Volume 648 Week 80 - Tuesday 22 July 2008 
Volume 648 Week 80 - Tuesday 22 July 2008 
[Volume:648;Page:17231] 
Tuesday 22 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
New Zealand Police—Death of Sergeant Derek Wootton 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I move  
That this House mourn the loss of Porirua Police Sergeant Derek Wootton while on duty on 11 July 2008; place on record its gratitude for the sacrifices New Zealand Police staff make willingly on behalf of New Zealand citizens every day in the course of their work; and convey its deep sympathy to Sergeant Derek Wootton’s family friends and colleagues. 
Motion agreed to. 
Visitors 
European Parliament—Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Delegation for Relations with Australia and New Zealand from the European Parliament led by Mr David Martin is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed. 
Points of Order 
Privilege—Freedom of Speech 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This relates to a decision of yours on 3 July where you ruled that there was a general question of privilege relating to the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech by my colleague Heather Roy. Six days later Justice Simon France published his determination on the suppression order where he found at paragraph 27 the following: “the Judge who is said to have made the suppression order says he didn’t; the actual text of the suppression ruling does not contain any such suppression. … There is no order suppressing Mr Barclay’s involvement in the Witness Protection Programme.” Therefore the complaint that Mr Parker made was factually incorrect and the basis on which you sent this matter to the Privileges Committee was legally and factually incorrect. There was no suppression order. Heather Roy was entitled to say exactly what she said in Parliament; in fact she is entitled to say it on the steps of Parliament. I ask you to consider this matter because some very serious allegations were made against my colleague Heather Roy. She now finds herself with an issue before the Privileges Committee when the judge himself has said that there was no suppression order relating to what my colleague Heather Roy said. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 My understanding of your ruling Madam Speaker was that there was no breach of privilege by Heather Roy because we have absolute privilege in this House but none the less the question of the wisdom of people abusing that privilege and naming people when they ought not to be named was something that did need to be considered in a general sense by the Privileges Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 A matter still remains for the Minister of State Services. He said to the House in answer to a question that he could not answer Heather Roy’s questions and he accused her of breaching suppression orders when that was factually incorrect. Furthermore he laid a complaint with the Privileges Committee. I think the honourable thing for the Minister of State Services to do is to apologise to Heather Roy because Justice France has said that the Minister was incorrect and also to withdraw his privilege complaint because he said that Heather Roy had shown “disgraceful conduct bringing the House into disrepute”. Heather Roy did no such thing as has been reinforced by Justice France’s decision where he refused to make any change to the suppression orders because nothing that was said by Heather Roy or others could be prevented. 
Rodney Hide 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No Mr Hide you have had your say and I think we have understood your point quite clearly thank you. And it is probably questionable whether the matter is a question of order but I was quite happy to hear you explain it. I reiterate that the matter of Heather Roy’s raising the matter was not sent to the Privileges Committee. That was quite clear. I made it quite clear at the time. Mr Hide you questioned me to make sure that you had understood it and you said it was clear. Nothing has changed between now and then. However the general issue has been raised from time to time and it seemed appropriate that there was some clarification of the general issue between this House and the courts. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If it is a different point of order that is fine. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Just to be clear now that means that a member could raise a matter of privilege about a specific case—say someone not correctly declaring his or her pecuniary interests—and although the specific case might not be referred to the Privileges Committee the fact that the issue has been raised once or twice before might mean that the matter generally is sent to the Privileges Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is talking to the same point of order. Please be seated. 
Questions to Ministers 
Accident Compensation—Levy 
1. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What reports has she received on changes to ACC levy rates? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for ACC 
: I have seen reports that under the current system levy rates are “rising rapidly” and “going through the roof” and that “Levy rates are now substantially lower …”. I have also seen reports that under an alternative scenario of privatisation “I think premiums will go down.” “I’m not convinced there’ll be a huge reduction in levies.” and “Some are currently paying too little.” All of these reports come from Mr John Key. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has he seen any other reports concerning ongoing commitments to keeping accident compensation as a 24-hour no-faults scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report that describes the principles developed at great length by the Woodhouse commission and accepted over many many years on which this accident compensation system is founded as “Yeah no-fault 24-hour no-fault blah blah blah.” This statement made by Mr Key on radio was further followed by a statement that privatising accident compensation if a National Government were elected was—and this is a real beauty when we get to the substance of it—“almost certainly likely”. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any reports from experts welcoming the privatisation of accident compensation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No after an extensive search we have not. We have seen a number of reports from experts opposing the privatisation of accident compensation; for example Mr Don Rennie on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society pointing out that the insurance industry will want to have a slice of the pie so that it can make a profit. A compensation lawyer said there will be hundreds of thousands of demarcation disputes coming out. The physiotherapists were very strongly opposing it given their previous experience of the failed privatisation of accident compensation. Clearly given this policy and the opposition from all those who know something about the system there is an even greater need for National members to come clean about who made what donations to them at the last election. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is not a State-owned enterprise and has he seen reports that a future Government no matter how far in the future would not sell State-owned enterprises; if so do those reports mean that it is possible that that future Government could sell assets that are not State-owned enterprises including ACC TVNZ Air New Zealand the roads the schools and the hospitals of New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is absolutely correct. But even if it were members need to remind themselves that we have heard this all before. In a written question in 1993 in a response to that the Rt Hon Bill Birch said that it was not Government policy to privatise accident compensation. That seems very strange because when the Labour Government came into office it had to undo privatisation of accident compensation. 
Foreign Affairs Minister—Confidence 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Foreign Affairs; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: Is it acceptable for a member of her executive to accept a $100000 gift and then fail to declare that gift both to the registrar of pecuniary interests and to her as Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member knows Mr Peters has said he was not aware of who contributed to the fund for his legal fighting costs just as I note that Nick Smith has not disclosed who contributes to his. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the report on Fairfax’s Stuff website today which says that the Leader of the Opposition Mr Key would not rule out dealing with the New Zealand First leader after the election; if so what does she make of a party that calls for the resignation of Mr Peters from this Government but says it would have him in its Government? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I just remind the Prime Minister that she is not responsible for the decisions of another party but she may address the question as long as she does not address the other parties’ attitude on it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I note that Mr Peters’ behaviour seems in Mr Key’s mind to raise an issue of integrity when Mr Peters is working with a Labour Government but apparently it would not disqualify him from being on Mr Key’s team. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister being referred to in the principal question is the same Minister of Foreign Affairs who has worked hard to improve our relationship with the USA so much so that its Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has accepted a personal invitation from the Minister to visit New Zealand and has also accepted his invitation that she return home via Samoa in order to meet with Pacific Foreign Ministers; and is that the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is being referred to? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes it is. I know that Mr Peters has formed a strong working relationship with the United States Secretary of State and further that he has been working for some time to ensure that he could facilitate a meeting with her and other Pacific Foreign Ministers. That meeting of course will take place next Sunday in Samoa. 
John Key 
: Will the Prime Minister be giving Winston Peters her express permission as required by paragraph 2.79 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 to retain the $100000 he received from Owen Glenn; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would need to take advice on what the issue is where a donation has been made anonymously and then is later declared publicly because Mr Peters’ lawyer has advised him of the facts. I would note that the word of an honourable member is always accepted in this House. Further Mr Peters’ lawyer Mr Henry has entirely backed what Mr Peters has said. Mr Henry of course has professional obligations to the Law Society. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During the Prime Minister’s answer Mr David Carter said: “Oh but you are talking about Winston Peters.” He implied to the House that Mr Peters is not an honourable man and that his word should not be taken. That is the implication that Mr Carter gave the House and I ask you Madam Speaker to rule on whether he was out of order in making such an interjection and such an implication. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the interjection but I think it is useful at this stage to remind members that interjections will always occasion a response and that that response is likely to lead to disorder. If that disorder continued I might have to rule that the member withdraw from the House. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that in 2007 the Minister of Foreign Affairs brokered a deal with the Minister of Finance to boost New Zealand’s level of overseas aid by $70 million—an increase of over 20 percent and the biggest such increase in decades—and is that not the Foreign Minister that she continues to have total confidence in? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I can confirm that Mr Peters has been a very successful advocate for the foreign affairs portfolio and that has included advocating successfully for quantum leaps in the amount of support that New Zealand gives to developing countries. He has ensured that significant increases have been going to the South Pacific. From the outset of his term as the Minister of Foreign Affairs he has expressed his strong desire to see New Zealand do more to help lift its neighbours from poverty. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister saying that the various Ministers she has sacked previously were not doing a good job in their portfolios and is the test now whether they have done a bad job in their portfolios not whether they have necessarily done something wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As Prime Minister I must make judgments on all sorts of things based on the evidence. What I see at the moment is a range of allegations all of which have processes that they could be pursued through. I see for example that Mr Hide is pursing a parliamentary privileges route. People can pursue other routes through the pecuniary interests registrar or the Auditor-General. Those routes should be followed and people should get some substance behind allegations if they want to take them further. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that this year the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced the Pacific Development Strategy which will deliver $2 billion in aid over 8 years allowing New Zealand to make a sustainable impact on improving health and education in the Pacific addressing infrastructure gaps promoting economic growth and improving governance and leadership? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can confirm that and I repeat that Mr Peters has been particularly passionate about ensuring that New Zealand pulls its full weight in lifting living standards and the ability to develop among our South Pacific neighbours. 
John Key 
: When will the Prime Minister decide whether Mr Peters can keep the $100000 he received from Owen Glenn given that it is the Prime Minister’s prerogative to decide whether a sum in excess of $500 is a gift? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I said earlier to the member that I would take advice on what the situation is in respect of a donation to a legal fighting fund that was previously anonymous but is now public. But I caution the member from going down that line because I am well aware that Mr Nick Smith is seeking considerable money for legal costs. He said in March that his legal bills had reached $300000. I looked at Nick Smith’s return to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament and I saw no declaration of either debts or gifts. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was last year afforded an invitation to visit North Korea; that later that year he visited that country to explain our longstanding wish to see denuclearisation peace and security on the Korean peninsula and to convey our strong support for the six-party talks process; and that at the conclusion of that visit he travelled to the United States for talks with the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at her request? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I can confirm that Mr Peters has been particularly active on the issue of denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. He was invited by the Secretary of State I understand to take part in talks that went beyond just the involvement of the six parties in the six-party talks. I believe that on behalf of New Zealand he has played a constructive role in this issue. It has to be remembered that New Zealand can speak on nuclear disarmament issues with a credibility that I suggest no other country has. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that New Zealanders who heard Mr Peters categorically deny receiving any money from Mr Glenn are now entitled to feel in light of recent disclosures they were totally misled by him; if so has she required Mr Peters to apologise to the public? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: From particularly the time two Saturdays ago when emails emerged that suggested that a donation had been made by Mr Glenn to Mr Peters Mr Peters was adamant that no donation had been made to him personally or to the party and I accepted his word as an honourable member. He then on Friday was informed by his lawyer that there was a third avenue for donation and that was to a legal fighting fund. On receiving that information—and Mr Peters’ lawyer who I point out has professional obligations to his society absolutely backs this up—Mr Peters immediately issued a press statement clarifying the matter. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister of Foreign Affairs this year brokered a deal with the Minister of Finance to boost the operating funding of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade by $523 million and to provide a capital injection of $98 million over 5 years which will allow an increase in ministry staff of around 50 percent? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said earlier Mr Peters has been a very successful advocate for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—a ministry I might say whose capability was very much run down under the previous Government. It is a ministry whose capability has been rebuilt by the Labour-led Government; I am happy to say that that has continued with bells on under Mr Peters as Foreign Minister. 
John Key 
: When Mr Peters rang the Prime Minister on Friday to tell her that indeed he had received a donation and that he had been advised of that by his lawyer Mr Henry did the Prime Minister ask Mr Peters the obvious question which was whether he had asked Mr Henry why he had not informed him that he had received a donation when in February he had conducted a press conference that was intended to lead every New Zealander to believe that he had not received a donation; or is the test that his lawyer will tell him things—or indeed Mr Peters will say things—only when they are in the public domain in an email and he can no longer reconcile those two statements? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: When Mr Peters phoned me on Friday night he informed me of the situation. I accepted his word. I also offered him my condolences on the death of his mother which had occurred earlier that day. I have since seen a statement by Mr Henry Mr Peters’ lawyer that says that the way that he handled donations in support of the electoral petition was exactly the same way that he handled donations for the National Party when Mr Wyatt Creech took a petition. I repeat Mr Henry’s exact words: “I was taught the way I am doing it by the National Party in 1987.” 
Dail Jones 
: Has she received any recent reports from the media from officials from other nations or from Opposition political parties that suggest in any way that the Rt Hon Winston Peters is performing poorly in his duties as our Minister of Foreign Affairs—or in any of his other portfolios for that matter?  
