at and handle a firearm in a sports shop. By the way I indicate to my friend Mr Mark that if he wants to borrow a .22 Ruger Ms Wilkinson has one available. He will have to ask for it but she will deliver it! But of course there is a lot more incentive for a shop owner to open the cabinet and go through the whole sales pitch for someone who will buy something that is worth somewhere between 750 and 1000 bucks. 
Ron Mark 
: $650! 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: OK. I did not realise that the Warehouse was selling .22 Rugers these days—it cannot be the rotating magazine version. 
Of course another side to this is the fact that skinning knives boning knives and pocket knives or anything else that one could get stuck with are weapons. There are also some other incentives apart from that especially in a sports shop for instance where there are other goods that might be attractive to people who would use a weapon they got hold of to rob the store in any event. So the point of the amendment is to say where the blame lies and the blame lies with the people who are using the spray-cans not with the hard-working shopkeepers who are seeking to sell to legitimate clientele. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Kate Wilkinson to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) new section 14B. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Part 3 Repeal 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 204 in the name of the Hon Annette King to insert new Part 3 be agreed to. 
New Part 3 agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Criminal Procedure Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into six bills and reported the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I seek leave for my member’s bill the Sale of Liquor (Objections to Applications) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down as members’ order of the day No. 1 on Wednesday 2 July. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That will be done. 
Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. This bill continues the Government’s commitment to a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme for reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. The Government has already made substantial changes to the scheme including returning responsibility for cover for workplace accidents to the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and the introduction of the new treatment injury provisions. These changes have been major steps in the Government’s goal of making the scheme more responsive to the needs of claimants. The bill continues to progress this goal by making changes to cover for work-related injuries eligibility and entitlement to weekly compensation and entitlement to and processes for vocational rehabilitation. 
The bill introduces cover for a mental injury caused by exposure to a sudden traumatic event in the course of employment. This means that for example a train driver who hits someone on the tracks or a bank worker who witnesses a colleague shot during a robbery and goes on to develop a mental injury as a result will now be covered by the accident compensation scheme. 
The bill introduces changes to the cover provisions for work-related gradual process disease and infection to ensure that people harmed by their work receive greater access to cover and more clarity around whether cover is available and how it is determined. It does this through amending the test of work-causation set out in the existing Act to provide greater certainty of cover for claimants with these conditions. 
The bill also introduces changes that allow greater flexibility to amend the list of occupational diseases provided in schedule 2 of the principal Act. It also updates the weekly compensation framework to improve access to weekly compensation in this increasingly varied labour market particularly for seasonal and casual workers. The changes to the weekly compensation provisions make the assessment more reasonable and easier to understand for claimants. The bill provides fairer and more straightforward weekly compensation for seasonal and casual employees through improving access to weekly compensation for people who are injured while temporarily between jobs. It allows earlier access to minimum weekly compensation for certain claimants and increases the rate of weekly compensation paid to potential earners. 
The bill enhances the existing legislative provisions for vocational rehabilitation to provide better outcomes for claimants. Together with the existing provisions the changes help to ensure that injured people are able to return to work or look for a job. This is important for the people and their families as well as for the economy of New Zealand. The bill provides ACC with discretion to extend the 3-year limit on vocational rehabilitation where appropriate so that claimants who require ongoing assistance can return to or stay in the workforce with more vocational rehabilitation. It also removes the upper age limit for vocational rehabilitation so that claimants who are no longer eligible to receive weekly compensation because of the age limits on that will still be eligible to receive vocational rehabilitation. 
I also intend to move further amendments to the bill at the Committee stage. These amendments will ensure that the age limits for weekly compensation are not taken into account for vocational rehabilitation decisions relating to claimants who are still receiving weekly compensation but who are approaching those age limits. This will provide clarity for ACC when making decisions about vocational rehabilitation for older people. 
The bill also addresses a number of other policy issues and improvements aimed at making the scheme clearer and more responsive to the needs of claimants. During the consultation process the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee received 50 submissions on the bill. The committee has recommended two technical amendments to the bill and some changes to its work-related mental injury provisions to clarify the situations in which cover will be provided. The provisions in the bill providing cover for work-related mental injury resulting from exposure to a single traumatic event drew considerable comment from submitters. Some submitters considered that cover should not be limited to a single event but should be broader and that the provisions create an inequity in relation to non-work mental injuries. Other submitters expressed concern that introducing cover for work-related mental injuries would place a substantial cost burden on employers. Concerns were also raised that the current drafting may not provide cover to those for whom it was intended. 
The changes to the provisions about work-related mental injury make it clear that the bill is intended to provide cover for work-related mental injury caused by an event such as a road accident even though some people might view the event as consisting of a number of interrelated events. For example the committee was told that a truckdriver hitting a person on the road could be construed as a number of events—the event where the driver saw the person the event where the truck hit the person the event where the driver stopped to ascertain injury and the event where the driver actually saw the person’s injuries. The policy intent is that if the truckdriver developed a mental injury as a result of an accident the driver would be covered by the accident compensation scheme for that mental injury. 
However the bill is not intended to provide cover for work-related mental injuries caused by a gradual process such as mental stress caused by work overload. Similarly the bill was intended to provide cover for a work-related mental injury caused by encountering a traumatic scene such as a serious industrial accident even though the person may have encountered the scene after the accident had occurred and was not present at the time of the actual accident. This change would provide cover for emergency services and medical personnel if they were to encounter something sufficiently traumatic. For example again if a worker developed a mental injury as a result of encountering a scene where another worker had suffered horrific injuries in an accident the intent of the policy is that the worker would be covered by the accident compensation scheme for that mental injury even though he or she was not immediately present at the time the other worker was injured. It is intended that encountering this kind of situation could in itself amount to a traumatic event. The committee has recommended changes to the bill to make this intention clear and I welcome the select committee’s recommendations. 
I also thank the committee for its work and all those who took the time to make a submission. But I have to say that I am more than a little disappointed with the National Party’s approach to this bill. Its MPs sat in the committee and listened to the case of former train driver Terry Bristow whose train ran over people on railway tracks and who tearfully detailed how the experiences had changed his life. This grandfather was faced with these tragedies twice in a 3-year period. Unable eventually to cope he was retired from Tranz Metro in 2003 after 35 years’ service. It was a truly tragic case and it took courage for Mr Bristow to detail his story in such a public manner for the good of others knowing that this legislation is not retrospective. 
The case of coalminer John Stone revealed today by the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union was another case in point. In 1991 Mr Stone was buried alive for 20 hours in the cab of his mining vehicle after the mine he was working in collapsed. He has subsequently been unable to face work underground. This too resulted in a significant cut in his pay but he too was ineligible for ACC compensation or counselling. 
FinSec the bank workers’ union today also spoke of the experience of staff traumatised by armed robberies but it appears that National MPs will not listen to their consciences and I believe that that is sad. Of course it is clearly symptomatic of what would happen to accident compensation under any National Government. 
New Zealanders want a fair just and universal accident compensation scheme and I am proud to be part of a Government that is working to make it more responsive to those needs every day. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The public should be very concerned about the affordability of the accident compensation scheme in the future under the Labour Government. Tonight for the first time I am pleased to share with the public that the Minister for ACC the Hon Maryan Street has admitted that after nearly 9 years of incompetent management by Labour the accident compensation scheme is at risk. Let me quote what she said at the launch of the book  
Blood on the Coal 
: “… when we look at the forecasts which show injury rates are getting much larger and at a frightening rate. ACC figures from recent years show that: … Claim numbers are rising steadily. … Costs per claim are rising faster than inflation. … Serious injury costs are rising even more and account for about 56% of scheme costs. … Road injuries are a major concern with casualties rising and hospitalisations still high.” The Minister for ACC has admitted to the public that after 9 years of incompetent management the affordability of the accident compensation scheme cannot be guaranteed in the future. 
National opposes this Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) because it fails to deliver the stated purpose of the legislation which is to maintain a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme by reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. We will go through the three major provisions and then we will look at which part of those provisions will indeed deliver the stated purpose of being fair and sustainable. 
One of the major changes introduced is that claims will be allowed for those who witness or who are exposed to a sudden traumatic event during the course of their employment. The estimated cost of this provision according to the bureaucrats ranges anywhere from $7.6 million to $72.2 million. Any other accountants financial analysts who provided anybody with that type of estimate would have their case chucked out. The range is from $7.6 million to $72.2 million. 
Submitter after submitter came in front of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said that people who are exposed to a sudden traumatic event in the course of their employment should be able to make a claim. For example we were talking about a bank clerk who had witnessed a colleague being shot—and by the way may I remind the public that after a total of 9 years of failed law and order management under Labour that event will not to be a one-off event; indeed it will happen quite often. That bank clerk should be able to make a claim but what happens to individual members of the public who happened to be doing their banking for domestic purposes and who witnessed the same event? They would not be entitled to the same treatment. 
When two firefighters attend the same traumatic event the paid firefighter can claim but the volunteer firefighter cannot. Where is the fairness in that? Diligent members like National Party members—because we are the only ones who sit and ask these questions at the select committee—asked the intelligent question as to why this Government which says it cares for New Zealanders so much is not looking into extending the same treatment to people who are exposed to the same traumatic event at the same time but who have not witnessed it in the course of their employment. Oh well we were told by the Government that it was too expensive. When one New Zealander’s life—apparently in Labour’s book—is more valuable than another New Zealander’s life I ask where the fairness is in that. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not like doing this and I intend no offence to the member but I have trouble hearing. The sound in here is actually hurting my ears because there is something wrong with the sound system. I think it should be better moderated. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank Mr O’Connor for bringing that matter to my attention. We will see what we can do. 
PANSY WONG 
: I am will not apologise for feeling quite emotional and passionate in arguing against the Labour Government treating the lives of New Zealanders as if they have different values. When a person witnesses a traumatic event in the course of employment he or she gets compensation but a volunteer firefighter will not be subject to the same treatment. 
The reason Labour is quite happy to introduce this provision is that the cost of the levy—the payout—would be imposed on the employers’ account and the self-employed work account. So where employers and self-employers are concerned Labour is very happy to say “thou shall pay” but when it comes to the general fund that is paid for by the taxpayer Labour says: “Wow it is too expensive. We will not do that.” Where is the fairness in that? Just because employers and the self-employed are made to pay for their levies the Labour Government will be generous. But when it comes to the Government having to pay for claims from the general fund which it cannot use to waste on other areas then it believes it is too expensive. Where is the fairness in that? This is outrageous. Submitter after submitter asked why this Government is treating New Zealanders as if their lives had different values and I think the Government has a lot to answer for. 