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As Prime Minister and as someone who has a very longstanding interest in foreign affairs matters I follow with great interest what our Minister of Foreign Affairs does on behalf of New Zealand and I can say that I see very substantial reports about the work that he is doing and I am entirely satisfied with that work. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs was involved in negotiating the very substantial tax breaks that this Government has delivered to the racing industry; if so in those negotiations did he declare the very substantial donations that New Zealand First had received from the racing industry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The matters the member refers to are of course deduced from the front page of the  
Dominion Post  
this morning and I note that New Zealand First has issued a press statement that describes the article as “a smear campaign of unsubstantiated allegations.” I would further note that on racing matters the National Party in its 2005 election policy announced very big tax breaks for the racing industry and I challenge the National Party and Mr Key as its chief fund-raiser to say how much they received from racing interests. 
John Key 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm media reports that she and her Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters had discussed the appointment of Monaco-based billionaire businessman Owen Glenn to the role of honorary consul in Monaco; if so when? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have made it clear in the past when this issue has arisen that I was aware of Mr Peters’ consideration of that matter. I have also seen Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade briefing papers on it. There is nothing secret about it. 
Peter Brown 
: With such achievements as outlined by my colleagues can she now understand why National is so keen to have the Rt Hon Winston Peters as the Minister of Foreign Affairs should it regain the Treasury benches? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think it is summed up in a very few words: desperation for power. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by the statement she made this morning when she said in relation to Mr Peters: “Until I think it’s seriously affecting the job he is doing … I don’t have a concern.”; if so can the Prime Minister confirm that the new standard and test for her Ministers is whether she thinks something is seriously affecting their job not whether they might have done something wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have consistently said that what is in the public arena is allegations. If the member can substantiate the allegations let him do so. But I have a duty to be fair to people and not just to follow a bandwagon generated by the Opposition. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the allegations in this morning’s  
Dominion Post  
that in addition to the $100000 cash that Mr Peters received from Mr Glenn it is now rumoured that $150000 was received from the Vela family by Mr Peters or his party and that some of those funds did not find their way into his party’s bank account; if so what steps will she take to protect the integrity of her administration against serious allegations of this nature? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am tempted to suggest that that amount of money might be considered petty cash in comparison with donations the National Party may have received in the past from the racing industry and the insurance industry and the booze industry and the tobacco industry. I do not expect a party leader to know the details of anonymous donors but perhaps Mr Key is operating a different standard. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that the funding scandal now enveloping the Minister of Foreign Affairs shows once again that we need to get rid of the anonymous donations regime so that voters can see who is funding whom and who is getting what? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see New Zealand develop a system like that prevailing in many Western democracies where there is transparent public funding and it is not possible for there to be major corporate and personal donations. I hear the Opposition chirping “Why didn’t you do it?”. Opposition members have never backed such a system because they are the main bagmen for the big corporate donations. 
John Key 
: Why is the Prime Minister continuing to follow in the House this afternoon the same strategy that she has followed ever since these allegations against Mr Peters emerged which is that instead of actually trying to find and provide answers to serious allegations levelled against a member of her executive she seems to be claiming that everybody else can go and make inquiries—from the police to the Auditor-General—as long as she does not have to pull the trigger in asking them to do so? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have made the point before in this House and to the media that I do not run a private police force. If I did there would be many interesting angles that I could follow up in respect of National Party members’ activities. 
John Key 
: When the Prime Minister leading the Labour Party along with Winston Peters leading New Zealand First passed the Electoral Finance Act in a bid to provide transparency for big money in politics did she expect that one day she would be standing in the House defending Mr Peters who seems to have received $100000 but did not want to tell anyone about it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think that that is a bit rich coming from a party that has had many millions of dollars of anonymous donations. We now have not only a book called  
The Hollow Men 
 but also a film called  
The Hollow Men 
 and they clearly finger Mr Key as the main gatherer of anonymous donations when he knows full well where that money comes from. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the Prime Minister seriously telling us that in her Government it is OK for a Minister to have a legal bill paid to the tune of $100000 and to have the Minister not tell her as long as he does not know who paid the bill; for that same Minister to consider granting a Government favour to the person who paid that $100000 even though he did not know who paid it; for that Minister then to attack an article as malicious liars and to demand the resignation of the editor of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and its political editor; for it then to become— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders require that at question time questions be asked not statements or speeches made. Would the member please just ask his question. 
Rodney Hide 
: It is a question Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please just ask his question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is all of that fact and is that the standard she has for her Government and for the Ministers of New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It would seem obvious to me that if a— 
Judith Collins 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Does Miss Collins have something to say? [ 
Interruption 
] Down down! The member still thinks she is at the Casino Control Authority. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You pulled me up during my one supplementary question to say I had to ask a question. If that is the case why do you not pull up the Prime Minister and say that she has to answer that question? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: When a small animal is unwise enough to try to interrupt a large animal the small animal must expect some response. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that was a helpful contribution. [ 
Interruption 
] Which members would like to remain in the House? I am on my feet; there is to be silence. I listened very carefully both to the question and to the answer. The question was addressed by the Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would like to address Mr Hide’s question which was asked in good faith. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: By all means. You may add to your answer. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My response to Mr Hide is that I have accepted Mr Peters’ word that he did not know that that donation had been made to his lawyer’s fund. Therefore it stands to reason—in respect of the question that Mr Hide has asked me—that if Mr Peters did not know that that donation had been given he could not have done a favour in return for it. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Various allegations have been made this afternoon as if the National Party and probably the ACT party know differently from what we in New Zealand First know which is that Mr Peters did not know what he has told everybody he did not know. On behalf of Mr Peters I would like to say to the National Party what it once extended to him: put up or shut up! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order; it was a statement. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Prime Minister clarify this matter for the House: did the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell her that he did not know about the donation or that he did not know who had made the donation; could she please be clear because those two points are quite different? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On Friday night Mr Peters phoned me to say that his lawyer had been in touch with him to say that Mr Glenn had made a donation to the legal expenses. End of story. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Speakers’ rulings state that questions must be addressed. I specifically asked the Prime Minister to inform the House of exactly what Mr Peters had said in terms of whether he knew about the donation as distinct from knowing about who had made the donation. I put it to you that based on Speakers’ rulings the question was not addressed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think it was because the Prime Minister clearly stated what she had been told. She cannot answer what she was not asked. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister have any concerns that her Minister of Foreign Affairs a Minister charged with representing New Zealand’s best interests off these shores and presumably a Minister who should have his wits about him at all times apparently did not notice for nearly 6 months a $100000 credit on his invoice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously I cannot be expected to take any responsibility for the way in which Mr Henry bills Mr Peters or anybody else. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That answer was an obfuscation of the question not an answer. The Prime Minister was asked whether she was concerned that a Minister of such stature in her Government—and we have heard today from the Prime Minister what a wonderful job this man does and how crucial he is to her Government—apparently had not noticed for 6 months that a very very large bill had a $100000 credit against it? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member well knows specific answers cannot be required. All that Ministers are required to do is address the question. That answer was addressing the question. 
Maori Language Strategy—Resources and Priorities 
3.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Kei te whakaae ia ki te korero a te Tumuaki o Te Mana Arotake e mea ana ko nga painga kua puta i te Rautaki Reo Maori kua pangia e te kore rauemi mo nga tikanga whakahaere me tona whakatinanatanga tae atu ki nga whainga matua e taupatupatungia ana a ka pehea e taea ai e te Arotake o te tau 2008-09 te whakatika tenei? 
[ 
Does he agree with the Controller and Auditor-General that the success of the Maori Language Strategy has been affected by the lack of designated resources for planning and implementation and by conflicting priorities; and how will the 2008-09 review address this? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Ki oku whakaaro kua tino angitu pai rawa atu te Rautaki Reo Maori i nga tau tata ki muri nei ahakoa te pono me te haurite a te purongo Arotake Mahinga i taua wa kua ahu whakamua ke nga mahinga. I consider that the Maori Language Strategy has been very successful over the last few years and that although the performance audit provided a fair and balanced view of the implementation at the time—2007—work has progressed since then. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha tana ki te whakaaro ko te kaupapa nui e aukati ana i te tutukinga o te Rautaki Reo Maori ko te noho mana kore o Te Puni Kokiri ki te whakahau i era atu ropu kawanatanga ki te whakatinana i taua rautaki? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What response will he make to the finding that one of the key issues confronting the success of the Maori Language Strategy is the lack of powers on the part of Te Puni Kokiri to compel the lead agencies to implement the strategy? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Ahakoa te puta pera e puta ana nga korero penei tonu mo Te Puni Kokiri: nga whakaritenga me nga tautoko kua tukuna atu ki nga tari kua hangai ai ake he ngawari ake te tirohanga a Te Puni Kokiri me pewhea a Te Puni Kokiri te whakatutuki i nga here rautaki whakamahere. Along with that the audit also said the coordination and support offered to agencies is now better targeted. Te Puni Kokiri has a more flexible approach to how each agency can meet the strategy planning requirements. 
Dave Hereora 
: He aha nga mahinga a tenei Kawanatanga Reipa ara hei tautoko i te reo Maori? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What has this Labour-led Government done to support the Maori language? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: He nui rawa atu nga haumitanga tautoko a tenei Kawanatanga e whai ake nei etahi: te whakatutanga i te Ratonga Pouaka Whakaata Reo Maori te whakapikinga i te putea mo nga reo irirangi Maori te whakaurunga i te reo Maori ki roto i te marautanga me te whakamanutanga o Ka Hikitia me tona arotahi ki te ako i te reo Maori te tautoko kia haere tonu nga hotaka ake pera i a Ma te Reo. This Labour-led Government has invested significantly in supporting the Maori language including establishing the Maori Television Service; providing increased funding for Maori iwi radio stations; including Maori in the core curriculum; releasing Ka Hikitia which has a particular focus on Maori language education; and continuing other programmes such as Ma Te Reo. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora ra. Kei te whakaae ia kei te whakapa te reo Maori ki te whakaaetanga a te Karauna ki nga rangatira ki nga hapu te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou taonga katoa i raro i te Tiriti o Waitangi na he aha tana ki te whakaaro he kore mana to te Tiriti mena kaore a Te Puni Kokiri a tari kawanatanga ke ranei i whakarite i tetahi huarahi whakamua ki te whakatutuki i nga here o te Rautaki Reo Maori i mua i te 30 o Pipiri 2004 te ra i whakatauria e te Runanga o Te Kawanatanga? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Does he agree that the Treaty obligation of the Crown to guarantee to Maori the undisturbed possession of their taonga includes their language; and what can he conclude about the status of the Treaty when no agency including Te Puni Kokiri had completed and finalised a plan that fully met the requirements of the Maori Language Strategy by the 30 June 2004 deadline set by Cabinet? 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Tautoko ana nga korero i puta a-waha a tera tangata o Te Ropu Maori mo te pai haere te hopu a nga iwi katoa mo to ratou reo me to ratou mita. E tuku ake ano tenei kawanatanga i te nui o nga putea a muri a tera mahi a Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori raua ko Te Mangai Paho e mau pai mo tatou o te kawanatanga me ratou o te iwi. I certainly agree with those issues brought up by that member which are relevant but certainly this Government has been committed to progressing the Maori Language Strategy along with those two agencies that work between the Government and the iwi: Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori and Te Mangai Paho. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha ta te Arotake o te tau 2008 e pa ana ki te whakatinanatanga o te Rautaki Reo Maori mai i tona timatanga ki naianei a he aha te take o te arotake nei mena e ai ki ta te Auditor General “ko nga mahi i oti i Te Puni Kokiri ki tenei wa ehara i te arotaketanga tika mo te totika o nga mahi whakatairanga reo Maori a nga pokapu Kawanatanga.”?  
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
What has the 2008 review concluded about the effectiveness of the implementation of the Maori Language Strategy to date and what confidence can New Zealanders have in this review knowing that the Auditor General identified and I quote: “the activities carried out so far by TPK do not constitute systematic evaluations of the effectiveness of the Maori language activities carried out by the government agencies.”? 
]  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Kei te tu tonu te kaha o te reo mo tatou katoa mai i Aotearoa. 
[ 
The language continues to be strong for all of us from New Zealand. 
] 
Ko tenei ano te Wiki o Te Reo Maori Madam Speaker Te Kaiwhakahaere. Ko te whakamanutanga o te Taura Whiri i te I-Papakupu te tuhinga ipurangi o te Papakupu Reo Maori reo kotahi. I tae tahi tatou inapo tata nei ki te timata ake ano tera ahua.Hei apopo i te rohe o te tangata ra ka rere te Google Reo Maori. He papakupu rorohiko kore utu tenei e rua tekau ma rima mano nga tuhinga kei roto i te reo Maori. 
I have much to say in celebrating that this is Maori Language Week. Some excellent things are being supported by this Government by iwi and by corporates such as Air New Zealand. Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori last night launched I-Papakupu the Internet version of the monolingual Maori language dictionary. This is a free electronic dictionary that has 25000 entries completely described in the Maori language. Tomorrow in Rotorua Google Maori will go live. This is an exciting initiative that provides Maori language to all people in this great nation and in all corners of the world. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He rawe te korero engari kare i hangai ki te kaupapa ki te patai. Ko taku patai ke kei wahi ke ko te whakautu kei wahi ke. Ko taku mau ia e korero kia hoki mai ki te patai. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Although that was a wonderful speech it was not relevant to the topic and question. My question was in another direction and so was the response. Madam Speaker I would like you to ask him to answer the question. 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to say anything more that relates to the Auditor-General’s report which I think is what the member was talking about? No the Minister does not wish to add anything further. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Koinei te tikanga o te patai ko te ripoata o te Auditor General. Kare ano a ia kia whakahoki i te patai kei te inoi atu mau ia e korero. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The gist of my question referred to the Auditor-General’s report. The Minister has not answered the question. Madam Speaker I seek leave for you to ask him to answer it. 
] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: E tuku ake ano taku whakahoki ki te tangata ra mai i te patai tuatahi. I responded to the member’s first question and he heard the response. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Ko taku patai tuatahi te patai tuatahi ko te patai tuatoru te patai tuatoru. Kei te hoki ano ki taua korero ra ki te Minita kia whakahoki mai i te korero mo te patai katahi ano au ka patai. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
My first question and my third question were different. I go back to what I stated previously: I would like the Minister to respond to the question that I have just asked. 
]  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could the Minister respond in terms of the Auditor-General and perhaps just expand on the first answer that was given. The Minister was perfectly in order to refer to the answer to the earlier question. However for the information of the House it would be useful if he perhaps repeated it. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: E puta ana te reo te korero i roto i te ripoata kei te ora te reo. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The language is out and according to the report it is alive. 
]  
Budget 2009—Operating and Capital Spending Allowances 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is Treasury’s best estimate of how much of the operating and capital spending allowances for Budget 2009 have already been committed or allocated? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I welcome the National Party’s first question on the Budget which was delivered 2 months ago today. However the answer to the member’s question is contained already in the Budget documentation at pages 125 to 126 of B2 and B3 plus in addition $750 million pre-committed for health. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that in papers prepared for the Budget he has received advice from Treasury that $1.2 billion of the $1.75 billion operating allowance for next year’s Budget is either pre-committed or is spending that it says would be difficult to scale down and is this advice correct? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is the advice from Treasury and I commend it to the member to think about very carefully. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has he seen any reports on the impact of changing economic conditions on spending or revenue reduction commitments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have seen a report indicating that neither changing economic conditions nor fiscal imperatives should make any difference to plans for major reductions in Government revenue. That came from Mr Key which perhaps explains why he does not want to hear Mr English’s questions. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the Minister himself take Treasury advice into account that most of next year’s spending allocation was already committed when he sent out the Associate Minister of Finance Trevor Mallard to talk about moving progressively towards a universal student allowance rather than directly to one when the full cost of that move is $728 million per year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member needs to check that figure of $728 million per year and in any case Labour—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is $728 million over the 4-year forecast period so again it has taken 2 months for the member to get a figure fairly substantially incorrect. But further than that progressive movement towards a universal allowance I think has been Labour policy for at least the last three manifestos which is why we have lifted the eligibility— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: 9 years. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member might explain his own lawyer’s trust account at this point perhaps. This is why we have lifted the parental spending limit very substantially while we have been in office and increased the proportion of people eligible for a student allowance who meet the other criteria. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did the Minister take into account Treasury advice when his Associate Minister said: “There is … a possibility of assembling locomotives in New Zealand … It’s probably a very logical thing to do from a currency perspective from a value for money perspective.” and no doubt from an electoral perspective for that member and is any funding for Trevor Mallard’s sheltered railway workshop policy included in the $1.75 billion allowance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I love it when the National Party really lets its trousers down and lets its prejudices show completely to the public. Mr English assumes that New Zealand workers cannot assemble railway locomotives efficiently yet they can be quite efficient dairy farmers and quite efficient at all kinds of things. Indeed $200000 has been set aside on the recommendation of those with knowledge of the system to look at whether it is feasible to assemble locos in this country because they are very large things to import fully built up. That member has no faith in New Zealand workers; I do have faith in New Zealand workers. That explains why National wants to flog everything off to foreigners to own and to run. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister understand why the public has no faith in him when alongside the pledge to begin manufacturing locomotives in New Zealand the Government is also talking about a universal student allowance and has to find $200 million next year to honour its agreements made in the teachers’ pay round when it appears that even Treasury is telling it that there is only about $300 million of money to be spent next year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Money for the teachers’ pay round is in the Budget already. You see the problem with National Party members coming to the House with a great stream of pre-prepared pre-written and pre-typed questions is that they never listen to the answers. Mr English talks about the pledge to build locomotives when in fact what is being investigated is the feasibility of assembling locomotives. Mr English does not know the difference between building a locomotive and assembling one. That explains why those members do not know the difference between privatisation and keeping ownership in New Zealand hands. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that because he has left unallocated spending of a fraction of what Labour is used to spending each year we are going to see over the next 3 months a parade of 10-year plans aspirational objectives and current expenditure cooked up as capital expenditure so that Labour can promise to spend an awful lot of money and pretend to keep inside its Budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What we will see is a parade of massive subterranean spending promises like “We will borrow whatever is required to pay for all of local government’s infrastructure needs.” and a massive tax cut programme that cannot be funded except by borrowing and it will be called the National Party manifesto. We like the National Party releasing policy because with every policy it releases the gap between National and Labour goes down by 1 percent. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Success 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received about the success of the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 One year on from the launch of 20 free hours’ early childhood education for all 3 and 4-year-olds there has been a dramatic increase in enrolments from 65000 to 85000. This policy was condemned by the National Party when 20 free hours was introduced by Labour. The then National Party spokesperson said that we would never reach the level of enrolment we have today. National got it wrong again. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other reports has he seen about the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen a report slipped out with no fanfare in the middle of the last parliamentary adjournment where National’s spokesperson on early childhood education Paula Bennett reversed 18 months of sour criticism of free early childhood education and now says that National will offer the same policy as well. Of course as always National qualifies its support for one of our popular policies by withdrawing the word “free” from its policy. The only message that parents and the public can draw is that National has no intention of continuing free 20 hours’ early childhood education for all 3 and 4-year-olds. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister of Corrections): 
 In general yes; because in the last 10 years serious assaults on staff have fallen by 90 percent the escape rate has fallen by 78 percent positive random drug tests have fallen from 30 percent in 1998 to 14 percent and more prisoners are employed in work or training. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that last June the former Minister announced that the use of waist restraints would be the default for prisoners being transported following the death of Liam Ashley at the hands of George Baker in the back of a prison van in 2006; if so why was a waist restraint not applied to Baker while he was being transported recently when he was reportedly able to stab a guard with a makeshift knife and when he was the very offender that caused the restraints to be introduced in the first place? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Waist restraints have been implemented in all New Zealand prisons since May. Prisoner Baker was returning from hospital following treatment for a serious arm injury. He could not wear a waist restraint because it required both wrists to be handcuffed. A doctor recommended that he be exempt from using a waist restraint for medical reasons. Staff used standard policy in handcuffing Baker to an officer in the prison van for the return journey. Three other officers were involved in the escort of Baker and Baker was the only prisoner in the van. There are three exemptions to the waist restraint: if a person is pregnant if a person has a medical exemption or if a person is the only prisoner in the compartment. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister stand by the statement of the former Minister who did not tender his resignation over Liam Ashley’s death because: “I have a clear responsibility to oversee changes to the Correction’s system to prevent such a tragedy from occurring ever again in the future.”; and how does Labour’s standard of ministerial responsibility stack up now that waist restraints have been introduced but failed to be used properly including on at least six occasions when inmates have slipped out of them in transit? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In the case that the member has raised today—that of prisoner Baker—the procedures which provide for a medical exemption and for him to be the only prisoner in the van were correctly followed as I have outlined them. So the proper procedures were carried out. In relation to waist restraints and prisoners slipping out of them six occasions out of 20000 prisoner movements have occurred when prisoners have slipped out of their restraints. These instances were caused by incorrect application of the restraint on the prisoners not on any failure of the equipment. Those staff required further training and that has been carried out. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Minister’s department’s failure to make proper use of waist restraints not just another example of the poor culture that exists in Corrections regarding prisoner transportation—beginning with these documents a year before Liam Ashley’s death which show that the department was warned three times about issues like a prisoner’s inability to communicate with staff in vans in a medical emergency or assault but on that occasion those concerns went unanswered? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No. In fact two important points that I made in my primary answer were that serious assaults on staff have fallen by 90 percent and the escape rate has fallen by 78 percent. Rather than saying that the Department of Corrections has deteriorated its staff are making great efforts to improve their performance. I commend them for that but there always needs to be improvement in operations. But let us never forget that these officers deal with the most unpleasant people in our society who are by their very nature—because they are in prison—people who we would regard as difficult problems and as being dangerous. 
Simon Power 
: Why should the public have confidence in the Minister’s department when it lost a 30-page file containing details of high-risk inmates on an Auckland street and no one noticed it was missing until the media got hold of it; and can he confirm reports that six of those offenders are now claiming compensation for “distress and humiliation” adding to the $118000 that has already been paid out under Labour’s law that was supposed to stop those payouts? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Clearly the loss of documents is not acceptable and the department is taking steps to deal with it. 
Citizens Initiated Referenda—Organisation 
7.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What advice has she received about holding a citizens initiated referendum alongside a general election? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have received advice from the Chief Electoral Officer that holding a citizens initiated referendum alongside a general election would cause significant problems. The referendum held at the same time as the 1999 general election caused voter confusion congestion in polling places and significantly delayed the preliminary results. His advice to me was to hold a postal ballot should a referendum be required. At this stage no petition has been certified as reaching the standard to trigger such a referendum. 
Judy Turner 
: Can we take from that answer that the Government is ruling out holding a citizens initiated referendum on election day later this year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Government has taken the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer not to hold a citizens initiated referendum alongside a general election. If there was a need for one—and we have no decision as to whether we need one—it would done by postal ballot. 
Louisa Wall 
: Tena koutou katoa. What led to the introduction of the option to hold referenda by postal ballot? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000 was enacted to provide a simple and cost-effective alternative to holding referenda at the ballot box. This legislation was introduced by a National Government in October 1999 and it was dealt with in a bipartisan manner. The processes in the legislation are modelled on the successful referendum on compulsory superannuation which was held by post in 1997. The experience of the 1997 referendum was that voters found the process simple and that there was a high rate of participation with an 80.3 percent turn-out. 
Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
8.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does he agree with the failures identified by Kristy McDonald QC in the report he released on 9 July 2008? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 No but I agree that failures occurred as identified by Kristy McDonald QC. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should New Zealanders have confidence in the Government’s State services when one of those services placed a dangerous criminal on parole in Nelson just 6 months after he had been sentenced to 2½ years imprisonment when he seriously reoffended just 8 days after being placed in Nelson under the witness protection programme—and neither the Department of Corrections nor the police took any action—and when he offended again just a week after appearing before the court but the Department of Corrections and the police did not advise the judge that he was the same offender and was on parole so he was able to go on and kill 20-year-old Debbie Ashton; and does this ministerial inquiry not show a reckless disregard by State agencies for the safety of the public? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The report does show that some bad mistakes were made by different Government agencies. The Government has accepted and responded to those recommendations in an effort to make sure that they do not reoccur. If I ask myself what went wrong here I think the answer is that the Government officials handling the matter got it wrong when they thought that the need to protect this person who was on the witness protection programme meant that they could not tell the court that he had another identity. That was the mistake that was made. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister apologise to the Ashton family for his decision to delay the publication of the ministerial inquiry report into Debbie Ashton’s death when Justice France’s ruling on 8 July makes it plain that there was no good reason for the delay which added to this family’s trauma in that it had to fight for 8 months to get this report out in the open? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Minister of Police went to see the Ashton family the day following the release of the report from Kristy McDonald QC to the Government. The reason that the application was made to the court to vary the suppression orders was that Crown Law the State Services Commissioner the police the Department of Corrections Fairfax and even the member who asked the question who did not publicly make the link between the named defender and the witness protection programme were all of the view that the suppression orders prevented the publication of the report including those details. That is why we went to the court. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Minister apologise and withdraw his complaint to the Privileges Committee over his claim that Heather Roy had breached court suppression orders when Justice France refused to change any of the suppression orders and stated that he had not placed any restriction on naming the offender Jonathan Barclay saying that he was on the witness protection programme or stating that he had killed Debbie Ashton; and is the Minister not continuing the same error that was made by the police and the Department of Corrections which continue to put the rights of the offender ahead of the rights of the family and the victim in respect of this tragedy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We have not put the interests of the offender ahead of the interests of the Ashton family. Indeed we have been transparent in our efforts to put as much information out there as is possible. I also make it clear that I still take care not to name the offender concerned in this arena. There is a difference between what one might be allowed to say and what one should say. Some members in this House do not judge very well the exercise of their privileges. I maintain what I said: it was irresponsible of Heather Roy to name the offender and to make links through to the witness protection programme. It undermined the viability of the witness protection programme and also increased the risk to that offender. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does it not speak volumes about what is wrong with this Government that it is far more concerned about protecting Jonathan Barclay a criminal with a very long record who was given a second chance who was placed in Nelson who repeatedly offended and who went on and killed an innocent 20-year-old woman; and is it not time that this Parliament started putting the protection of the public and victims before the protection of criminals? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That chest-beating exercise by the member should be analysed. He is effectively saying that in terms of people who have assisted in the imprisonment of some seriously bad people by turning Crown’s evidence against them—and who have been put on the witness protection programme because by turning Crown’s evidence their own safety is at risk—members of Parliament should take it into their own hands to ignore those safety risks and to use the absolute privileges that we have in this Parliament to undermine what are important institutions. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can the Minister confirm that there was a commission of inquiry and a report that set out the errors that had been made because the Minister of State Services at the time sought an inquiry worked with the family and the local member of Parliament on the terms of reference for that inquiry had the inquiry undertaken by an independent Queen’s Counsel and ensured that the family got as much information as possible? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Indeed I can. And I would contrast the position that we take which is to respect the rule of law to respect the different interests of different people and to ignore the rights of no one. We have not covered up what happened here; we have made it transparently obvious that errors were made and taken steps to prevent the repetition of those errors. But that does not mean that it is right for members of this House to stand up as if they have no responsibilities to other people. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the ruling of Justice Simon France who had to give consideration to the issues of the man’s name— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table an edited version of a letter from— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: There was objection—I am sorry; if members would please just listen it would make things easier. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to serve an edited copy of a letter sent to me by the family of some of the people involved here worrying for the safety of the life of their family member— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. He sought leave to serve a document and I do not know what that means. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear that. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He sought leave to serve it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well all I heard was that leave was sought. The document was identified. Was there objection? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: If I said “serve” I meant to say “table”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I did not hear that. Leave was sought. Members could have objected; they did not. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the ministerial inquiry into the death of Debbie Ashton that showed such gross failings— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Electricity—Hydro Lake Levels 
9.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: How has the country’s electricity system coped with record low inflows into New Zealand’s hydro lakes? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that all those involved have managed the situation very well even though inflows into our hydro lakes by early June were the lowest since 1947. By comparison hydro inflows were higher in the 1992 dry year when National was in Government yet lake levels ended up much lower and drastic power savings were needed to get through the winter. We are better off this year thanks to the Electricity Commission better industry coordination and improving supply margins. That is why there was no crisis despite Mr Brownlee’s most fervent prayers. 
Dave Hereora 
: How much did the public savings campaign assist? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would like once again to thank the public of New Zealand for their efforts. As many have quite rightly noted long-term prudent use of electricity is good for the back pocket as well as for the environment and the country. The campaign led to 4 percent savings in electricity use overall with State sector savings achieving as much as 7 percent. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm the following things: that this winter is the fourth under the Labour Government where New Zealanders have been asked to seriously save power that forced power savings this winter have knocked $3 billion out of the economy that spot prices have hit record levels and that the power savings campaign started far too late; if so why is the Minister now crowing in this House when security of electrical supply is not something his Government has anything at all to be proud of? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can confirm that notwithstanding the lowest inflow recorded since 1947 for the 3 months to June we have managed very well. In terms of spot prices of course that is the intention of an electricity market: there are increases in the spot market when there is a shortage of the goods that are being sold. 
Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs—Safety 
10.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: How confident is he that compact fluorescent lamp light bulbs are safe for New Zealanders to use in their homes? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Very. Fluorescent lights are used in all countries and can be safely used in New Zealand homes. The small amount of mercury is about one-twentieth of the amount in old fluorescent lights used in schools for decades and is also substantially less than that in current tube fittings. Indeed when I walked around the Beehive today I noted that just about all of the light fittings were fluorescent ones. Is the member suggesting we should ban them? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister agree with the Government’s spokesperson for energy efficiency Jeanette Fitzsimons who said yesterday that an  
Investigate 
 magazine article about compact fluorescent light bulbs “raises some concerns” and that “New Zealanders need to know that using CFL light bulbs will not pose a health risk to themselves and their families.”; if he does will he be commissioning the review that his colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons has called for? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well her statement was correct in that Mr Wishart’s article does raise those views. It is based on one study; I can advise the member that the Ministry of Health is reviewing that study and other related research and will no doubt present a more balanced view than Mr Wishart did. 
Moana Mackey 
: Are people being forced to use compact fluorescent lamps? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Again I repeat “No”. This seems to be a common misconception on Mr Brownlee’s part. A growing range of energy-saving lamps are now available— 
Jacqui Dean 
: They hate them! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
:—for example there are new generation halogen incandescent lamps that look exactly the same. I hear we have another person saying they hate them. It is based on what the bulbs look like. We actually have lamps that look exactly the same as the old-style incandescent lamps but they use 30 percent less energy and they last twice as long. These are not fluorescents—they have no mercury—but unfortunately compared with fluorescents the savings are not quite as high. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister telling the House that the Government spokesperson for energy efficiency did not know that this work was to be done to verify the claims made in the  
Investigate 
 magazine; and in any event would it not have been simply a matter for the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency to commission the inquiry herself—or in fact is the relationship between the Greens and the Government now so bad that such activity cannot take place? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: In contrast I have a very open relationship with Jeanette Fitzsimons and she has phoned me to express her views on these things in the last day. 
Cellphone Towers—Health Risk 
11.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he confident that a cellphone tower built next to a playcentre or kindergarten would pose no risk to the health of the children who spend time at that centre; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: Yes; I am advised that there is a current scientific consensus that exposure to cellphone towers would not constitute any quantifiable risk from radio frequency fields. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is it not actually the case that he cannot be confident because there are in fact significant concerns about the health risks of long-term exposure to radio frequency fields especially for children and including serious clusters of health effects for people living near cellphone towers and given this uncertainty why will he not recommend a precautionary approach that does not compromise the safety of our children and prohibit the location of telecommunications towers near schools and preschools? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The evidence is not conclusive at all. I am not a scientist but the Ministry of Health monitors all the research and convenes an expert advisory group to comment on findings of any research and on whether the ministry’s policies need to be reviewed. We are doing everything that we need to in this area and we take on board any new evidence as it comes to us. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has the Minister received any reports on exposure levels from New Zealand cell sites? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Yes. The Ministry of Health’s measurements show that radio frequency fields from cell sites are normally one-hundredth of the limit recommended in the standard. The limits and the standard are consistent with international best practice and are at least 50 times lower than the level at which health effects might occur. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is it not the case that our standard is hundreds of times higher than many countries including China Austria and Switzerland; is it not also the case that any New Zealander could wake up and discover that a 22-metre telecommunications tower had been erected next door overnight and that ordinary New Zealanders have absolutely no say or any rights to object to a structure being built next to their homes or their preschools; and what will the Government’s response be tomorrow to a group of Nelson parents who are bringing to the Prime Minister their video message entitled “Dear Helen Clark” in which they express their concerns about their children’s safety in the light of a proposal by Telecom to build a telecommunications tower next to two preschools in Nelson? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I am aware of the Nelson situation. I think that the tower is next to one preschool. I understand that Telecom has decided not to proceed with that in the short term. Telecom is talking with people. There is normally through the Resource Management Act an extensive process of local consultation. There are many views on these proposals. Although there are other standards in other countries we are using the best independent international advice in this area and I am aware that although the other countries have slightly different standards it in fact makes no practical difference in any way to the way cell sites operate or to the potential health effects of any exposure. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am just wondering whether the Minister would like to think about his answer because he made a very inaccurate statement. He said that normally extensive consultation takes place in erecting these 22-metre cellphone towers when in fact there is no requirement for any consultation whatsoever so I think the Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address the question. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table details of two examples of 22-metre cellphone towers. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Immigration Service—Mary Anne Thompson 
12.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Did the former head of the Immigration Service Mary Anne Thompson seek visa waivers for family members in April 2005? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that Mary Anne Thompson’s effort to secure visa waivers for family members in April 2005 was the second such time she had sought visa waivers for family members and that in December 2004 she wrote to staff seeking visa waivers for family members and guaranteeing that they would return to Kiribati saying: “We would like them to stay with us for three months for a significant family function and then return to their families”? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am advised that in April 2005 the deputy secretary approached branch managers by email and acted in a way to shall we say facilitate if you will and that those and the other matters the member raises are and will be I assume the subject of a number of inquiries that he is aware of. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Can the Minister confirm that the visa waivers granted to family members of Mary Anne Thompson in December 2004 were granted as exceptions to policy because they did not meet policy requirements—namely either being British citizens United Nations personnel or from a listed visa-free country—and the visa waivers therefore were granted only because of Ms Thompson’s guarantee that she would ensure they would return home at the end of the 3-month period? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I do not have the detail directly pertaining to those matters to confirm that but they will be matters as the member has described that are the subject of a number of inquiries. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: On what basis were family members of Mary Anne Thompson issued work permits if they came to New Zealand on visa waivers granted as an exception to policy on a guarantee from Mary Anne Thompson that they would be returning to Kiribati after a significant family function had been held? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As the member has alluded to visa waivers are granted to people who require a visa. For instance to board a plane to travel to New Zealand visa waivers will be granted from time to time to allow persons to travel without a visa being held. Once a person has been granted such a waiver and arrives at the airport in New Zealand he or she will be granted a permit upon application. Upon completion of an arrival card the waiver basically turns a visa-required person into a visa-free person. Visas are usually given only in special circumstances—a number of which the member alluded to—including emergency humanitarian travel health etc. Waivers cannot be extended and once the person arrives at the border the waiver ceases. Again the issues the member raises—and I will not pre-empt the three or four inquiries that are currently under way—will be dealt with and the appropriateness or lack of it will be dealt with by those inquiries. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Did those family members all return home as guaranteed by Mary Anne Thompson; if not under what policy did any of them acquire work permits? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The advice I have about the two members in respect of the 2005 issue are that they remained in New Zealand. As to the appropriateness and the detail surrounding the actions of Ms Thompson in relation to that those will be the subject of the inquiries. 
Urgent Debates 
Ministerial Inquiry—Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Dr Nick Smith seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the release of the report  
Ministerial Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility that requires the immediate attention of the House. I therefore accept the application and call on the member to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.  
That matter is the ministerial inquiry into the tragic death of Debbie Ashton. It is right that Parliament today debates the ministerial inquiry into this tragic death because yet again we have a tragic story of an innocent New Zealander being killed because of gross failures in our justice system. Her story is both unique and familiar—unique because it involves abuse of the police witness protection programme; familiar because yet again we see our justice system putting the rights of criminals before those of the innocent public. 
Let me recount the core facts of this tragic case. In December 2005 Jonathan Barclay was sentenced to 2½ years’ imprisonment for 24 drug fraud burglary careless driving—he was disqualified from driving—escaping custody and driving while disqualified offences. This man had an extensive criminal background going back more than 8 years. On 18 July 2006 just 7 months into his 2½ year sentence he was released on parole with a new identity under the police witness protection programme. The law requires parolees to be seen by Department of Corrections staff within 3 days of release; that did not happen for over 3 months. Just 1 week after Mr Barclay was placed in Nelson he stole a motor vehicle drove recklessly and refused to stop for police. 
Here is a guy with a criminal record as long as one’s arm and disqualified from driving who within a week of being placed in Nelson on parole reoffends and the Department of Corrections and the police do absolutely nothing. Common sense would say to put him straight back in the slammer but common sense seems an alien concept to this Government’s justice system. Nobody did a thing—not Department of Corrections staff not police. They did not even bother to monitor his parole. A police liaison officer was required to monitor this man’s placement in Nelson. He met him once in 6 months 3 days after he was placed in Nelson. The police witness protection programme requires that a person on the programme is monitored every month. They did fill out the form every month but nobody from police made contact with this offender at any time until the tragic death of Debbie Ashton. 
In August 2 weeks after Mr Barclay’s reoffending on parole he gave evidence at a trial in the Auckland High Court. At the same time the charge of stealing a motor vehicle was dropped. The impression is left that anyone on the witness protection programme can get away with anything. When Barclay appeared before the courts on 11 October he was sentenced to community work was disqualified from driving for a second time and received name suppression. In Nelson Judge Zohrab specifically noted that this was an absolute final warning for Mr Barclay and said that if he drove again he would go straight back to prison. 