Another issue that I feel very passionate about and outraged against is the second major provision whereby this bill removes the disentitlement for wilfully self-inflicted injury. This bill is telling people that compensation will be available in respect of suicide and self-inflicted injury. If anybody else were to go out to incite that type of activity then New Zealanders would feel outraged. This is an evening when New Zealanders will feel very angry that this Government is removing the provision that sends the message that the accident compensation scheme is for injury where victims forgo their right to sue and therefore the compensation is there. In the case of a self-inflicted injury if there is a mental illness involved then National has no problem with extending the entitlement. But to extend the entitlement to compensation to situations where there is a lack of proof that a mental illness is involved is outrageous. 
The third provision is to change to the process of claiming for a work-related gradual process injury. The estimate of that cost ranges between $58 million and $124 million. Once again just because the levy—the cost—is borne by employers and the self-employed the Labour Government has no respect towards that burden. It just says: “What does it matter whether it is $58 million or $124 million?”. It has not even applied some diligence to ensure that the cost is accurate rather than being within such a broad range. So this bill will further endanger the affordability of the accident compensation scheme and it will certainly endanger fairness in terms of the treatment of future claimants and members of the public under the scheme. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 The bankruptcy of the National Party in terms of policy on anything other than “it will cost money” was just portrayed in that speech. When New Zealanders gave up the right to sue they expected to have an accident compensation system that would compensate them for it. But thanks to the National Party and people like Bill Birch and Pansy Wong they destroyed that system privatised it and took away the entitlements that New Zealanders expected. They would do it again if they had the chance and Pansy Wong has just showed that. 
We would expect Pansy Wong now to be walking to the Table with an amendment. Her speech or much of it was about how unfair it was to deal with the workers out there who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and told us about the traumatic mental injuries they had suffered as a result of their work. Pansy Wong’s logic and the National Party’s logic is that it is not fair to do that because we are not going to be compensating a person who is not at work. If the National Party is to be believed and logic were followed by the National Party its members would not be voting against this. They would be amending it to cover all those people whom Pansy Wong says she is really feeling very sorry for such as the person who is in the bank doing his or her domestic banking and witnesses a bank robbery. Pansy Wong says that person should be covered. It is unfair that the person behind the counter who has a gun pointed at him or her will receive accident compensation for mental trauma if he or she has a mental trauma but the person watching from outside who walked in to do his or her banking is not covered. The National Party is so appalled by this that it wants to see it changed. Well when is Pansy Wong going to put up that amendment? Never. Pansy Wong and the National Party members in the select committee voted against it they voted against it in the House and they will vote against it right the way through because they have no interest in fairness. 
Let us listen to what we were told. A train driver who came to the select committee a very brave man suffered the terrible tragedy of a young person throwing himself in front of the train that he was driving. He was unable to stop and that person was killed. He had to stop working. He took a long time to recover. He received no accident compensation as a result. He went back to work and—members will not believe this—it happened to him again. He is now no longer able to work and he is unable to get accident compensation. Because he has no earnings like he used to have he cannot afford to get out of his house. He lives next to the railway lines and he has to listen to those trains going back and forth every day of his life. The National Party will vote against him getting compensation under this scheme because Pansy Wong says it is not fair. Well members should try and figure that one out. If there is any logic in that I will go “he”. 
National’s position has nothing to do with fairness. Its position is purely based on the fact that the insurance industry that National represents is dying to get its hands on the scheme again like it did last time—to wreck the scheme like it did last time. Well I have told National that it should not go there because that will put our costs up too much. I say to Dr Mapp that we can prove it. We know who wrote National’s accident compensation policy last time and they will do it again this time. National will dutifully follow it because that is the way National members always operate. Whoever pays National writes its policy—that is how it works. Labour members have read all about it and we know what happens; we have seen it before. 
I sat through the urgency debates in this House and watched the people from HIH sitting up there giving National members the hand signals of what to do. What happened to the people from HIH? They were the worst crooks ever; they wrecked the system in Australia. That is who owns the National Party—it is those sorts of people. 
One of the other examples that I think should be read out here relates to coalminer and Engineering Printing and Manufacturers Union member John Stone. In 1991 John Stone was buried alive for 20 hours in the cab of his mining vehicle after the mine that he was working in collapsed. Despite suffering ongoing trauma and not being able to continue to work underground after the experience he has not been able to access accident compensation for loss of earnings or to pay for counselling. National is going to vote against people like him getting that in the future. What John Stone and the Engineering Printing and Manufacturers Union are saying is that the payment will not be able to be backdated but that we should make sure it does not happen again. 
Pansy Wong sat there and pretended that she was really concerned about that train driver as did the other National Party members—oh yes they were sympathetic they were empathetic and they said that it was terrible—but they are voting against the bill. That is the truth of the matter. National members should hang their heads in shame because they are saying to that guy and to Mr Stone that they do not like the bill that it is unfair and that they are going to vote against it because not everybody in the world can get it. What utter nonsense! 
They will also be voting against older people getting access to rehabilitation and I know that Peter Brown will talk about this in his speech. Mr Brown is very hot on this issue of over-65s who continue to work in this country and make a contribution. Labour wants them to be able to make that contribution by having access to rehabilitation and the National Party will be voting against them as well. National members will say that that is unfair and that somebody will have to pay for it. Well that is what accident compensation is about: spreading the cost across the whole of society so that it does not cost individuals their livelihoods their houses and their families. And it does not cost the average New Zealander a lot whether he or she is an employee or an employer because we spread the cost fairly and our system is much more cost-efficient than anything one will find elsewhere in the world. 
Members should look across to Australia. Australian politicians were here this week asking us how we did it—how we got this wonderful accident compensation scheme and how we made sure we got it through the political system. Well we used to have a National Party with members who had some principles but they are gone. National members pretend they are people of principle but if they were people of principle they would put aside that nonsense about the bill being unfair and they would vote for it. 
Then Pansy Wong stands up and says how shocking it is that people who currently have an injury due to mental illness and are eligible for accident compensation should not continue to get that. So National will be voting against that as well. National members think a whole lot of people out there deliberately self-inflict injuries at work so that they can get compensation. They do not understand the system they do not understand people and they have no concept of humanity. Anybody can understand that when one does serious injury to oneself one has mental health problems. National wants to deny that and to have a system that puts those people up against the system to prove it when we on this side of the Chamber all know as do people out there who are practitioners in accident compensation that that is an unnecessary process. It will not cost any more than it costs now so why are National members voting against it? National members are saying it is a signal for people to go out and hurt themselves. For goodness’ sake! What century do those members live in? Do those members understand mental health issues or do they just pretend that they have some concern? 
I look at Dr Paul Hutchison who has medical training. He knows what I say is the truth and he will have to put his conscience aside and vote with his National colleagues against that part. He knows that he is wrong in doing so. As somebody who has worked as a health professional for many years he knows that people do not self-inflict to get compensation and that there is something of a mental health problem there that leads to that sort of behaviour. For National to pretend otherwise I find despicable. For those arguments to be put up in the way that Pansy Wong did I find despicable. It is absolutely wrong to say that people will go out and self-inflict so that they can get compensation. It is time that National got out of that mind-set came into the modern world and understood those issues. If National members ever wanted to convince people that they are worthy of Government they have just proved why they should not be in Government. 
National is opposing the train drivers coalminers and truckdrivers who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said: “Please don’t let this happen to others in the future. Please undo the wrong.” But National members will sit there and vote against it. They will say to elderly people that they do not care about their rehabilitation they will say to the mental health community that National will put their cause back 100 years and they will say to workers who have a gradual process injury that no they should not get looked after either. Well we know what National did to accident compensation last time it was in Government. It attempted to wreck it. It privatised it. It downgraded the system as much as it could get away with. Let us not have this country make that mistake again and let us not allow National ever to get near this again. Members should look at what National is doing now. It is voting against progressive policies that 99.9 percent of New Zealanders know are fair. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). We have heard a somewhat high-minded tirade of moralising from the previous speaker Mr Gosche. One must ask why it has taken 8½ long years before this moralising morass that is left of the Labour Government has finally brought in this unfortunate amendment to the legislation. Those members get very heated up and very moralistic but it has taken them until the zenith hours of the dying Labour Government before finally getting around to bringing in this legislation. 
The reasons that National is not supporting this bill are manifold. It has not been well thought out. It is undoubtedly inequitable. Different groups of people are treated in different ways and there is no doubt that there are clearly disadvantages for the employer as compared to the general taxpayer. There is no doubt also that this legislation blurs the margins between injuries caused by accidents and other medical conditions and it is extremely poorly costed. I was not on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I did speak in the first reading debate on this bill last November. I was appalled to read just how wide the costings were in various aspects of the bill. In fact it was estimated originally that the total claims for witnesses who are exposed to a sudden traumatic event during the course of employment could cost between $7.6 million and $72.2 million—ten times as much. There is a variation of up to ten times as much in terms of what the reality of the costing of this bill might be and that is just indicative of how little a hold on reality this dying Labour Government has. That is the problem. It is all very well to have a high-minded moralising Mr Gosche come into this House but then we see that the reality is a variation of up to 10 times the cost. 
It is all very well for Mr Gosche to go on but 9 years ago the Labour Government said it would raise New Zealand into the top half of the OECD. Instead what has happened? We have gone down—sadly—two slots in the OECD rankings during the tenure of this Labour Government and it is more and more difficult to afford the high-quality health education and social welfare services that most New Zealanders would like to enjoy. There is no doubt that this again is an example of one of the realities of why under Labour it is not possible for that to happen. 
As well as that together with the changes to the cover for work-related gradual process disease or infection and changes to weekly compensation the estimated cost varies between $58 million and $123.7 million. Once again the reality check that should be put on the Labour Government is sadly and absolutely lacking. No wonder the Labour Government has failed New Zealand! No wonder the Labour Government has brought New Zealand down two notches into the lowest quartile of the OECD rankings for per capita income! That is the sort of thing we should be focusing on—indeed that is what a new National Government will be focusing on. The purpose of this bill is said to be the maintenance of a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme but there is no doubt that with those sorts of costings sustainability of the scheme is all but impossible. 
I think it was Mr Gosche who talked about the origins of our accident compensation scheme in New Zealand which actually occurred under a National Government in the 1970s. He was quite right when he said that New Zealanders had to give up something when the scheme was brought in and that was their right to sue. No political party that I know of would like to bring that back but it is important to realise that that inability to sue does come at significant cost. 
I can think of a young Queenstown businessman the father of three children who had an unfortunate accident. He was paralysed and now he is in a wheelchair. He had put most of his money into his business so he was not bringing in much of an income which means that for the rest of his life he is destined to get 80 percent of the fairly low wage he received at that time and he has three young children to look after. The point clearly is that the loss of the right to sue is very significant and it is very important that New Zealand is able to sustain a high growth rate—something we have certainly not seen under this Labour Government. 
I was fascinated to read the submission from New Zealand Steel on this bill. I was particularly interested to read that company’s submission because it is well known for being a very good employer. It has 1200 local employees and about 5000 employees around New Zealand. Among those local employees in four parts of New Zealand including Port Waikato—an area I am very proud to represent—the average wage is $90000. New Zealand Steel is well known for its great efforts to make the workplace safe and to ensure fairness in its dealings with its workforce. 
Why does New Zealand Steel say about clauses 5 to 9 which deal with the cover for work-related mental injury? It says: “We oppose these clauses as they significantly increase the scope of cover offered by the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. Furthermore the proposals offer an increased level of cover but only to one group of levy payers—those funded by employers. This creates further inconsistencies in the recognition of a condition suffered by an individual. If an individual suffers a mental injury from witnessing a traumatic event whilst in the course of their employment they will be covered. However if another individual witnesses the same event but are not in paid employment or not at work at the time they will not be covered.” 
There is no doubt that this is the sort of inconsistency that the Labour Government is only too ready to perpetrate. Firstly we have seen its wildly varying costings. Secondly we have seen its total lack of reality—the absolutely unreal grip it has. Thirdly of course there is inconsistency and inequity throughout this bill. I refer now to clause 10. What did what New Zealand Steel said about that? It said: “The proposed changes remove all onus of proof from an individual claimant in terms of justifying whether a claim is work-related or not.” It said: “Given that gradual processes claims are not covered for non-work exposures there are significant incentives for both individual claimants and their medical practitioners to have gradual processes claims accepted as being work-related”. They say: “It is virtually impossible to investigate a person’s non-work environment without encroaching on an individual’s right to privacy.” 
There is no doubt that when there is a clear base of evidence behind work-related disease it is clearly justified. But this is a blurring of the margins. And when we have the example of a good employer such as New Zealand Steel pointing out the practical problems of this totally impractical bill that Labour is bringing into the House we are forced to oppose it. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I listened intently to the member who has just resumed his seat because I know that when he was the National spokesperson on accident compensation he shared the concerns about accident victims that New Zealand First had. He had a good deal more compassion then than he displayed in that contribution. He spoke about the “reality”. Well the reality is that there are accident victims in our society they are hurting and they are not being looked after well enough. This bill goes some way towards addressing those issues. I have to say to the honourable member who has just resumed his seat that it is much better and of a much clearer cleaner conscience for us if we put a value on looking after accident victims as against putting a dollar value on paying for their circumstances. The member started his contribution by giving the clear impression that the dollar was much more important than the people it was paid out to. 
Ron Mark 
: Typical National. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have to say that in the way that that party is going it is becoming typical National. 
David Bennett 
: Oh get over it Peter. 
PETER BROWN 
: The honourable member David Bennett raised his voice there; I heard the melodious tones. But I say to that member that I guarantee he supports private insurers. I guarantee it. I have noted his attitude in this House and at the select committee and he would like workplace compensation and compensation paid for and funded by private insurers. I tell the member that this bill is about coverage and entitlements and the private insurers would go along with this. 
David Bennett 
: Think about it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member sits there harping on but private insurers have told me they will give better coverage than accident compensation. They would embrace all of this willingly. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: That’s exactly right— 
PETER BROWN 
: The member Wayne Mapp acknowledges that but he takes exception because the Accident Compensation Corporation has the monopoly. Well we say loud and clear to Mr Mapp that we have an accident compensation system in this country to cover accident victims and we want it to be as good for the accident victims as we possibly can make it. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to that member who is yelling and screaming that he would not be able to put two two two words together to make sense out of this bill. 
David Bennett 
: Toot toot toot! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member sits there making a joke but I am sure he was on the select committee when a train driver came before the committee to outline his concerns about an accident and its effects on him. 
David Bennett 
: Why don’t you make it retrospective then? 
PETER BROWN 
: Would the member support that? We will put a Supplementary Order Paper up if the National Party tells us it will support it. There is silence. We will put up a Supplementary Order Paper if the member will say he will support it. We will make it retrospective. Even Labour is thinking about it. I ask him to give us an answer about whether he would support a Supplementary Order Paper from us to make it retrospective. Will he support it? I think the answer is no. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Will your mates support it? 
PETER BROWN 
: I got more of an indication from them than from National members who are asking me to make it retrospective. I think anybody in this Parliament would have been moved had he or she sat in the select committee when that train driver made a submission. It brought water to my eyes. That is the only way I can describe it. I felt the moisture not only coming out of my eyes but running down my cheeks. I am not a man who easily succumbs to that sort of thing. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Oh yes you are. You’re a softie. 
PETER BROWN 
: I see my old accident compensation colleague there Paul Hutchison interjecting. I guarantee he would have been taken aback by this man’s submission. He spoke genuinely and he outlined the circumstances. It was actually a very sad event that he witnessed. In fact it was more than one event that he witnessed. It is only right and proper that a system like accident compensation covers individuals like him. [ 
Interruption 
] We are doing our best to do that I say to Mr Bennett. 
The other point I would like to make is that this bill goes some way towards giving coverage—if that is the right word—to people who are aged over 65 and who are currently in the workforce. Currently 12 percent or thereabouts of New Zealanders are over 65 and many of them work. That percentage will increase as time goes on. We are an ageing population and I think that figure is forecast to reach 25 percent by the year 2050. More and more of those New Zealanders will be required or need to work not only for their own advancement but more important to provide the essential services that New Zealanders require. This bill does not go far enough in addressing the concerns of those folk. 
Age Concern has put in a brilliant submission and I am disappointed that my Labour Party colleagues could not take it on board to give it a little more thought and consideration. I know that it touched them but they stuck with the basic clauses in the bill. 
This is an issue that sooner or later we parliamentarians will have to face. We have an ageing population and we need more and more of those people to work to continue working and to do essential tasks and we need to give them better accident compensation cover. I can recall a nurse coming to see me. She was well into her 70s although one would not have thought it to look at her. She was a night nurse and had had an accident caused by lifting patients in the middle of the night. The accident put her off work. She was covered by accident compensation and was told she needed to be operated on. I think the accident affected her knee. She did not make the recovery from the operation in the short term that she was expected to and was left high and dry on superannuation. As we well know people who are over 65 in that situation get either one or the other. If they get accident compensation they do not get superannuation. It is one or the other. It does not apply to anybody else in society but if one is over 65—I think there is a year’s running in—then it is one or the other. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No one can actually get superannuation other than people over 65. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member is exactly right but other people can get an income from other sources and it does not get stopped. The point I am making is that these people paid their taxes to get superannuation and they paid their premiums to cover them against accidents and their employers paid their premiums to get accident compensation yet in our wisdom we stop one or the other. We give people over 65 the choice. We tell them they can have this or they can have that. That is not fair. People pay tax levies and what have you to get entitlements and that is not fair. I think Wayne Mapp is suddenly beginning to agree with me. I made a technical mistake but he is recognising that the principle I am outlining now is correct. I just say to Mr Mapp that he has no hope in respect of his colleague David Bennett at the back. He needs to take him aside and give him some good solid political education. There is no hope for the guy. He is an accident victim in his own self. 
New Zealand First is quite pleased with this bill—not totally pleased but we will be supporting it all the way. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) being read a second time as we recognise the steps it takes towards having a fairer accident compensation scheme for this country. However the bill does not go anywhere near as far as the Green Party would like in terms of making accident compensation once again the fair equitable no-faults scheme that Sir Owen Woodhouse once upon a time envisioned. It is actually a rather timid little bill in its own way. 
I am pleased that the new provisions relating to workplace mental injury cover have been clarified by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to ensure that cover will be extended to claimants who suffer mental injury as a result of witnessing a succession of closely related events in the workplace or who encounter a traumatic workplace scene even though they did not witness the event or events that gave rise to that scene. However I am disappointed that the select committee did not take on board the concerns of those submitters who put forward the view that cover should also extend to those who suffer mental injury as a result of a series of workplace events or in the parlance of the Act as a result of “gradual process”. That creates a major inequity. 
An employee who suffers a mental injury as a result of witnessing one death in his or her workplace will receive cover. An employee who suffers mental injury as a result of a cumulative effect of witnessing a series of deaths in the workplace over a period of time—as may happen with emergency workers or health professionals for example—will not. That is simply unfair. 
The Green Party does not accept the view expressed in the select committee report that difficulties in determining causation and particularly in establishing that the mental injury was caused by factors in the work environment is a reason to exclude from cover mental injury caused by gradual process. These difficulties are not significantly greater than those encountered in working out whether a physical injury is caused by work-related gradual process. In making a decision on the balance of probabilities as to causation it is a matter of seeking expert opinion from appropriately qualified health professionals. Although this may involve a psychiatrist as well as an occupational medicine specialist providing expert medical opinion in the case of mental injury these so-called difficulties are far from insurmountable. 
More telling is the comment of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report that “The effect of extending cover to gradual process work-related mental injuries would be significant increases in employer levies.” Once again we see equity and fairness to people who suffer injuries sacrificed in the interests of minimising employer levies. The flip side of that argument is that employers will continue to have no financial incentive to minimise hazards likely to cause gradual process mental injuries in their workplaces—most notably workplace stress—because the incidence of such injuries will still have no impact on the levies that they pay. 
The Green Party shares the concerns regarding the position of older people in the workforce who are injured that were raised particularly by the New Zealand First minority view in the select committee report. The amendment that the Minister is proposing in a Supplementary Order Paper will address that concern at least in part by ensuring that claimants approaching the age limits for weekly compensation will not be discriminated against in the provision of vocational rehabilitation on the basis that because of their age vocational rehabilitation will not be cost-effective. However the amendment does nothing to address the blatant discrimination in the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 that disentitles injured people to weekly compensation on account of their qualification for New Zealand superannuation. The Green Party believes that the accident compensation scheme should provide equitable compensation for all injured people and the age discrimination that remains in the Act is a matter that needs urgent attention. 