Eight days later Barclay was caught drink-driving. Remember this is a guy on parole who now has two overriding disqualifications from driving. He used his fresh identity supplied by police under the witness protection programme. It is almost Keystone Cops stuff that Barclay then proceeded all the way through the court system as though he were a first-time offender. There was the same judge the same lawyer and the same courtroom and the appearances were only 3 weeks apart. Yet nobody said “Hang on! This is the guy that’s had a final warning.” I excuse the judge—we all know that hundreds of defendants come before judges each day. But police and Department of Corrections staff who both knew that this was the same man by a different name before the court as before owed it to the judge to advise him. I also put it to this House that his lawyer Mark Dollimore owed it to the court to let the judge know this. 
We also need to look at the failure of both the Department of Corrections and the police to monitor Barclay during that period. The report shows that he repeatedly failed to report to his parole officer. When one reads through this report one ends up wondering just what one has to do on parole to be recalled. Just 4 weeks after that court appearance Jonathan Barclay again in a motor vehicle and again with alcohol in his system drove over a dangerous stretch of road that had a speed limit of 45 kilometres an hour. Police reports say he was doing over 110 kilometres an hour he was airborne and he was on the wrong side of the road. Debbie Ashton never had a chance. Ironically the site of the killing was just 1 kilometre down the road from where police had picked him up for drink-driving. 
To add salt to the wound the very day that Jonathan Barclay killed Debbie Ashton he had been visited by a parole officer at 2.30 in the afternoon. The parole officer was told by Barclay’s flatmate that he was sleeping—sleeping—and that he was not to be woken. Does it not speak volumes about our perverted justice system that a dangerous criminal on parole is allowed to offend over and over again to sleep by day and to kill by night without constraint? When Barclay was interviewed by police after that killing he denied that he was at the wheel and he continued to use his temporary identity. In March last year he was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 5½ years’ jail. 
But the story does not end there. It would have been blatantly obvious to the staff in the Department of Corrections and to police that their systems had failed dreadfully. I would have expected a responsible State agency at the point of this man being convicted for manslaughter to go back through and review its systems. Instead there was denial. I lodged questions with Ministers and was told that they could not tell me anything because the matter was under the police witness protection programme. I met with the family. I met with senior police from Police National Headquarters who told me that nothing had gone wrong and that everything was OK. 
The family wrote extensively to Ministers. Damien O’Connor was written to and did not even have the courtesy to respond to the family. I commend Annette King. When I approached her and asked for a formal inquiry into this matter she—in my view—acted absolutely properly and the inquiry that was subsequently undertaken did get to the bottom of the serious failings by both the Department of Corrections and the police. I want to take issue with the Minister of State Services the Hon David Parker. I find it amazing that the Minister of State Services has chosen to criticise only one person and that is ACT MP Heather Roy. Where is the criticism of the nine public servants both in the police and in the Department of Corrections who seriously let Nelson and this family down? I also have to say there has been no good reason for the delay of over 8 months since this report was delivered in December. The answers that the Minister gave in the House today only reinforced the core problem that occurred and that led to Debbie Ashton’s death which was that everybody was so cautious because the police witness protection programme was involved that they were not prepared to ensure the basic duties were followed. Again we see that attitude from that Minister today. 
I want to conclude by paying tribute to the parents Judy and Ted Ashton. They have shown huge resilience to dig and to get to the bottom of what have been awful failings in our justice and police systems. I also think we should acknowledge the excellent inquiry by Kristy McDonald which I believe fairly gets to the bottom of the issues involved. I hope that her report means that both police and the Department of Corrections take seriously their responsibilities to put at the top of their list the protection of the public and their legal duties to monitor people who are on parole. I also hope that from this tragedy there is a reinforcement of the obligation that lawyers have in the court process as a duty to the court to ensure the court is not misled and not just to honour their duties to their clients. 
I would love to say to this Parliament that I have confidence that all will be put right but I reflect on the Liam Ashley tragedy when the Department of Corrections erred badly which resulted in the death of an innocent young person in August 2006 and I reflect on all that went wrong in terms of Graeme Burton and Karl Kuchenbecker in January 2007. We were assured at the end of every one of those inquiries that everything was all OK it had all been put right. Now another innocent New Zealander has died. I put to this Parliament that there is a deeper cultural problem within our justice system that must be corrected. We need a culture that starts putting the rights of victims and the rights of the public to safety ahead of so many other considerations that seem to divert those people who work in our justice departments. I hope for the many families of New Zealand that no other family has to go through the awful tragedy that the Ashton family has gone through in this experience. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge the courage the determination and the grief of the Ashton family and their commitment to trying to ensure there cannot be a repeat of the tragic circumstances that led to the death of their daughter Debbie. I travelled to Nelson twice to see the Ashton family: first on 12 September last year to discuss with them the terms of reference for the independent inquiry conducted by Kristy McDonald QC and secondly on 19 December to deliver to the family the first draft of the report a day or two after I had received it. At both meetings with the family the Hon Dr Nick Smith was present as the Ashton’s local member of Parliament and I want to acknowledge his advocacy for the family. I also acknowledge the cooperation given by the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections to the inquiry particularly the tireless efforts of Win van der Velde the National Crime Manager who worked closely with the family from the outset. The New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections have both apologised unreservedly to the Ashton family for the human errors that occurred and they have endorsed the recommendations of the inquiry. 
The purpose of the independent inquiry which I set up in my former role as Minister of State Services was to determine the unvarnished truth of what happened and to provide a full frank and transparent analysis of the events that resulted in the tragic death of Debbie Ashton. The actual terms of reference for the inquiry were as follows. I specifically asked Ms McDonald to inquire into and report on the circumstances in which the driver was able to use his new identity to be treated as a first offender; secondly whether and to what extent there were failures in the systems practices or procedures of those agencies that dealt with those circumstances that caused or contributed to the driver being in the position of being able to drive a vehicle on 5 December 2006 thereby causing Ms Ashton’s death; and thirdly the nature timing and appropriateness of enforcement action taken against the driver while he was on parole. It was important that Debbie Ashton’s family Government agencies and the public understood what went wrong in terms of human error and failure of systems in order to ensure that there is no repeat of these circumstances and that there is accountability. 
The inquiry found that human error was a key factor. The offender should have been recalled to prison when convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol and the decision not to recall him was inexcusable. As QC Kristy McDonald pointed out instances of human error are inevitable when the Department of Corrections manages on a daily basis around 38000 people on community sentence. However systems should have been in place to avoid such errors which led to the tragic consequences that occurred in this case. The inquiry found that the systems policies and practices of the Department of Corrections were inadequate. There were failures in communication and a failure to provide proper direction and oversight as the Hon Nick Smith has already pointed out. The Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Police accept in full the criticisms made and the recommendations to remedy the deficiencies that existed in the area of dealing with offenders who were under the police witness protection programme. They are committed and to a large extent have already implemented the recommendations made by the inquiry. Kristy McDonald acknowledges that all who made mistakes in this case regret them bitterly and that they have been open and frank in acknowledgment of their errors. 
The police witness protection programme was established in the late 1980s to address the risks involved when members of the public were prepared to come forward to assist in the resolution of serious crime. Although the programme has continued to evolve the focus of the programme remains on providing a safe environment for witnesses and their families who are under a genuine threat to life or of serious bodily harm. The evidence from these witness programmes has shown that there has been the successful prosecution of offenders involved in the top echelon of criminal offending—such as serious violence homicide and transnational organised crime. The focus of staff involved with the programme is to assess and mitigate the risks surrounding the witness and to work with witnesses in their integration to the community under a new identity. In this tragic case the police focused on the risk to the witness and they accept they failed to manage the risk of the witness himself to the community he was relocated to; and for this the police apologise to the Ashton family. They did not manage that risk to the community to which he was relocated. 
The police witness protection programme continues to monitor and manage a number of witnesses and their families and most people would agree that there remains a need within police investigation and the judicial process for the protection of witnesses who are prepared to come forward to testify against criminal activity. Although that need remains there can be no excuse for putting at risk the lives of innocent people as happened in this tragic case. Since the inquiry the police have acknowledged the recommendations and they have further enhanced their processes and risk mitigation to try to ensure that a repeat of Debbie Ashton’s tragic death can never happen again. Although it is not possible to reverse the tragedy of Debbie’s death it is critical that all factors that contributed to the error—of leaving the offender in the community whereas he should have been recalled to prison—are addressed. The protection of identities under the witness protection programme is important but the paramount obligation of the Department of Corrections and the police is the safety of the community. Fundamental changes have been made to the management of offenders on the witness protection programme who are on parole and I am assured by the Department of Corrections and the police that the inquiry’s recommendations to prevent any further tragedies of this nature will be fully implemented. 
In my view there is still one outstanding issue to be addressed and the Hon Nick Smith made mention of it. The outstanding issue is about the lawyer who represented the prisoner. This lawyer defended a man who had two different identities and whilst defending him on two separate occasions with two different identities knew exactly what this man had done. The lawyer knew his past; he knew the man was lying. In my view he had a duty to advise the court of this man’s two identities. That issue still needs to be addressed and I believe it will be addressed by the Law Society because I am aware the family intend to take it further. I hope they do because lessons have to be learnt by everybody involved in this tragic case including the lawyer. 
I repeat that I have been moved by the courage and determination of the Ashton family and I thank them for their willingness to go along with an inquiry that was essential to reveal the errors and to help eliminate them in the future. I know that was really very painful for the family. It is my hope that the inquiry will have achieved that and I do hope that the Ashtons share that hope. I assure the Ashton family who I hope are listening today that both David Parker and I have done our best endeavours to ensure that we can resolve this dreadful tragedy. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution on behalf of New Zealand First and firstly to extend our deepest sympathies to the Ashton family. The killing of Debbie Ashton by Jonathan Alan Barclay—a man with an extensive criminal history; a repeat drink-driver; a man who was on the police witness protection programme—is a tragic and preventable example of the deficiencies of the Department of Corrections and specifically the probation services. I say that because I have lost count of the number of times that New Zealand First has questioned queried and challenged the Department of Corrections’ statements as to the number of breaches of parole. The department consistently persistently and deliberately obfuscates camouflages denies and hides the number of breaches. The department categorises them according to different levels which are set internally and it has a trip benchmark over which it reports and under which it does not. It is not fantasy it is not fiction it is fact. The sooner the Department of Corrections starts owning up to its own failings—in the way in which it does and does not monitor people on parole—the better off this country will be. 
It reminds me of another issue on which New Zealand First has consistently challenged the department where it has consistently tried to paint a rosy picture. For example we have challenged the department on the number of times it has had to deal with prison officers who have had inappropriate relationships with inmates and the department has consistently given figures that have been always under the figures that we know to be the truth. We now know for example that a person who works for Te Puna Wai o Tuhinapo secure youth unit which is run by Child Youth and Family is facing allegations of sexual harassment and bullying. That may be surprising and it may be concerning but what is more concerning is that the Department of Corrections knew that this particular individual had been accused of committing acts of sexual impropriety with inmates when he was employed by the department. It knew he had been reported as being drunk on duty in the department’s employment. He was alleged to have engaged under-age prostitutes when he was in the department’s employment. He was reported as being a bully when in its employment. He is facing allegations of molesting a youth inmate and the Department of Corrections is facing questioning over those allegations by the Howard League for Penal Reform. 
What have we seen from the department in response to all of these questions about this man who now unfortunately is employed by Child Youth and Family to look after young people in a secure facility? Well Child Youth and Family does not know his background. It knows nothing of his background in the Department of Corrections. Why? The department has a habit of not owning up not fessing up and not fronting up to its own failures. It is more inclined to let someone resign and quietly move on to take up employment somewhere else as happened in this case and as the department has done in respect of many many cases. The department knows that I speak the truth because under the Official Information Act I obtained a document—and I have the document in front of me—that shows numerous examples where the department has started investigations on individuals accused of these types of things and where the investigations have come to an end because the person has resigned and moved on. 
Some may ask why I raise this issue in the House. I raise this issue here because we in New Zealand First are sick and tired of the mistakes failures and flaws of the Department of Corrections and the probation services under the management of the Department of Corrections. It consistently and persistently fails in its duties and responsibilities to the wider public and specifically to victims. The Ashton family has heard the apologies of the Department of Corrections and I am astounded that Mrs Ashton should be quoted with dignity in the  
New Zealand Herald  
as saying that she felt far from satisfied after the release of the report. I say that is a dignified response because if I were the father of that daughter I would feel more than far from satisfied and I am absolutely sure that Mr and Mrs Ashton feel totally gutted by the failings of the Department of Corrections. 
But it is not just the Department of Corrections. What is sad is that the police themselves—and the Minister of Justice Annette King said it earlier—focused on the rights of the witness under the police witness protection programme. How bizarre is that—that the police should focus on the rights of Mr Barclay who repeatedly broke the law instead of focusing on the potential for him to wreak carnage and chaos on the highways? How bizarre given that the police spend virtually every day of their policing lives telling the public how important road safety is and how they spend tens of millions of dollars—hundreds of millions of dollars over the years—promoting a “If you drink and drive you’re a bloody idiot” campaign. When they come to select committee they go out of their way to say how strongly they feel about road safety how strongly they feel about getting drunk drivers off the road and how important it is that we focus on these idiots—these delinquents—yet when they are faced with one of the biggest idiots that they have come across in years they focus on his rights as opposed to the rights of the public to motor with safety. The consequence of their inappropriate focus is that a young lady died needlessly. 