Furthermore the bill continues to fail to address the inability of injured people who were non-earners at the time of the injury to access vocational rehabilitation. These are the forgotten people under the accident compensation scheme—injured people who are left to languish for years on a social security benefit because neither accident compensation nor Work and Income has the capability to provide them with the rehabilitation they require to return to the workforce or get into it in the first place. 
I am pleased that the select committee majority has recommended that clause 17 of the bill be passed. The vocational independence assessment process completely disentitles a person to weekly compensation if he or she is found to be capable of working 35 hours a week in some occupation for which he or she is qualified or experienced. This is another unfair aspect of the way the accident compensation scheme operates. I am aware of many claimants with well-paid pre-incapacity employment who have been shunted off weekly compensation because they were assessed as capable of doing some menial job that paid little above the minimum wage. Clause 17 of this bill will at least ensure that claimants’ pre-incapacity earnings are taken into account when assessing whether an occupation is suitable under the vocational independence assessment process. 
The Green Party would go further. We would abolish the vocational independence assessment completely. It is unnecessary. The requirement to look for suitable employment can be included as a part of claimants’ individual rehabilitation plans and a claimant who fails to seek suitable employment can be disentitled to weekly compensation on that basis. We do not think it is fair or reasonable that claimants lose their compensation when work may be suitable for them but is not available to them. 
The Green Party supports this bill because it makes some progress towards improving the accident compensation scheme. It is one step further forward from National’s disastrous gutting of the accident compensation scheme in the 1990s. However there remains a long way to go before we have an accident compensation scheme that returns to the principles of community responsibility comprehensive entitlement complete rehabilitation real compensation and administrative efficiency that was Sir Owen Woodhouse’s vision all those years ago. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). We are seeing from Labour members classic fear tactics with regard to their arguments in support of this legislation. They are trying to create fear in the public’s mind that the National Party is out there to change the way we engage in looking after vulnerable people in the workplace and that the National Party is not there to look after all members of our society. Well that is not true. The Labour Party constantly brings up this fear tactic at election time. It preys on the weakness of people’s inhibitions about what can or cannot happen in an election campaign. It fights campaigns on fear on mistrust and on trying to take advantage of people’s unknown futures. 
Well let us think about this for a second. If the Labour Party was so fair and principled it would be doing what the Green Party has been talking about doing. If Labour wanted to cover the full ambit of this legislation it would not cover just those who sustained a mental injury in a work situation it would cover those who witnessed the cause of the injury and it would cover those injured retrospectively as well in that period of time where there had been no coverage. But no Labour will not do that. It will not stand for its principles. Labour members go out there creating only more fear. They go out there saying they have done something about this in year 9—it has taken them 9 years. If these people are the people they actually wanted to look after why has it taken those members 9 years? 
Why has it taken the Labour Government 9 years to look after its own people? It is because Labour members do not care. They just want to win elections. Michael Cullen has told us that; that is all they are interested in. This is just something they can go on the hustings to say they have done—at the eleventh hour. They will probably take the provisions away next year anyway. It will be like those tax cuts—here today gone tomorrow. The provisions will not be around. The Labour Party has no principles. It is desperate to get back into Government and it will do anything any time anywhere this year to get that place. It is unfair. It is unfair on New Zealanders because New Zealanders trust in this institution. They expect that the Government of the day will act in the best interests of all New Zealanders. They do not expect a Government that just acts for political expediency and that is what the Labour Government does. This is political expediency from Labour because all the examples that came before the select committee—and there were some very touching examples—are not covered by this legislation. The people who were the examples of what the Labour Party says it wants to cover will not actually be helped by this legislation. 
Darien Fenton 
: Oh they will so! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: They will not because this legislation is not retrospective and it will not help those people who stood in front of the select committee and told their stories. Those stories were just for Labour members to go out and use in their presentation of fear tactics over the next election campaign. That is all they were after; they were not after helping those people. 
Sue Moroney 
: Rubbish! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: They were not. They are not going to help them. Those people who came before the select committee will get nothing out of this bill because this bill will not help them. That is the reality of what is going on in this legislation. 
This is legislation that even the select committee knew had some serious flaws. There are some real questions about the differential between being in employment and not being in employment. There is the question of what we do with someone like a visitor to a worksite who sees something happen that could cause mental injury. Such people are not covered are they? There are all these gaps in the legislation that the Labour members did not deal with. If they really wanted fairness if they really wanted equity and if they really wanted to provide for people who had mental injury they would have covered the whole ambit. But no—they know it would cost too much to do that. They would not do that. They have put a different price on somebody’s mental injury depending on whether the person was in or out of work. They have put a different price on somebody’s mental injury depending on whether the person was a visitor to a worksite or somebody who worked there. They have put a different price on the mental injuries of somebody who was a volunteer compared with somebody who was an employee. 
Labour has put different prices on the same mental injury because of one thing—because they are only looking after paying back the people who support them. This legislation is payback for the unions. That is why it deals only with employment. It does not cover volunteers or visitors because they are not covered by the unions. That is what this legislation is about. It is another payback for their old supporters who need to see something as we go into an election campaign. That is the Labour Party for us! If those members were really principled generous and looking after people who had suffered a mental injury they would cover all those other situations. They would not limit the legislation to just those in employment. They would not worry about the size of the cheque book. Labour members say they are there for people. They say they are there for people with a mental injury so why do they limit that by cheque book size? What cheque book size can they put on those mental injuries? That is what Labour members have done. They have gone out there and they have blatantly chosen whom they want to support. They have picked the groups. They have not gone out there and supported everyone who has had a mental injury and then they have come into this House and talked about fairness. They have talked about policy. Well let us see some Labour Party policy that is fair and equitable and just because that is not what we are getting in this case. What we are getting in this case is a payback for Labour’s mates—and they are not even paying back the ones who were injured and are now suffering and who came before the select committee. They will be paying back some people in the future—some taxpayer in the future who will earn some money in this country before leaving to go to Australia. That is who they want to pay back in some foregone vision of New Zealand. 
Let us get to the reality. The reality is that if they are to be so visionary they will have to extend the legislation to cover all circumstances. If those members want to be so visionary and do that then they will have to cover those other costs. But they cannot even work out what the costs of being in employment will be. So how will they work out the cost of including all other situations? They simply cannot do it and they know they cannot do it. This bill is just some ploy for them in an election campaign. It has taken them 9 years to get to that ploy but it is too little too late and it does not help the people who need it. 
If we look at the cost of this piece of legislation we see that it is not spread fairly. The cost is all on the employer. Why would members if they are in the Labour Party put the cost on to the employer? Because they do not care about those people. They do not care that they are the people who actually make this country strong by building the businesses and giving the jobs. Labour members do not care that employers are taxpayers who go out there and build businesses that keep New Zealand strong. Those members do not care about that if they are in the Labour Party. They just see employers as things they can kick around and tax and then they put more charges and costs on to their businesses. 
Labour members are reaping the rewards of that approach now because in the world economy some things are going dog for the Labour Party. Those members can talk about fuel prices and the cost of commodities—and it is true that they are going up around the world—but this Government’s economic management has meant that it has not delivered a strong economy to get through these hard times. They have kicked businesses around as they are kicking them around again in this piece of legislation and the payback is coming now. We are seeing greater unemployment high interest rates and an economy that is slowing incredibly. 
A lot of New Zealanders are hurting and they are hurting because the Government does not care about all New Zealanders. It does not care about business; it cares only about so-called employees. It does not care about volunteers. The Government does not care about people who go on to a work site and are injured but then it puts a price on mental injury. That is its price of caring. This Government is not there for all New Zealanders. This Government is there for the groups it wants to have at election time. This legislation did not even cover the people who came before the select committee and that is a disgrace. It is a disgrace to the Labour Party and a disgrace to this Government. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou kua hui mai i tenei po. On first impressions the purpose of this bill is pretty good. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee suggested that the amendments will maintain a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme by reducing the incidence and impact of personal injury. This is an excellent objective which I believe would find support right around this House. Yet a comment was made in the submissions presented to the select committee by Phillippa Martin of the Support Network for the Aldehyde and Solvent Affected (NZ) Ltd which I think must be given some serious consideration. That comment was that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has developed a culture of denial. I will say it again—a culture of denial. It is a fairly hard-line comment to make. A culture of denial is like an alcoholic who is determined to deny he or she has a drinking problem or like a perpetrator of domestic violence who is set on making excuses for his or her aggression. A culture of denial is what we might like to talk about when we fail to recognise that it is institutional racism that is restricting opportunities for persons of colour. We could say that a culture of denial might well represent the catastrophe of climate change like a nation walking head first into an energy-depleted future ignoring the inevitable warning signs along the way. 
How could such a strong concept apply in the case of work-related injuries and vocational rehabilitation? The recommendation from Phillippa Martin was that the ACC mindset must change from finding every means to stop paying out on valid claims to finding every means to affirm a claim of honesty. In many respects this sums up the Maori experience of injury prevention rehabilitation and compensation: denial of entitlements denial of access to information and denial of opportunities. It is all well and good that there are mechanisms in place that supposedly cover work-related injuries compensation eligibility and the processes around vocational rehabilitation and independence. All workers have a right to expect that their workplaces the work they do and the people they work for and with are not compromising their health. Keeping people safe and healthy within their paid and voluntary work environment should be a right and not a privilege. Yet for far too many tangata whenua such protections are anything but automatic. 
My experience is that the ACC is the hoha of a Maori MP’s life. Far too many people come across our paths with anecdotes of the frustrations they have experienced in trying to swim through the maze of processes that are often too long and drawn out. For many of our constituents life appears to be about barriers and obstacles emerging on a regular basis. Last November Dr Fiona Cram released her report on occupational safety and health which revealed what most of our constituents tell us. It revealed that awareness and monitoring of occupational safety and health issues for Maori is sorely lacking. Why should this be? Well what we all know is that the patterns of occupational segregation tend to maintain Maori in more high-risk employment. The jobs that hit the all-time high-risk stakes are in agriculture manufacturing construction and forestry—all areas in which Maori are overrepresented. 
Then there is the shift work industry where again Maori and Pasifika workers exist in high numbers. Shift work as those who have done it know is to be blunt the pits. If members stay late in this place they will hear the real stories of workplace risk from the Maori and Pasifika all-star cast that cleans these buildings and keeps these buildings secure locks up afterwards turns down the lights and then gets ready to do it all over again for another day ahead. Actually their voices should have been invited to this debate to tell us about another reality: the reality of broken sleep obesity hypertension ulcers heart disease diabetes and other disorders that simply come with the trade with the job—and all for minimum rates of pay. In fact in 2004 the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee detailed the full range of work-related disorders associated with shift work such as the factors I mentioned earlier and including psychological and relationship disorders less time with family and friends and eating habits being broken. Shift workers are unable to commit to any other interest—to being at school concerts or for child care even. Their body clocks are stuffed. I am thinking about nurses prison officers night-duty reporters fire officers police and accident and emergency workers. The ironic thing is that many of these professions are in fact our essential industries. They are areas where we expect workers to have their full wits about them. Then there are the workers in the hospitality industry people looking after heavy-duty machinery people stocking supermarket shelves road markers or those deep sea fishing crews trawling through the oceans for months at a time. 
I have taken a bit of time to look at these issues to do with the culture of denial because we believe that no matter what changes are made to the compensation framework if the vital issues of access participation and outcomes for Maori are not taken into particular account then progress will inevitably be limited. With the Maori Party’s support changes are being made regarding work-related mental injury and we support the intention for the cover to help ensure appropriate treatment and to facilitate rehabilitation. 
The Maori Party is pleased to endorse any developments that seek to improve access to compensation for some disenfranchised groups such as seasonal casual workers those in non-standard work those mentally injured by trauma those between work and young people who are injured. But the single crucial issue for us is that if people are taxed and levied for accident compensation cover and are then denied their entitlements then we can hardly call this a fair and sustainable accident compensation scheme. It would seem that there are still some technical issues within the bill that serve to deny entitlements to those who really need it the most. As an example we were interested in the submission from the Human Rights Commission which drew attention to the test of proving whether a mental injury is “reasonably expected”—a test that is not applied to physical injury. The commission saw this as being unjustifiably discriminatory and in effect establishing an extra hurdle for people suffering mental injury. 
We support the intent of the bill in making the assessment easier to understand allowing earlier access to minimum weekly compensation and increasing the rate of compensation. These are all positive steps in the right direction. But again it comes down to the spirit and intent of the five founding Woodhouse principles which would suggest that further improvements to the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are needed to give full effect to the spirit of the legislation. The bottom line is that we know that Maori tend to present late across all conditions and outcomes of workplace injury. Workplace awareness which is knowing they have a right to talk about their injuries is vital. So too is having access to a case manager at the Accident Compensation Corporation who will work through the scenarios and answer questions such as: “What will I have to do?” “Am I entitled to a cleaner?” “Can I be transferred to lighter duties for the same pay?” and “Can work point me in the direction of a physio?”. Far too many Maori stuck in low-paid work do not want to admit that they have an injury—that they are suffering from occupational overuse syndrome backache or even the impact of a trauma—because they fear that such honesty will lead to their dismissal. 
We in this Parliament must confront the culture of denial head-on and realise that hazardous work conditions jeopardise workers’ health and safety. We must confront the reality that in 2003 Maori workers had the highest workplace injury claim rate and that most of these injuries are preventable. Why should we do this? Well I will leave the last word to Dr John Broughton who wrote the first comprehensive review of Maori injury. This comment is part of the context that makes us know why we must support this bill. He stated: “Although the frond will eventually die it need not wither or die so soon or before its time.” Kia ora tatou. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I hope the House will bear with me; I think that I have caught Peter Brown’s bug—and now I know whom I caught it from. But it is a privilege to speak in the second reading of this bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2). I believe that this bill goes to the heart of the differences between the values of Labour and those of National. Labour is committed to a world-leading easy-to-access no-fault accident compensation scheme unlike the National Party which wants to continue the wholesale destruction of New Zealanders’ rights that it perpetrated on the nation the last time it was in Government. It astounds me that the National Party can vote against this bill so heartlessly particularly after hearing the testimony of the workers who came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and who have suffered mental injury in the course of their employment after witnessing horrific deaths or accidents while performing their work. Those workers deserve nothing less than the full sympathy and support of this Parliament. 
Others have mentioned workers like Brownie Bristow of the Rail and Maritime Transport Union and Bruce Gardiner of Hamilton. I noticed that the member David Bennett from Hamilton did not mention Bruce Gardiner and I wondered what he would be saying to him after the speech he made. Those workers came along courageously to the select committee to tell us their horrific stories and to tell us about the suffering they have had to endure since. Hundreds of workers are in a situation like theirs—the bank workers shop workers security guards and many others who have been mentioned. I pay tribute to those workers and to the many workers like them. They know that this bill will not make their own situations better so I would say to those who have been criticising this bill because it is not retrospective that those workers were very very clear that they wanted to make sure that this did not happen to anyone in the future. They were not concerned for themselves and that is why they deserve the respect of this House. 
The other significant part of this bill that I would like to traverse is one that has been somewhat overshadowed by the changes made to the work-related mental injury provisions. The bill makes important changes to accident compensation for casual and seasonal workers. That will be of benefit to the more than 400000 people working in non-standard arrangements in a range of industries. From 1 August 2008 casual and seasonal workers’ long-term weekly compensation will be based on the workers’ earning periods rather than on the 52 weeks before the injury which often include non-earning periods. 
Casual and seasonal workers work across many industries. The ones we are most familiar with are of course those in agriculture and in meat plants but they also work in the retail tourism transport and hospitality sectors. Some of our biggest companies employ seasonal labour—for example Heinz-Wattie Sealord’s the meatworks and the orchards. Every year the New Zealand fruit vegetable and wine industries employ thousands of seasonal workers who harvest fruit vegetables and wine grapes. They pack and sort fruit and vegetables. They prune the fruit trees and the grape vines. They maintain the crops. Some plant vegetables and thin fruit—and the list goes on and on. 
Being a casual or seasonal worker in the agriculture industry is not very much fun actually. Those workers can be more prone than others to workplace injury given the heavy nature of the work the lack of experience and the high turnover in an industry that struggles to find workers. I am thinking right now about the pack-houses throughout the Helensville electorate and about the workers whom I have met who are employed as seasonal workers. I find it quite shameful that their local MP John Key obviously has no idea what their jobs are like otherwise the National Party would be supporting this bill. 
One big question hangs over this whole debate and it is one of those questions that John Key continues to fudge. If we look at National’s announced policies which National members have been distributing proudly all around the place we see that one of them says that National will provide choice for accident insurance in the workplace. I will make two comments about that statement. First of all National has not moved from its old language. “Accident insurance” is what National called it in 1992 when it put in place the first steps towards privatisation but that was just stage one. Stage two was when the previous National Government opened up the employers’ account to competition by privatising it through the Accident Insurance Act 1998. That Act deliberately set out to bring competition to aspects of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s business and to introduce insurance concepts and principles to the administration of the scheme. 
Secondly I want to address that word “choice” which we hear a lot from the National Party. The last time that National promoted choice in accident compensation was in its 1998 accident compensation insurance bill and we continue to hear about choice quite a lot from the National Opposition when it comes to talking about workers’ rights health and education and other social services. The word “choice” is one of those feel-good words that those members like to bandy about but usually what it means is a cover-up for the removal of people’s rights. The word “choice” has a history to it of political philosophy that goes back to Adam Smith and more recently Hayek Friedman Reagan and Thatcher. Choice is the Holy Grail of the free market ideologues and there they are. They are still sitting there in the National Party including Murray McCully who was the prime promoter of choice in the 1998 Act. 
But as we all know National’s choice goes only one way. The last time those members had their hands on our accident compensation scheme the only choice was for employers who could choose between insurers competing for business. There was no choice for injured workers. Workers were dependent on an insurance contract between their employer and an insurer that they were not even party to. I am sorry but when a worker has an accident and is lying comatose on the factory floor or when a worker has had a finger chopped off in a pack-house accident he or she is not equipped to make a choice. Workers will not say to their boss that they would rather that the boss insured with a certain company or with another company. The invisible hand of the market does not work in that situation and to be true to the Woodhouse principles the accident compensation scheme like other services should be run for the public good. 
Here we are heading towards an election with the National Party still seeing accident compensation and workers’ injuries and livelihoods as tradable commodities. National has been having secret meetings with business. In New Plymouth we saw National members chase the media out of the room and tell them and the insurance industry that they would privatise accident compensation early in their first term of Government should they get the chance. Private insurers are in business in order to make money for themselves and they have a powerful incentive to influence the party that will provide that business. History shows us that the big insurance lobby influenced the National Party at the last election and it is at it again. So let us beware of National members’ intentions. They dress up all kinds of things as choice when they really mean the taking away of rights. 
If National members will not come clean about their real intentions to privatise accident compensation we will tell the people of New Zealand. We will go out and tell the workers of New Zealand that National will take away their rights to a fair accident compensation scheme should it ever become the Government. No one wants to go back to those awful days. We want to continue to build on the gains that Labour has made. We have work to do to keep improving the lives of ordinary workers and their families as this bill does. Labour is the only party with a plan to do so. 
I will wind up there because I do not think I can speak any more but I will say this is a good day for New Zealand workers and I congratulate the Minister the Hon Maryan Street on bringing this bill to the House. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I will take a short call to follow on from the good wise words of my colleague Darien Fenton. This matter is something that I feel very passionate about. John Key has said that the National Party will offer choice if it were ever to get into power and tonight we heard Paul Hutchison ask why a victim should not have the right to sue. Let us be clear here. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Rubbish! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Yes he said that. It was another backbencher letting the cat out of the bag. Let us be clear here. What we are doing tonight is improving what is a very very good system of accident compensation internationally. This is one of the best—the envy of every First World country. For those people who drive and create the wealth in this country—those people in the rural areas—it is absolutely essential that they understand their choice as we come into the next election. It is quite clear in relation to accident compensation that with a Labour-led Government people will get the continuation and the improvement of the accident compensation system but with the National Party people will get choice à la privatisation of accident compensation and a return of the right of victims to sue. That is what Mr Hutchison said and that is what John Key has said. Well people should go and ask anyone around the world—whether it be in Ireland or the US—what the right to sue does. It means that all the money gets chewed up in the law courts around the country and less and less money goes to the victims. It is really essential that we understand that. 