Saying sorry does not make it better. Every day this family wakes up and there is one person not at the breakfast table. Every anniversary of her birthday they will be reminded of her needless death. I guess some people seem to think that having said “sorry” it is all OK. Well it is not. We would like the police the Government and everybody else who is disgusted by the actions of the Department of Corrections and the police in this matter to ask themselves one simple question: at what point does an individual who has been given the privilege of the witness protection programme lose it? We in New Zealand First would have thought that the moment Mr Barclay broke the law and put himself in a position where he was going to attend a court where he would be seen publicly where he would be questioned publicly and where he would lay himself open to be identified publicly he would volunteer to opt off the programme. His conscious decision to bring focus and attention on himself by breaking the law not once not twice but three times was a signal from him to the police to say “Hey forget it. I don’t mind coming out of the cupboard. I don’t need your protection she’ll be right mate.” Because that is how I would have dealt with his question—the question as to whether he should have been the focus of my attention. 
New Zealand First is very clear. If a person is on the witness protection programme it is a contract a two-way contract. The moment that person breaks the law he or she is off the programme and that is the sort of law change the sort of administrative change and the sort of operational change New Zealand First expects to see going forward. Let us be clear. If we do not see it from here forth we will do whatever we can to legislate to make sure that it happens in future. And by the way we will be looking forward to the compensatory payout to the Ashton family which will not ever recover their daughter but it might go some way to easing the pain. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Before I call the next speaker I am aware that United Future has given its slot to New Zealand First so it has 10 minutes. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this urgent debate because this is a very serious as well as an extraordinarily tragic matter. Unfortunately the Labour Party has not covered itself in glory in its handling of this issue either and it is that that I will speak to during the course of this debate. 
My parliamentary colleagues Nick Smith and Ron Mark have very ably and accurately in my view covered the issues that were dealt with in the report that was released and that are the reason we are having this urgent debate. But there are issues too of great seriousness that should be raised during the course of this debate which I will address now. There are two aspects to the issue. The first issue and the tragic component is the fact that Debbie Ashton did not have to die. The reasons for that have already been addressed and discussed and I am not going to delve into those in any great detail. The second aspect is the attempted cover-up that has gone all the way to Parliament in this case with the Minister of State Services David Parker trying to shut me down here in Parliament for asking questions—firstly when I asked an oral question in the House and secondly later with his breach of privilege complaint made against me to the Speaker in an attempt to take me to the Privileges Committee. 
Answers to my written parliamentary questions—and subsequent events have borne this out—show that Minister Parker had been sitting on this report since 14 December 2007 yet it was not brought to the attention of the public as it should have been until about 2 weeks ago. My issue here is that there has been a total lack of transparency and accountability going all the way to Ministers’ offices and it is terrible and disgraceful when Parliament is drawn into debates such as this. It is a very bad day for New Zealand when one cannot have confidence in the legal advice of Ministers—in this case the Minister of State Services—and questions need to be asked not only about the issues raised in the report but about the way in which this report was finally dragged out kicking and screaming for the attention of the public. 
Ms Ashton’s death is all the more tragic because it was completely avoidable. Jonathan Allan Barclay had been convicted of drink-driving just 4 weeks previously disqualified from driving for 6 months and fined $500 for what we now know was a repeat offence. It is fair to say that such a recidivist offender should have received a much heavier penalty than what amounted to just a slap on the wrist but Barclay’s new identity through the witness protection scheme meant the judge treated him as a first-time offender. As we now know it seems the judge was about the only person—the only person in an official capacity—in that courtroom who did not know the reality of the situation. So instead of being locked up Barclay was let loose essentially and he went on a week later to kill tragically an innocent young woman. Details of course have now been made publicly available with the release of this inquiry report into the case which shows that the protection of criminals’ rights seem more important to the authorities and this Government than the safety and protection of the law-abiding public. 
Last month it became clear that the Government had been sitting on the report for more than 6 months with the Minister of State Services David Parker having received that report on 14 December last year as I have already said. On 26 June this year in Parliament I raised—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Parker is sitting there laughing. I tell Mr Parker that I do not think this is a very funny issue at all. 
Hon David Parker 
: It’s not funny at all. 
HEATHER ROY 
: It is not funny at all; it is a very serious issue and I am raising serious points. On 26 June this year I raised this issue in Parliament and named Barclay in the process. In doing so I seemed to have raised Mr Parker’s ire although media had previously published all the details that I mentioned in this case. If Mr Parker would like to go back to the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of 28 October last year he will find on page A7 an article that outlines completely all the details that I mentioned in Parliament on 26 June. On 26 June the Government argued that there was a suppression order preventing these details being used. That was quite clearly wrong yet have we had any acknowledgment of that? No not in this House. 
Minister Parker subsequently lodged a breach of privilege complaint against me. It is essentially a work of fiction. This complaint against me was given to the Speaker. Minister Parker said that I had brought Parliament into disrepute and his greatest complaint was that I had put Barclay’s life in danger while he was in prison. That was his greatest complaint; he mentioned it several times and I will read portions from his breach of privilege letter. What about Debbie Ashton’s life? There was no mention of her tragic loss of life there. 
In the Minister’s letter to the Speaker where he claimed that I had breached privilege—which I had not—he stated: “On Thursday 26 June 2008 during Questions for Oral Answer Heather Roy in her second supplementary on question 3 named a person who was covered by court suppression orders relating to his participation in the witness protection scheme.” “Wrong” I say to Mr Parker. He was wrong and for somebody who is a lawyer we would think that he would know better. I am not a lawyer but I knew that that was wrong. The Minister also went on to state: “By knowingly disregarding suppression orders”—which I had not done—“Ms Roy has breached this convention of mutual respect and constraint. This is a serious matter.” Indeed it is when we have a Minister of the Crown who should know better rising in this House and accusing me of things that I did not do. He should have known better. The Minister went on to state: “By her actions Ms Roy has increased the risk to the safety perhaps the life of the person she named.” Well I ask Minister Parker what about Debbie Ashton? What about her life? What about her loss of life? The Minister went on to state: “It is surely an abuse of Ms Roy’s privileges as a member of Parliament to identify and put at risk someone in this way.” That is another point a separate point where he shows that this Government is more worried about the rights of criminals than it is about the rights of victims and that is an outrage. 
I was actually calling for transparency and accountability at all levels—not just in those Government departments named in the report but at all levels including the Minister’s office. I called for the release of the report and got all sorts of excuses about why it had not been released for 6 months and had just been sat on. Amongst other things was a discussion that the police and the Department of Corrections knew of Barclay’s use of his new name—which has never been revealed and still has not been and which was the only thing suppressed in this case—but failed to give the judge the information that would have seen Barclay returned to prison. 
The report the  
Ministerial Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Death of Debbie Marie Ashton 
 was released and has prompted apologies from all and sundry but for Debbie Ashton’s family this is no comfort at all. It was also revealed that Barclay’s new identity and other details were not suppressed. As such there can be only two explanations for Mr Parker’s actions or lack thereof: either the suppression order—which we now know did not exist at all—was an excuse to conceal what he knew would be an extremely embarrassing hornet’s nest if released in election year if it was to be released publicly or he did not know that the suppression order did not cover Barclay’s name the witness protection scheme status or Debbie Ashton’s name and we know now of course that that is not correct either. This is shameful and disgraceful behaviour from a Minister of the Crown who should have known better. 
Transparency and accountability it seems are in short supply under this Labour Government. Dodging embarrassing situations in Parliament by citing suppression orders that do not exist is an outrageous abuse of position. The Minister of State Services David Parker like many of his Labour colleagues has employed the tactic of shooting the messenger to get out of a tight spot of his own making. 
I have been asked by many people whether I will be calling for an apology. Well I am not because I will not be holding my breath. One will not be forthcoming despite the fact that I have been wronged in this case as well. If I have forced the Government to release information that should have been made public long ago then I do not apologise because I am doing my job as an MP. That is what I am here for. It might not be in Mr Parker’s or Labour’s interests but it is not their interests that we are elected as MPs to serve. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker kia ora tatou e te Whare. I te tuatahi me tuku i etahi korero ki te whanau e tangi nei i tenei rangi. Ka nui te aroha atu ki a koutou ana kua rongo nei te ahautanga o mate i nga tau tata kua hipa ake. Can I just pass on a note of sadness to the family in understanding the grief that they may well be suffering and have suffered over the last couple of years. I pay my respects to the family as they mourn the death of their daughter. We in the Maori Party rise to offer our sincere sympathies to the whanau of Debbie Marie Ashton who lost her life tragically on 5 December 2006. These debates are the times to challenge and confront the lawmakers and lawbreakers who enabled a 26-year-old male drunk and disqualified driver to deprive this young woman of the life that she had before her. But we also think about the family who have been denied a daughter and a sister about the grandchildren who should have been and about the mother who could have been. 
I want to share some words I read today from Judy Ashton who comes from ironically Hope in Nelson: “Debbie died at 2.25am four hours after the crash. Less than an hour later I gazed down at the lifeless body of my daughter now lying on a cold stainless steel operating table. I had to sign a paper declaring that Debbie was Debbie the hardest things I have ever had to sign in my life. I just wanted to stay with her but needed to go home and ring her sister living in Christchurch. There is no kind way to tell your other daughter that her much loved younger sister had been killed. To hear the wailing on the end of the phone with so many miles between us was yet another heartbreak. As was less than an hour later waking up my elderly parents and having to tell them that their granddaughter had been killed.” Those are words that I am pretty sure would shatter for all those who happen to be listening their hearts and their dreams and aspirations for their children just as much as no doubt they did for this mother Judy. Those words convey the sense of shock that runs through the Ashton family. Too many families throughout Aotearoa have been in similar situations and those families will never be the same again because of human error and failures of systems. 
The report from the Minister of Corrections got it right I think. It stated: “Human error was found to be a factor.” How does one hold on to hope when the State’s form of comfort to the family is to say human error is the reason their daughter died? Although Kristy McDonald QC who conducted the inquiry pointed out that human error is inevitable when the Department of Corrections manages around 38000 people on community sentences the Maori Party and I do not believe that we should accept that as a matter of course. We cannot be complacent when members of the public become casualties of such errors. As others have said this tragedy must not be repeated yet we know that there have been other situations where offenders have reoffended in fatal ways. There have been situations in which prisoners have been released into the community and tragedies have occurred one way or another—murders manslaughter the loss of life. We are pleased to see in the statement from the Hon Phil Goff that although the protection of identity under the witness protection programme is important the paramount obligation of the Department of Corrections and the police is to maintain the safety of the community. 
But we want to just raise a few words of caution in this debate. Seeking more punishment and retribution is not the answer. Compassion for victims must be a high priority. We must do all that we can so that the society we are helping to create is one of compassion and of taking responsibility. Justice is not about revenge and retribution. The pursuit of justice te whainga i te tika was and is fundamental to the Maori world view and embraces all areas of life from the wrongs people may do to one another to the rules that determine how the land should be cared for. The Maori Party acknowledges that justice is best achieved not merely by changing the content of existing laws but also by reconsidering in good faith the processes by which laws are made and by reconsidering the principles that underpin them. The safety of the community must be an essential value that we can all believe in and a value that we can all work to restore. 
Although the Department of Corrections and the police must as a matter of urgency remedy the deficiencies that exist in the area of dealing with offenders who were witnesses and are under the witness protection programme there are other outstanding issues. I was pleased to hear that the Law Society will be taking up the issue of the particular lawyer involved who was a key party in knowing the identity of the offender involved. The history of convictions of that offender shows that he has no regard for the law. Within 2 months of arriving in Nelson he was charged with reckless driving. The sentencing judge disqualified him from driving for 18 months and marked his file with the words “last chance”. We in the Maori Party suggest that someone had to know about that man. Someone had to know—someone else other than the lawyer. Others had a responsibility to care and we must ask why he was still out there. He was convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol and primed for another last drive. It was a last chance that Debbie Ashton never had. We must also never forget to think about the power of the wider community to take responsibility for each other to ensure that offenders such as the one in this case are properly managed and that never ever will such tragedies occur again. Kia ora tatou. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Could I also start by expressing on my own behalf and on behalf of the National Party as Dr Nick Smith already has my good wishes condolences and thoughts to the Ashton family over this particular tragedy. Unlike other members who have addressed this matter I will not be talking to the House about the issues surrounding letters to the Speaker and matters of that sort. As chairman of Parliament’s Privileges Committee I will not be having a discussion about those issues and it certainly would not be appropriate to canvass them at this point. What I can say is that I think I am correct in saying that in this term of Parliament this is the third such debate that I have been involved in in extremely similar circumstances. The tragic death of young Liam Ashley and the proliferation of accidents mishaps and incompetence surrounding that incident and the incidents around Graeme Burton brought the debate to this Chamber in a way where we hoped finally we might be able as a Government as a Parliament to get some of these things right once and for all. 