People in this country have taken for granted for too long that it is just automatic that we get proper rehabilitation that we get proper compensation while we are off work because that is the way it is. Well it is not. The thing is that this Labour Government came back into power and reinstated a comprehensive accident compensation system because the previous National Government had attempted to privatise it. We had started to see a breakdown in accident compensation. There is one thing that the rural sector—people who live far away from health care people who live and work with animals people who live and work with often dangerous vehicles and people in the tourism system—should have and that is proper consideration protection and compensation where necessary through the accident compensation system. 
If the National Party ever comes to power and attempts to privatise the accident compensation system we will see a breakdown in the New Zealand economy and in the way of life that we enjoy. It is important that every single New Zealander understands what the National Party intends to do and that is to privatise accident compensation to break down the system that has grown the economy of this country to where it is today. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on this bill to congratulate my colleagues on bringing this measure forward and also to congratulate those people who made submissions on it. Those people bared their souls and their lives so that we could make this very important change to the present Act. In particular I refer to Mr Bruce Gardiner from Hamilton. I know how sorely disappointed he will be in the speech made by David Bennett before when Mr Bennett said that he would not support this legislation because Mr Bruce Gardiner would not be catered for retrospectively. I know that Mr Gardiner would want him to vote for this bill because Mr Gardiner’s position has always been that he was fighting to ensure that in the future people did not have the same dreadful experience he had when as a truckdriver he was inadvertently caught up in a suicide. He was extremely traumatised by running over somebody and was unable to continue in his occupation. He has fought and petitioned to ensure that the change we are debating here was brought about. 
I thank those people who have made submissions. I know they will be very pleased that this bill will be voted forward in its second reading. They will be sorely disappointed in the National Party and in the very cute arguments National members have tried to bring forward as pitiful excuses for not supporting this bill in its second reading. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time. 
Motions 
Reserve Bank Funding Agreement—Ratification 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 161(2) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 this House ratify the funding agreement entered into by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand pursuant to section 159 of that Act on 28 April 2008 and presented to the House on 20 May 2008. 
 This is a relatively narrow motion and debate. It applies to a variation to the funding agreement to enable the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to exercise functions that it will acquire under legislation at present in front of the House that has very broad support within the House. 
The Reserve Bank’s operating expenditure is funded from gross income under terms established by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989—the Act—and a 5-year funding agreement. The Act requires the Minister of Finance and the governor to enter into a funding agreement for successive periods of 5 years. The current funding agreement was signed in April 2005 and expires at the end of June 2010. However this agreement does not account for the bank’s new prudential responsibilities that it is going to acquire and I am therefore asking the House to ratify today a variation to that agreement to enable the Reserve Bank to have the necessary funding for that role. 
In December 2005 Cabinet agreed that the prudential regulation for the financial sector should be consolidated into a single regulator and agreed in principle that this regulator should be the Reserve Bank. Subsequently in June 2007 Cabinet agreed to changes to the institutional arrangements of the Reserve Bank and also that the costs of regulating non-bank deposit takers and the cost of regulating and supervising insurance companies should be met through a variation of the Reserve Bank’s funding agreement to be ratified by Parliament. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) which is currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee gives the bank these new regulatory functions and powers. Additional funding is required by the bank in order to provide advice in respect of matters relating to the intended regulatory regime for non-bank deposit takers and insurers and to develop the operational capability to assume new statutory responsibilities. 
The key influences behind the revised variation in funding are as follows. In addition to licensing and undertaking prudential supervision of banks the new policy outputs that will be required of the Reserve Bank are firstly that the bank will license non-bank deposit takers and be responsible for various obligations upon non-bank deposit takers to be included in regulations. Front-line supervision of non-bank deposit takers tends to be undertaken by trustees. Secondly the bank will license and undertake prudential supervision of insurance companies. 
In this funding agreement nominal expenditure is set at $43.3 million in 2008-09 and $46.9 million in 2009-10. This is an increase of $2.3 million and $3.9 million respectively for each of these years above the funding levels specified for each of these years in the current funding agreement. The increase in costs arises from the staff required for increased policy advice responsibilities and for activities associated with greater oversight of the non-bank sector. The bank considers it will have the capacity to accommodate all the funding required for its expanding responsibilities under current funding levels for the year ending this month and as a result the agreement is not varied for the 2007-08 financial year. 
This funding agreement—the variation—contains no provision for the marginal costs of anti - money-laundering supervision by the bank. In the event that Cabinet agrees that the Reserve Bank is really the anti - money-laundering supervisor of the entities that it regulates then it is likely the bank will seek additional funding for this new responsibility at that time. 
I should perhaps add that the bank has significantly increased its prudential supervisory capacities over the last 2 or 3 years. I think it was well recognised under both the previous governor and the current governor that those capacities had been run down to a somewhat unsatisfactory low level. With the new legislation to come into force as I said those prudential supervisory capacities will need to be expanded because these new requirements and responsibilities would not be able to be met out of current resources. I think what we have seen in the New Zealand financial markets over the last 2 years emphasises the importance of improving the supervision of non-bank deposit takers. Tens and tens of thousands of New Zealanders have lost money over the last 2 years as a range of finance companies have gone under. Hopefully increased supervision will reduce the risk in the future of that happening. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 This Government motion is not a highly controversial matter but the appropriate funding of the Reserve Bank is something that this Parliament should take seriously. It is ultimately this Parliament’s responsibility to ratify the agreement that the Minister of Finance has just mentioned. That agreement was provided for under the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act whereby the bank is able to retain each year as agreed with the Minister of Finance the amount of its gross earnings. This Parliament quite properly has the ultimate decision whether to ratify that agreement. So we do have the power to not ratify it because after all expenditure of public moneys is something that is the preserve of this Parliament not the Government. So it is an important responsibility that Parliament has to decide whether to ratify this increased expenditure. 
What I think is important in a debate such as this is that these things are as transparent as possible because obviously the Reserve Bank needs the funding to carry out its legislated functions and no one in this Parliament would say the bank should not be able to retain that level of funding from its gross earnings. But I think what would be a little more helpful would be had the Minister explained a little more about why there has been such a big increase over recent years. Now Dr Cullen mentioned that the actual dollar amounts that the variation to the funding agreement provides for is a relatively small number of dollars in 2008-09 and 2009-10; when I say “relatively small” the increase I think in 2008-09 is about a 5.6 percent increase and a 9 percent increase in 2009-10. 
The $2 million or $3 million involved in that does not sound a huge amount of additional money to carry out the new roles that the Minister has just mentioned. For example he mentioned that the licensing and prudential supervision of non-bank deposit takers would be a new function for the Reserve Bank as is the licensing and prudential supervision of insurance companies. Obviously that will require more funding but to me what is interesting as we look back over the current agreement that we are looking to amend tonight is that in fact the Reserve Bank has been receiving quite significant increases in funding anyhow. I draw the House’s attention to the 2006-07 financial year; according to the information I have the agreed amount of money that the Reserve Bank was able to retain in the 2006-07 year was $34 million. The agreed amount that is put before this Parliament tonight to ratify for the 2009-10 year is $46.9 million. Now that difference over a period of just 4 years is a 38 percent increase in the amount of gross income the Reserve Bank is able to retain. 
One has to ask oneself whether a 38 percent increase is reasonable. Admittedly the 2006-07 year for some reason or other was a year of lower retained income—the year before was $39 million. Be that as it may as I understand it in 2006-07 the agreed amount was $34 million. Do the new responsibilities around non-bank deposit takers and insurance companies justify that kind of increase—38 percent—in retained income in just 4 years? I think we deserve a little more explanation as to why there is quite such a big increase because when it is not explained to the House more clearly why that level of increase has occurred it invites suspicion. 
Let me explain why it invites suspicion. In the last 12 months the Reserve Bank took a sort of swing into the area of currency trading and at one stage there I think when the New Zealand - US exchange rate hit about US75c from memory or somewhere around there the Reserve Bank suddenly launched into—naturally it would not have announced it previously—quite a significant foray into foreign exchange trading. Some people have said the bank used a peashooter against the currency traders because international currency trading is a massive amount of money transacted each day and the amount of retained earnings the Reserve Bank has to play that game is pretty limited; and what is more the Reserve Bank intervened at about US75c and the currency immediately proceeded to climb to over US80c. 
Of course the Reserve Bank at that stage on paper would have lost significant money. The question that it would have been helpful to have an answer to had Dr Cullen made it clear to Parliament tonight—maybe the next Government member could do this—is whether the Reserve Bank has lost any significant money on its currency trading escapades. To the uninitiated like me because I am no expert in this field of currency trading one could suggest that OK it intervened in the markets at about 75c it lost on paper as the currency climbed to 80c—damn near US81c—but since then the New Zealand dollar against US currency has receded somewhat. What is it back to today? 
Tim Groser 
: 74c. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: It is at 74c or 75c today. On paper it could be suggested that if it is back to the level the Reserve Bank intervened at maybe it should now on paper not have lost money. But in this game the question is: did the bank make plays to minimise its losses if the currency went up? Is it in fact in a loss position even though the currency has come back to where it is? We do not know. 
The reason why I raise it is that the amount of increase in funding that the Minister has agreed to with the governor under section 61(5)(9) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act—that level of funding he is asking this Parliament to ratify this evening—is not a small increase over 4 years. Remember that the Minister said that normally these agreements are for 5 years—and the current agreement is being varied now and that is what we are seeking to ratify tonight—but for the last 5 years going through to the 2009-10 year in 2005-06 it was $39 million then it dropped to $34 million in 2006-07 then it went up to $41 million in 2007-08 $41 million in 2008-09 and $43 million in 2009-10. 
Compared with the 2006-07 year that is a 38 percent increase in funding we are now asked to ratify this evening. I put it to members that given the existing functions of the Reserve Bank including the prudential supervision of our banking system given all the activities that the Reserve Bank has and add to those functions the licensing and prudential supervision of the non-bank deposit takers and the licensing and prudential supervision of the insurance companies—on that latter one there are not a lot of insurance companies—we have to ask the question: do those two extensions in function of the Reserve Bank justify in 4 years a 38 percent increase in the amount of its income the Reserve Bank is allowed to keep? 
That is what I think has not been so well explained to Parliament this evening. It invites speculation that maybe there is a bit more to this than the Parliament has been made aware of. I see Clayton Cosgrove who has all sorts of problems within his own Immigration New Zealand. If he focused a bit more on the functionality of his own department instead of claiming that he is not accountable for the shambles in that department New Zealand might be better off. I can assure him the public thinks he is accountable. Any Ministers who think they are not accountable for their departments have a lesson coming. 