The tragedy around Debbie Ashton’s death tells us that despite continued reassurances from the Government following young Liam Ashley’s death and despite continued assurances from the Government following the death of young Mr Kuchenbecker the agencies concerned continue to operate in a way that perpetuates a culture that allows these types of tragedies to continue. It is simply not going to be good enough to stand in the House every 8 or 9 months and have a debate or a reflection on yet another incident that has gone wrong in the justice system. 
In question time today coincidentally there was a series of questions from me to the Minister of Justice who was standing in for the Minister of Corrections on a repeat incident by the very individual who was responsible for young Liam Ashley’s death in 2006 having yet another attack on a prison guard in the back of a prison van. During question time I asked the Minister what we have learnt when we were told these things were not going to go wrong again. We have spent $217000 of taxpayers’ money to buy scores of waist restraints and an incident has occurred that can only be described as eerily similar to the one that took Mr Ashley’s life some months prior to this incident. 
Then when we look at the complicated series of mishaps that allowed Graeme Burton to be free and to take the life of Mr Kuchenbecker we see more apologies more hand-wringing more concern being expressed and rightly so. But here we are again having the same conversation and the same debate about issues that have occurred yet again. A series of systemic blunders by departments and ministries in the justice sector have claimed the life of another young New Zealander. It has got to stop. Time and time again we see the police the Department of Corrections the Parole Board and other such agencies rolling out apologies. I do not doubt they are heartfelt I do not doubt they are genuine but the fact that we keep hearing them tells us that these problems are not changing. We can alter the protocols we can change the paperwork we can change the way practices are carried out but if the culture that exists in the justice sector is one of initial refusal to take responsibility where wrongs have occurred these tragic incidents will not be removed from the political landscape. 
In many respects one almost has to feel sorry for the Department of Corrections official Ms Casey. She has become the official apologiser for the Department of Corrections. She is wheeled out every time a blunder occurs to attempt to explain where the department has got it wrong yet again. And likewise how many times have we seen the faces of senior police officers on television in recent times undergoing a similar series of apologies? 
The thing I cannot understand about this particular incident is why when in December 2007 the Minister received the report into this matter it took so long for it to be released. It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant when these types of issues arise but I ask the Minister the Hon David Parker when he addresses the House following my contribution to answer that basic question that no doubt the Ashton family would like to know the answer to but on which I believe that Parliament too is owed an explanation as to what the delay was between receiving the report in or about December 2007 and its final release to the public and to the family only this month. 
I acknowledge as my colleague Nick Smith did the approach taken by the Hon Annette King. In many respects it is typical of her—to get on with it to grab the bull by the horns and try to get some answers. I also think that taking a trip to Nelson was a great sign of a certain level of humanity and I acknowledge that contribution. The problem is that these issues the culture the way these departments and ministries continue to conduct their business do not change from incident to incident. Now is the time to change the culture of these organisations once and for all. If we are standing here in another 6 months’ time having the same conversations that we had over Liam Ashley’s death the same conversations we had more or less over Mr Kuchenbecker’s death outlining again in detail the failures the mishaps and the blunders of departments that have been contained in yet another investigation and report then we will have failed. 
The Government owes some serious explanation again on this incident but in particular around why the Ashton family and the public had to wait for such a long period of time for the sunlight to come on to the matters at hand. I have listened carefully to what other members have said in this debate about the detail of the series of events that led to young Ms Ashton’s death and I do not intend to traverse those again. I ask only that with the debate today we stop and as a Parliament make sure that we have the nerve to confront these departments and ministries and tell them that more excuses more reports are not good enough and to change the culture of the way these operations run within the justice system or I fear we will be standing here having this debate again in a few months’ time. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I also commence by expressing the deep condolences that I think everyone in this House feels—obviously for Debbie Ashton herself who lost her life but also for her family. We are all members of families and I think we can all identify with and have great sympathy for the family of Debbie Ashton. We can imagine the horror of the time they have had as they have tried to get to the bottom of this. I reiterate the Hon Annette King’s commendation of Dr Smith’s part in this. I think that Dr Smith has been from the start appropriate in his efforts to shed light on what happened here and has tried to ensure that it will not happen again. I think that reflects well on Dr Smith as a local member of Parliament who has done the right thing by his constituents. I also say that no one defends the actions of the prisoner here. He is the person who has acted absolutely irresponsibly and has caused the death of an innocent young lady. He is the greatest villain in all of this and I think we ought not to forget that. 
I also would like to reflect a little on what went wrong here. At its heart what went wrong was that people were confused as to what they ought to do because they mistook the fear that they had for the safety of the person on the witness protection programme with the duties that they had to be open to the court. These matters could have been dealt with in a way that appropriately protected the interests of the person who was on the witness protection programme. It could have been done in a closed court. Appropriate suppression orders could have been made surrounding those matters but the full background to the offender’s position including his prior offending under other identities could have and should have been made known to the court. 
The recommendations of the report from Kristy McDonald QC show where those failings were. They show how they can be avoided and indeed the systems have been largely changed as a consequence. Some other changes are on the way like changing some computer programs in a way that enables the easier linking of names into the future. I do not say that in a way that intends to minimise the enormity of what has happened to the family here; it is a terrible tragedy. 
I want to address the matter raised by Simon Power as to why it took the time that it did to get the report made public. It has been absolutely clear that the Government has wanted this report has wanted it to be independent and has wanted to get to the bottom of it and Dr Smith kindly acknowledges that the report does that. I think it has also been clear that the Government has wanted to be open about the contents of that report. That report was completed by Kristy McDonald QC on 14 December. She then met with me and the Minister of Police Annette King on 17 December. At that time we were advised by both Crown Law and Kristy McDonald who thought that the report was not able to be released in its then form. The following day 18 December an edited version of that report was taken by Annette King to the family of Debbie Ashton. 
By the end of January—because 18 December of course is just a day or two before Christmas—the different agencies met including the police Crown Law and the Department of Corrections to decide upon the application that in view of the Crown Law advice and that of others needed to be made to vary the suppression orders in order for the report to be disclosed in a way that made reference to the witness protection programme because at that time we were being told that we could not make reference to the witness protection programme. Without that disclosure being made in the report it was meaningless to those who read it or less meaningful than it would otherwise be. 
The first application that was made by Crown Law—by the Solicitor-General on behalf of the Government if you like—was filed in February. There were some delays in the court processes and the eventual decision was made by Justice France on 8 July. He found that notwithstanding the prior advice that had been given by Crown Law and others the events relating to the witness protection programme had not in fact been suppressed in the first place. A suggestion has been made by Heather Roy that we always knew that. That is not true. Indeed those of the view that the witness programme details were suppressed included the Police Corrections Crown Law and the offender himself through his lawyer. I believe that Dr Smith thought the same because that is also why Dr Smith did not make reference to those matters at the time. I think Dr Smith was acting responsibly because he believed that to be the position at the time. 
Similarly the Fairfax Media group were not reporting about the witness protection programme at that stage because they believed that was the effect of the order as well. Indeed they were one of the parties that were seeking to have the court vary the witness protection programme suppression orders and of course they would not have had needed to do that if they did not think they were of that effect in the first place so even the media thought that. 
I will deal just a little with what Heather Roy has said today. I heard her speech. It was all about her. It really was not about the terrible circumstances here. Heather Roy is not the person who has actively pursued these issues. The two people are primarily Dr Smith and secondly Annette King. 
Hon Annette King 
: And the family. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes; on behalf of the family first and foremost through Dr Smith and more latterly through Annette King. They are the ones that have been pursuing transparency in this; they are the ones who have been trying to get to the bottom of this. All Heather Roy did was turn up at 1 percent in the polls say something that no media were at that time reporting and seek to achieve political advantage from it. She did not need to say the things she said in order for this to come into the public domain. She went a step too far. We have great privileges in this House. We have the absolute privilege of being able to say virtually anything we want. We can breach court suppression orders and we can defame people but we should not do that irresponsibly. The point I was making and the point I still make is that it was unnecessary for Heather Roy to say what she said. She did it on the understanding that it was suppressed at the time—that was everyone’s understanding at that time—and in doing so she put her political ambition ahead of the interests of New Zealanders. 
People on the witness protection programme are not angels. They are generally themselves criminals but they bring to justice even worse criminals and they are put on the witness protection programme because having given Crown’s evidence they are personally at risk of retribution from the people who are worse than they are and have been convicted. That retribution can be some form of torture some form of blackmail a threat to their families or even a threat of death to their own person. In the light of the sorts of serious issues that can arise for people it is unwise of members of this Parliament to override court processes and pre-emptively disclose those people’s names. 
I heard Ron Mark say that people lose their rights if they offend when they are on the witness protection programme. Well to a certain extent I agree—the offender here has only himself to blame. But we do not have the death penalty in New Zealand. Nor do we accept torture as an appropriate penalty for wrongdoing. This person suffered a penalty as a consequence of his offending—he has been imprisoned as a consequence. He ought to have been recalled from parole or imprisoned for his prior offending had his full offences been then known and Debbie Ashton’s death would not have happened. It was a terrible thing but it would not be right for this offender as a consequence of what he did on this occasion to be at risk of torture or of a threat to his life. I think we have to exercise our responsibilities as members of this Parliament very carefully when it comes to these breaches. 
I know even now in this debate today that people have breached some of the suppression orders that still exist in respect of Mr Barclay. I will not make a great song and dance about it. That breach occurred in a rather tangential way. I do not think any great harm will come of it and I do not think that it was intended. But I think that as we assert our privileges in this House we must take great care that we do not cause our institution to undermine other important institutions like the witness protection programme. If people cannot be properly protected on that programme then why would they give evidence? I return to the point on which I started: I give my condolences to the family of Debbie Ashton. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Acting Minister of Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill be now read a second time 
. I begin by thanking the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its consideration of the bill and for reporting the bill back to the House with the recommendation that it be passed with no amendments. 
The select committee also conducted an international treaty examination of the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the People’s Republic of China. It is clear that the select committee has carefully considered the views of submitters. The report reflects the strong support in this House and in the wider business community for the free-trade agreement and it also reflects alternative views. The select committee sees the agreement as being a major event in New Zealand’s history and as being fundamental to the future economic well-being of this country. Among the main benefits that the select committee highlights are the increased access for New Zealand trade and investment the frameworks established for resolving issues in the future the support to New Zealand’s objective of broadening and deepening relations in the Asia-Pacific region and the support to New Zealand’s wider trade policy interests in strengthening economic integration in the Asia-Pacific region and multilaterally. The select committee notes that the agreement will bring considerable value to New Zealand and to our economy. 
The agreement is China’s first free-trade agreement with an OECD member country. Being the first developed country to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with China gives New Zealand a time for unique competitive advantage. It raises New Zealand’s profile in China. Chinese tariffs on New Zealand products cost exporters almost $120 million each year. The agreement will remove tariffs on 96 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to China. The removal of these tariffs will deliver significant gains for our exporters. I acknowledge the select committee’s view that the removal of the remaining New Zealand tariffs on Chinese imports will be done in such a way as to allow New Zealand industry time to adapt. The removal of Chinese tariffs under the agreement will result in a far greater increase in New Zealand’s exports to China than in Chinese exports to New Zealand in significant part because Chinese tariff levels are currently higher than those of New Zealand. 
In addition to reducing barriers to our trade with China the agreement promotes cooperation in a broad range of areas including intellectual property which was identified as an important area by submitters. It provides a platform for further engagement at governmental cultural and people-to-people levels. There are safeguards to ensure the New Zealand Government retains the right to reasonably regulate in the interest of public welfare including to protect public health safety and the environment. As the select committee notes investment is likely to become an important aspect of the China - New Zealand relationship. The legally binding agreements on labour and the environment will enhance communication and cooperation on those issues and we believe help towards achieving the objectives of raising working standards and improving environmental protection in both countries. 
The select committee notes concerns raised by a number of submitters on human rights. Experience shows that engagement with countries speeds up the process of reform and change but that isolation slows down that process. I share the select committee’s hope that New Zealand’s closer relationship with China as a result of this agreement will make a small but positive indirect contribution to China’s reform in that area. 
The bill amends New Zealand’s domestic legislation so that the agreement can be brought into force. 
In conclusion I say the agreement is important for New Zealand as a trading nation. It will give us access to a vast market for our goods services and investment. The accompanying agreement on labour and the environment will encourage cooperation in those areas. The bill’s passage will be one of the final steps in a long process of bringing the agreement into being. I commend this bill to the House. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 The National Party strongly supports the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill. As members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee my colleagues and I listened very carefully to the submitters during the select committee process. There is an understandable tendency on any of these trade issues in a numerical sense for a majority of submitters to have concerns about these agreements. Often these concerns are based on longstanding objections to trade agreements per se or on a view of the political relationship—and I will try to come to that presently. But the major thrust of the submissions from major New Zealand institutions that took the time and trouble to make submissions was overwhelmingly supportive of this agreement and very much consistent with the views of the two major parties. I want to use my brief time here to focus on what I think is the reason for that. It is the bigger picture rather than the minutiae that I think New Zealanders should have in their heads as they consider the passage of this bill. 