All I say with respect to this motion in front of the Parliament tonight is that National obviously will not oppose it but it would be helpful if the Government could assure us that a 38 percent increase in 4 years can be justified just by those two extensions of the responsibilities of the Reserve Bank. It seems quite a large increase given just those two extensions of responsibility. Could someone from the Government explain whether there is anything else involved whether the foray into currency trading has anything to do with it because the Reserve Bank has the authority to go on doing that. I think we need to be satisfied that we have heard the full explanation as to why we have to ratify this evening this significant increase in the amount of income that the Reserve Bank is able to retain. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I will take just a brief call. Obviously as my colleague has just explained the Opposition will not be opposing this motion. It is crucial to this country that the prudential controls over our banking system both narrowly defined—in this case we are moving in a broader direction—and more generally defined are in good shape and that our officials in the Reserve Bank have the resources to do it. 
We have raised some legitimate questions. We will have to I presume take it on trust unless we get another intervention from the Government benches to indicate why such a significant increase in funding has been justified. I do not know whether an independent Treasury report has been commissioned on this but I think the position the Opposition finds itself in is that we will just have to assume that this is a responsible bid for what is unquestionably an activity that the Opposition supports. We certainly know that the prudential soundness of our financial system lies at the very heart of the stability of—well every country in the world. 
The authorities here are trying to play what is essentially an eternal cat and mouse game that occurs with financial markets. As you no doubt know Mr Deputy Speaker the technical term for this is the process of financial disintermediation whereby we establish a set of regulatory frameworks to manage risk and to manage the interventions of certain financial institutions. By definition we create an incentive on the part of other institutions not covered by the regulations to game the system thus giving rise to this concept of disintermediation between the bank and the non-bank sector. 
In a sense it is a game that will be played for eternity. No matter what the authorities do in the future they will by definition always create this incentive and again another cycle will have to catch up which is essentially what this funding is related to. It is related to extending the prudential controls for the reasons that the Minister of Finance has very adequately described towards certain non-bank deposit takers. 
Mr Deputy Speaker you may remember a certain period of New Zealand’s economic history during which the controls over the banks were so tight that the principal source of non - State Advances Corporation funding was in solicitors’ funding for mortgages. So stringent were the capital adequacy reserve ratios and other mechanisms that essentially the State drove the entire lending sector out into the non-bank sector. This continues in this pattern. We support the regulatory extension of the prudential controls. 
In conclusion I will make a few fairly obvious points about why this measure is so important. The concept of a sound financial system is as central to the stability of a society as the rule of law is. Frankly I put far more expectation on hyperinflation driving Mr Mugabe out of power than on any conceivable trade or political sanctions the international community might be considering in the future. The history of the world is littered with despots and Governments that believed they could ignore the implications of sound money sound financing and a sound financial sector. 
I recall always that there is a tension here between over-regulation and under-regulation. There is huge literature as you no doubt know Mr Deputy Speaker about the question of moral hazard for bankers and I always thought that the best definition I ever heard was the definition given to one person who inquired too tightly as to where the limits of Bank for International Settlements intervention to support failed central banks would stop and start. He said: “I will not tell you sir how far we will go to bail you out. This is something I will discuss with your successor.” 
So there is always necessarily a certain a degree of what I would call constructive ambiguity around these matters in which regulatory authorities—be they as in this case the Reserve Bank of New Zealand or in the case internationally the Bank for International Settlements—necessarily have to keep up their sleeve just how far they will go to avoid what is called moral hazard or in other words bailing out people no matter what loss they have made. So it is crucial to that and it is crucial to low inflation growth. 
We know from the literature that in respect of developed countries inflation up to and about 3 percent is the usual measure of it not just in New Zealand will be good for and is associated with higher real growth. Inflation above 3 percent is associated with lower growth. So much for those people who advocate weakening the inflation targets further in the naive belief that it would lead to sustainably higher employment and growth outputs. For reasons I will not bother with the metrics are a little bit different in respect of developing countries where we can see the conjunction of somewhat higher rates of single digit inflation with higher real growth rates. But basically for developed countries the sort of framework we have developed in New Zealand we have broad support for in this House as it appears to be correlated with much sounder outcomes for the country as a whole. So we have some questions over the quantum. I am sure they will go unanswered tonight but nevertheless the Opposition supports the underlying objectives of this motion. 
Motion agreed to. 
Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 29 May. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 As I was saying before the adjournment the purpose of this bill is to strike a balance between protecting personal information from those who might wish to abuse it and maintaining freedom of information and the right of the public to access the registers. The registers are a source of information about demographics health mortality and other important information. They also provide an official record of events such as births deaths marriages civil unions and name changes that can be used as evidence of those events along with age identity descent whakapapa and New Zealand citizenship. The registers are not there just for the media to gain information or for historians to do their work. They are there for families for communities and for all of us because public registers such as these are an important taonga for New Zealand and they should be treated as such both in law and in practice. 
Although identity theft was one of the drivers behind the bill that was not its primary purpose and those members opposite who have tried to play down the significant responsibility of the State in protecting the public records from such abuse have not taken their parliamentary responsibility seriously in my view. It is even more extraordinary to have these denials going on knowing that the member Sandra Goudie who is a member of the select committee that considered this bill and who has been most vocal in her ridicule complained to the Minister earlier this year about a woman who had fraudulently obtained a birth certificate of a child and used that identity to claim over $31000 in welfare benefits. Then she said there was no problem. 
David Bennett the member from Hamilton East wrote to the Minister in October 2007 about someone using a false birth certificate to obtain a driver’s licence. He asked the Minister: “When would the requirements for applying for a birth certificate become more stringent?”. Well duh! That is yet more evidence that National Party members do not talk to each other. As recently as last week I heard another National Party member expressing his concerns about identity theft because one of his constituents had experienced the repeated abuse of someone stealing that person’s identity through birth records. 
Over the weekend the  
New Zealand Herald  
reported that identity theft is on the rise in New Zealand with 900 cases of identity fraud relating to 400 identities having been uncovered in the past 12 months. The police say that this is just the tip of the iceberg. So in my view we would be really stupid to ignore international trends that show identity theft is a growing problem. There are reports from Britain that identity fraud has risen by more than 60 percent in just the past year and there is no reason to believe that New Zealand will not follow this trend. Therefore it makes sense that the risks associated with open access to registers should be examined and this is one of the reasons why the bill came to the House in the first place. The call of National Party members to prove that there is a problem rather than preventing the problem is quite bizarre. It is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach. This Government does not believe that that is good enough and is acting responsibly in bringing this matter to the House’s attention. 
The whys and wherefores of the changes made through Supplementary Order Papers have been well rehearsed in the debates on this bill and I do not want to repeat them yet again although I am sure the member Sandra Goudie is dying to have a go. But it has been an astonishing experience for me. I have mentioned in previous speeches my astonishment at the criticism from the Opposition about the select committee process but I think it is a tribute to this Parliament that a bill that had opposition from some quarters and frankly a bit of a hysterical reaction from others has been amended to meet their concerns. I feel proud to be part of a Government that is prepared to listen and take on board public concerns and to work as part of an MMP Parliament to reach a compromise. 
I believe that the bill we have in front of us now is a result of that good process of listening to the concerns of submitters and of collaboration between the parties other than the National Party. I find it really regrettable that some members have impugned the work of the majority of parties in this House in their cooperative efforts to make this bill one that we and the nation can support. We have seen some amazing hissy fits from National Party members. It is the usual populist “engage the mouth before the brain” rubbish that we see day in day out from that party. There is a good saying and I will repeat it for the benefit of National Party members: “If you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything.” and that is what we are seeing from the National Party. 
The final bill is a good compromise between the balancing act that Parliament must strike between the obligations of the State to protect personal information from fraudsters and maintaining freedom of information and public access. It modernises the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act to take account of technological and social developments and provides some protections against fraudsters seeking to obtain personal information for illicit purposes. I am delighted to support this bill in its third reading. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I make it quite clear that National stands for freedom democracy openness and transparency. Openness and transparency is one of the hallmarks of democracy and New Zealand is hailed worldwide as being one of the best examples of openness and transparency. What are we doing with this particular bill? We are in actual fact shutting down that openness and transparency. I call that the death of democracy by a thousand cuts and the population at large sees it unheralded. 
Most of the people who were involved with this Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Billin its original form opposed it— completely opposed it. And there were a number of very excellent reasons why. One of the first reasons was that there was no direct correlation between identity theft and access to the Births Deaths and Marriages register. If members took the time and trouble to read the KPMG report they would see that for themselves. It was never proven that the premise of this bill which is around identity theft was valid. That was found quite clearly during the select committee process and it was clearly enunciated to all the committee members including those of the current Government. 
The Press Council amongst others stated quite clearly that everyone is entitled to privacy of personal space and personal information and that these rights should be respected. However the council also said that the right of privacy should not interfere with publications of matters of public record or of obvious significant public interest. And quite frankly much of the information is on the public record. In actual fact by law records of nuptials are meant to be held in a public way so that everybody is very aware of them. That is what the law requires. So although the bill has been watered down it still means that we will be jumping through hoops to get access to information that is publicly available in a whole lot of other forums and there is absolutely no reason why it should not be available in this forum. 
I could talk about a number of different submissions not the least of which was one by Sir Geoffrey Palmer who had concerns about this bill and rightly so. Those concerns were expressed and seemed to have been ignored. I would like to mention the submission of David Grant chairperson of the Trade Union History Project who also had grave concerns about this bill. In respect of privacy he felt that much of the information was already public and that there was no need to shut that access down or to restrict it in any way—which is clearly being done by this current Government without real justification. 
One of the problems that this Government finally came to recognise but used a sledgehammer to fix was that if one goes to the Births Deaths and Marriages register and asks for some information one can get a copy of an authenticated certificate without any requirement for identification. That is absolutely wrong. It has been practised for many many years and should have been clamped down on long ago. But when this Government tries to do something it does it with a sledgehammer rather than trying to fix it by some other means. One would have to ask what the problem was that the Government was trying to fix. It certainly did not clearly identify that hence the need to go into a negotiation process about what the bill would actually contain. So because the Government did not practise good problem definition in the first instance—and I have to say that most of its legislation bears the hallmark of poor problem definition—the bill is quite convoluted and requires a lot of substantive changes. Those changes still retain the hurdles for access to information for births. One is excluded from having that information unless the birth took place 100 years ago or more and for still births it is 50 years ago or more. Marriages and civil unions must have taken place 80 years ago or more before one can start accessing that information. That still means that one has to jump through hoops to get that information. 
A number of the reasons that were given by many submitters are very very valid. There are moves around the world to free up information following New Zealand’s example but here we are going in the opposite direction. Why is that? It is because this current Government thinks in the words of the Privacy Commissioner that this is “privacy pollution” and that we should not have the ready access that we have had for many many years. That access to the information also means that private investigators banks and genealogists—everybody who has ready access to that information—can actually correct that information. Eighty-six thousand corrections have been made over the years not by the Department of Internal Affairs or registrars-general of Births Deaths and Marriages but by external individuals and agencies having ready access to that information. They should still have access to that information. 
As I said before for the benefit of New Zealand First openness and transparency is one of the hallmarks of democracy and it should be retained and not lost at all costs. This was recognised by the majority of submitters to this bill yet that ready access will now be denied in spite of the changes that have been made to the bill. This is the reason why National continues to oppose this legislation. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and there could have been other ways to fix the problem without going to the extreme of what has been done here. There is already a raft of legal and regulatory measures to protect people’s privacy and we know that the Privacy Commissioner is now looking at all the other registers across Government that contain information and looking at how the Government can shut down people’s access to that information in those registers as well. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer pointed out this particular bill is the tip of the iceberg and it will now roll on to all of those other registers. 
Again I say that openness and transparency is one of the hallmarks of democracy and we should defend that strenuously. Members should not forget that this debating Chamber is a memorial. Our armed forces our Anzacs and the people from our Returned Services Associations fought and died for our freedoms and our democracy. That is what we should be defending in this House right to the bitter end. We should not let that go unrecognised. Of course this is the new battleground. Our democracy and our freedoms are being undermined little by little without the public really being aware of it in a number of pieces of legislation. This is a constant battleground. We have to be aware of those changes and we have to fight to protect our democracy and our freedoms and this is one of those cases. 
David Grant in his Trade Union History Project submission said that there would always be a balance between what is public information and privacy that it is very hard to see how information about the date and place of a birth marriage or death and the full name of that person or persons compromises their privacy and that it is also hard to see how the confirmation or other of parentage could be deemed a privacy matter for those other than a direct relation. Researchers often access information about all sorts of people they are not directly related to. That is one of the essential marks of historians and that is why David as chairperson spoke pretty strongly on behalf of the Trade Union History Project and opposed the changes being mooted by the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. 
The media were very concerned. They felt that this bill was also an attack on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that it breached the freedom of the dissemination of information. Another submitter James McAloon associate professor of history at Lincoln University said the bill failed the test of reasonableness. There was submission after submission that gave a range of valid reasons for opposing this bill. The reasons have been reiterated in this House time and time again by National members but have still been ignored by the rest of the House. 
It is very disappointing that nobody values our democracy and freedom as much as the National Party. We will continue to do that and continue to fight for that in this battleground here in the House. I am very proud to stand here on behalf of the National Party and oppose this legislation. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not think I will take my full 10-minute call because I do not think that will be necessary. The Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill has been well explained to the House. 
I say to the member who has resumed her seat Sandra Goudie that she has just given the impression to anybody who might be listening to this debate that access to the registers through the registrar-general’s office is totally denied. She knows that that is untrue. She has given the impression that there is a steel casket around the information held by the office. That is absolutely untrue and she should have made the true position clear. 
Sandra Goudie knows that the bill came back to the House unchanged. The Government Administration Committee was made up of equal numbers of Labour and National members. New Zealand First had no influence there. But it was amended in this House. She knows that an access register will be set up so that people can go and get information held by the office. Those people’s details will be recorded so that other people can find out who has asked for information concerning themselves. It is quite simple. 
Historians came before us and voiced concerns about the bill as it was presented as did genealogists adoptees and people who represent adoptees. The select committee listened to them. National members ignored them but the Minister took their concerns on board and produced a rather lengthy Supplementary Order Paper. We have debated that in this House and it has in very large measure addressed all of those questions. The historians genealogists adoptees and people who represent adoptees whom I have spoken to are happy in very large measure with the new bill and the access arrangements. 
If members needed anybody to give them an example of why things need to be tightened up they had Sandra Goudie. Sandra Goudie engaged somebody to go and get information from the registrar-general’s office and he or she did that with complete ease. Sandra Goudie illustrated to the select committee that the system needs to be tightened up but now she has stood in the House to oppose the tightening-up that the bill will do. That just does not make sense. National members stand there and say they are all for democracy and all for being caring New Zealanders but they give the opposite impression. 
This bill has been modified extensively by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper since it came back to the House. That has improved it no end and it has made it a very workable bill. 
I want to conclude with one little change which New Zealand First steered through. The National Party would not support us even on this. The word used on copies of death certificates—not on actual death certificates which talk about a burial a cremation or what have you but on copies—is “disposal”. That is insensitive and unacceptable. An elderly lady pointed this out to me. It was unrelated to the bill but it just happened that the bill was at the select committee at that particular time. I raised it at the select committee with the officials. They took it on board as did the Labour Government and it has been corrected in the bill. I think that proves that by listening to New Zealanders members can make minor changes that are of some significance. I am quite delighted by that little change because it shows clearly that some MPs in this House are prepared to listen to ordinary New Zealanders and their concerns. 
I do not think there is much more to say on the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. It is a bill that addresses an issue. It tightens up the births deaths and marriages registers but it does so in an acceptable enlightened manner. Personally I am pleased with the way it has done that. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. I come to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill driven by the principle of whakapapa. I come to this bill with a deeply personal understanding of whakapapa and of what it means for any discussion on births deaths marriages and relationships. My very first utterances in this House in fact traced the journey I know of as defining my whakapapa—a journey that began with Toi Kairakau with Rauru and his son Whatonga carried through to Tahaiti to Uenuku from Uenuku to Ruatapu from Ruatapu to Rakeiora from Rakeiora to Tama ki Te Hau. These are my ancestors. They gave me life and they live in me. So I come to this bill absolutely utterly believing in the importance of whakapapa and the vital need to know who gave me life. 
As tangata whenua we hold in the highest regard the value of whakapapa as the means of defining who Maori are as a people. Whakapapa is the bridge that links us to our ancestors defines our heritage and gives us the stories that define our place in the world. Whakapapa helps us to know who we are from whom we descend and what our obligations are to those who come after us. It tells us who we are. I recall a warning left by John Rangihau in 1987 that cutting children off from their whakapapa had the effect of making “a child of lineage a child who belonged only at sea to be rescued if possible”. He left that legacy to Child Youth and Family Services which never understood the depth of those words in  
Puao-te-ata-tu - Daybreak 
. 
For tangata whenua the vision of our babies adrift at sea with no one able to throw them a lifeline to reclaim their whakapapa and their identity is a haunting one. We believe it to be critical that all children know whom they belong to. Whakapapa is and always has been the basis of Maori culture. The knowledge that a child is Maori that a child has a Maori heritage means that the child is a taonga of his or her whanau hapu and iwi. In turn the whanau hapu and iwi to which the child belongs have an obligation to care for that child as best they can. We believe that every child is determined by those who have come before him or her. Every child is a product of his or her history and whakapapa. Every child deserves to belong: to know and to understand his or her descent and to have a meaningful relationship to it. 
It was of particular interest to me in preparing for this bill to come across a paper published in  
Human Reproduction  
in 2007 entitled “A retrospective study of New Zealand case law involving assisted reproduction technology and the social recognition of ‘new’ family”. The paper contrasts what its writers describe as predominantly “… non-Maori) traditions ofnuclear family formation” which features “less well-known genealogiesand … diverse genetic histories” with “wider extended family formation ( 
whanau 
); extremely well-knowngenealogies ( 
whakapapa 
) with well-established genetic connections;and the well-accepted practice of guardianship ( 
whangai 
)”. The writers suggest that “the letter of the New Zealand law has … remained true to its British antecedentsreflecting a nuclear truncated and highly biologized view offamily according to Pakeha folk understandings ignoring Maoridom’straditionally more open family formations.” They conclude “For Maori this hasbeen a particularly pernicious practice in relation to the lackof recognition of the importance of the concept of  
whangai 
and in cases of adoption and ART”—assisted reproduction technology—”the loss of  
whakapapa 
 whichorders an individual’s relationship with the wider socialmaterial and spiritual world and forms the basis of one’sethnic identity”. 
We hope today that in supporting this bill we will go some way towards addressing the pernicious practices of the past and in doing so will help to heal the wounds that have been created as our people have been cut off and alienated from the very source of their identity as tangata whenua. 
We in the Maori Party along with the Greens and United Future were concerned that the bill in its original form imposed unjustifiable restrictions on New Zealanders’ access to information. We were concerned that by restricting access to records to individuals and immediate family members the legitimate public research carried out by historians genealogists and other researchers would be blocked. We were particularly alarmed at the definition of “immediate family” which sprang from a Eurocentric model. It would have had dramatic and negative repercussions for those researching their whakapapa. Brenda Joyce from the New Zealand Society of Genealogists’ Maori interest group described whakapapa as “a hereditary right guaranteed to Maori by means of Te Tiriti o Waitangi”. She described birth death and marriage certificates as often providing the link that starts people on the journey back to their marae. If those links are broken tangata whenua will be critically handicapped in researching their whakapapa and supporting Treaty claims. Mrs Amer of the New Zealand Society of Genealogists also made a very good point: that the information contained in birth death and marriage registers as well as illuminating personal family history can lead to a wider appreciation of history in general. 
In the light of those submissions and others the Government Administration Committee reported that “Many submitters opposed the bill’s intention to restrict registered information to only the individual concerned [and] their immediate family”. It recommended that the bill “retain general public access to the registered information” which is a move we support. We believe that every child has the right to know who has given them the sacred gift of life. The right to know one’s parents is a right that has been far too frequently denied and we do not believe it is in the interests of our people to sit silent on such a critical issue as identity. 
We do however have considerable feeling around the need to protect women and children from the shame and trauma that come with the consequence of rape or incest. Where the child is a result of such an act there should be other legislative protections in place that prevent them from suffering any further trauma. We also acknowledge that a change to require all parents to be named on birth certificates may require other amendments to ensure children are safe and properly provided for. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.