One of the interesting factoids about globalisation for me is that around the world we have already achieved an extraordinary degree of political unity. Roughly half the people in the world are governed by two capitals New Delhi and China and the other half are governed by 190 different Governments including our own of course. The implication of this is very important for New Zealand. It means that if we can to use the vernacular tie up access into just two capitals—if we can come to an accommodation with Beijing and New Delhi—New Zealand this tiny country of 4 million people will essentially have access to half the consumers in the world. That is an amazing factoid to contemplate. With the passage of this bill we in New Zealand will be in a position to put in place the first piece in that jigsaw puzzle. 
As members will be aware the very preliminary steps have been taken in respect of the other great developing capital New Delhi to try to get a similar agreement—it will take a number of years and it will be extremely difficult—with India. Even now with this Chinese free-trade agreement we have already achieved a historic result for this country. I am not suggesting by any means that I am the only New Zealander who has been involved in this; in the last 35 years generations of New Zealanders have been involved in this fight for access. No developed country in the world has had its economic prospects so tightly constrained by a lack of access for its principal exports than New Zealand. It has been one enormous struggle for generations of New Zealanders—farming leaders trade Ministers Prime Ministers trade negotiators like myself—to try to find a way to open opportunities for New Zealand. 
This has been the story of New Zealand in terms of our external trading regime since 1973 when we lost access to the United Kingdom. Historically the United Kingdom had set up a great deal of its farming systems 15000 kilometres away in New Zealand to furnish the food needs of its consumers. It then entered into what was then a viciously protective system known as the common agricultural policy a system that has been enormously transformed for the better may I say in the last 15 years. That system was a dagger pointed at the heart of our economy and it has taken 30 years of enormous struggle to deal with the implications of this. 
When we think about that and then put this bill alongside we see that this is a watershed event for New Zealand in terms of our long-term economic prospects. In 30 years we have gone from a situation where we have had to fight for every kilogram of access for our highly competitive and wonderful food and beverages to a situation where we are essentially getting within a decade free access to the world’s second emerging economic superpower. That is the big picture. That is the picture that I hope New Zealanders keep in their minds as they listen to the criticism some of which has some legitimacy here and there but the big picture is that picture. 
Access to markets has been the fundamental problem and this free-trade agreement provides a huge qualitative shift for the better for New Zealand. It is not the whole answer and I would like to take this opportunity to wish the New Zealand team in Geneva well in the next crucial 4 or 5 days. Obviously I know them extremely well having chaired the agriculture negotiations prior to entering politics and I know how difficult it will be. They have the skills I have no doubt about that but they will need luck as well to pull this together. 
The World Trade Organization system is about the international glue that surrounds these free-trade areas. It is the only way we can accomplish disciplines on either export subsidies or production subsidies and on certain other trade issues of considerable importance to New Zealand. But these free-trade agreements of which this is really the jewel in the crown now for New Zealand are about one aspect of this the market aspect which does not require forward progress in Geneva to celebrate today. 
When we look at China I think we have to bear in mind that this is a market that will probably become New Zealand’s largest single export market—I would say for it to happen within 5 years is quite possible. For those who think that that is far-fetched I say they should reflect on the fact that China according to preliminary estimates of the Australian Bureau of Statistics has already—incredibly—passed Japan as Australia’s largest market. Sure Australia has giant mineral exports that have fuelled that but I believe that New Zealand’s agricultural future will also fuel the future growth of our exports. I see no reason why the current average growth rate of 11 percent—that is the compound average growth rate of New Zealand exports to China over the last 3 years—should not be maintained at or near those levels for some time to come. And the reason is the very success of the Chinese in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. As they have moved out of poverty 34 percent of the Chinese population is now in that crucial $1 to $2-a-day bracket. Broadly speaking agricultural economists would argue that at $1 to $2 a day people are struggling to put two very basic meals on the table. Maybe they can afford some primary school fees for their kids; probably not. 
It is in the next income bracket of above $2 a day that we will see in the next 20 years further massive growth in the number of these people as hundreds of millions of Chinese move out from that $1 to $2-a-day bracket into the $2 to $10-a-day bracket. It is precisely in those income brackets that we will then see significant increases in the consumption of meats of all types dairy products fruits vegetables and edible oils. They are products that are really off limits for people in the $1 to $2-a-day bracket. So quite apart from celebrating as we would the transformation of people’s lives in terms of their being pulled out of poverty this is fundamentally positive news for New Zealand and I think it will underwrite this country’s export growth over the next 20 years. 
So that if you like is the bigger picture. In my remaining minute or two I just want to concentrate on the legitimate concerns that people have raised on human rights and give my own perspective which I think is the predominant view of the committee although I will use my own words. It is probably unwise when we talk about human rights to try to categorise things in relative terms. It is a bit like theologians arguing whether there is such a thing as relative sin. It is better to stay off that ground. One could make a case that when 26 million people were estimated to have died during the Cultural Revolution there has been a very considerable improvement in human rights. But of course individual events still occur. I think that by opening up to China we can make a very limited but necessarily positive contribution. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee it obviously gives me great pleasure to comment on our report back and to acknowledge the previous two speakers. Along with my colleague the deputy chair of the committee Dr Wayne Mapp I take this opportunity to thank all the members of the committee for their very hard work. In particular I acknowledge Tim Groser’s contribution. In my view he has given a very thought-provoking and comprehensive contribution to the House this afternoon. In terms of the writing of the report and some of the research in some of his work—and I am sure Dr Mapp will agree with me—he gave a very very good contribution obviously acknowledging his own experience and the role he has played for this country over a number of years. 
As we are a very broadly based committee I also acknowledge—notwithstanding that he is the author of a minority report—our Green Party member Keith Locke. He made a very good contribution and obviously in terms of this democratic Parliament this democratic House of Representatives this afternoon he will clearly in his contribution give alternatives—give voice to some alternative viewpoints—which of course the committee heard. 
I acknowledge that a number of people had significant misgivings about this agreement. I certainly acknowledge the very comprehensive contribution of Dr Jane Kelsey just to name but one. On the other hand I acknowledge the very favourable responses that have been made publicly and through the committee including one from the chairman of Fonterra Henry van der Heyden: “This is a good positive step for New Zealand and a good positive step for dairying so it has got to be good for Fonterra.” and also I think good for New Zealand. In that context I think the previous speaker alluded to the growing numbers of the middle class in China in terms of their consumption. Of course members can guess what products they will increasingly be consuming as the per capita income in a whole section of Chinese society goes up. 
In terms of the cross-section of Maoridom I also acknowledge a public comment by Ngai Tahu general manager Geoff Hipkins who stated that the tribe’s fishing arm exports more than $100 million worth of live lobsters to China annually and also takes a large amount of paua product. He said that in a country with 1.3 billion people the deal has “amazing potential. The sky’s the limit really. To me it’s a land of opportunity.” Zespri chairman Craig Greenlees made again what was a public comment not necessarily in evidence to the committee but it certainly reinforces some of the submissions we had to the committee: “China’s agreement to reduce the 20 percent tariff on kiwifruit to zero over the course of the next nine years is a very significant achievement—one that will be worth many millions of dollars to the New Zealand kiwifruit industry over time.” 
Meat and Wool New Zealand chairman Mike Petersen said: “This is a good outcome for New Zealand sheep and beef farmers as it will immediately provide preferential access for New Zealand meat products in China compared to our competitors plus it will let us build on the current trade.” Seafood Industry Council general manager of trade Alistair McFarlane said in a public quote: “China has become an important provider of seafood processing services to New Zealand seafood companies. Overall it’s definitely good news.” I will give a final quote in terms of quoting from prominent people in the business community. Air New Zealand chief executive Rob Fyfe said: “Having spent the last three days here with leaders from across the New Zealand business community the resounding feedback I’ve had was that people were thrilled with the opportunities created by this deal.” 
As a member of Parliament I commend the leadership of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Trade—overseas trade—the Hon Phil Goff. Again I do not think we should underestimate the huge opportunities that this particular agreement in potential has for New Zealand notwithstanding the fact that there will be challenges for us as well in this context. 
To conclude I will quote a couple of paragraphs from the select committee report. Obviously I and others will have an opportunity to make a further contribution during the Committee of the whole House and in the third reading and I certainly anticipate doing so in some detail. I urge members of Parliament to read the select committee’s report back to the House although I am sure they have already done so because obviously they would not be sitting here participating in this debate if they had not. The document is for public circulation and is available on the web. I urge people to read it. 
I think the select committee has given a very comprehensive report and obviously it has acknowledged a minority viewpoint as well: “We have considered the alternative views submitted to us and concluded that the China-New Zealand FTA is of long-term strategic benefit to New Zealand. Lifting New Zealand’s export performance is among the most important economic objectives facing the country. New Zealand has historically suffered more than any other developed country from lack of assured access to markets for our traditional primary-based exports because of severe agriculture market access barriers and subsidisation. China is the second emerging economic super-power and within four to five decades may become the largest consumer market in the world. Through this FTA China has essentially offered New Zealand the opportunity of all but free access for our goods exports in around a decade. As the recent Fonterra commercial announcement shows substantial benefits have started to flow immediately as companies in both countries anticipate the provisions of the agreement coming into force.” 
I further quote from the committee’s report: “This is a historic opportunity for New Zealand and should be taken without equivocation. It also demands a coordinated response from New Zealand Inc. to fully exploit the advantages of the agreement but such an examination was outside the scope of our inquiry.” I have nothing further to add at this point except to thank members of the committee to thank all the submitters irrespective of their views to acknowledge that there was a cross-section of views and to say that we report back both the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement Bill and the free-trade agreement itself between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the majority of the committee supports the progress of this bill. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 This week Parliament will pass into law the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill and that will be an important strategic gain for our country. It will in fact trigger the first round of tariff reductions on 1 October and that is why it is a priority to get the legislation passed into law. Traders are waiting for us to do our legislative work so they can get ahead and reap the gains of the agreement. As the chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Mr Gallagher noted in quoting the concluding comments of the committee’s report this is a historic opportunity for New Zealand and it is one that we as a nation must take. 
Those parties that are voting against the bill however well intentioned they might be really are looking past New Zealand’s opportunities. Could they seriously suggest there could be a free-trade agreement better than this one? The New Zealand First Party for instance says that yes obviously there could be a better free-trade agreement and indeed if there had been a better one—that is faster liberalisation—I guess it would have supported it. Is that the case with either the Maori Party or the Green Party? I would think not. Based on what I hear those parties are essentially against free trade. But I want to ask one of those three parties—the one that said that under appropriate conditions it would support such an agreement—whether it could actually imagine a country the size of China negotiating a free-trade agreement that would go from the current level of tariffs to no tariffs at all in just over 10 years. That party is simply quibbling about a year or two surely and that is not a good reason to vote against the bill. 
One of the ironies of sitting in this House was demonstrated today when during question time and before this debate we heard all the New Zealand First members extolling through their questions the wonderful virtues of their leader saying what a marvellous Minister of Foreign Affairs he had been for the country and the Prime Minister agreeing—although one would have to say somewhat reluctantly—with those comments. Perhaps she felt she had no choice but to do so. But if their leader is such a marvellous Minister of Foreign Affairs for our country and if he is advancing our nation’s interests at every possible turn then surely he should be doing the one decent thing he could do at this point in time—that is to actually persuade his party to vote for this bill. We all know that it is in fact just naked political calculation on their part that apparently has them voting against this bill. 
Let us be clear about this. This is an enormous strategic opportunity not just for New Zealand but also—as that country sees it—for China as well. We are talking about the second-largest trading nation in the world—not the second-largest economy in the world but certainly the second-largest trading nation in the world—deciding that it would go for a full free-trade agreement on all goods with no exceptions. There might be a delay of 1 year in one sector but within 10 years there will be complete free trade across all sectors. China knows full well that every other country in the Asia-Pacific region knows that it has done that. In fact Australia is negotiating with China as we speak and will also be getting I assume a full total free-trade agreement. Members should think of the significance of that in the Asia-Pacific region because we are talking about other countries that really struggle with that concept—countries like Japan Korea and also the United States when it comes to agricultural products. 
This agreement will put real pressure on those economies to actually ante-up and shift their game. We have already seen that in relation to Japan. Can anyone seriously think that Japan would be in full free-trade agreement negotiations with New Zealand if it were not for this agreement? The Japanese know full well that this agreement puts the acid on them to shift deeply held views in relation to agriculture. Japan of all countries along with Korea has been extraordinarily obdurate in relation to freeing up agricultural trade. It wants to protect its farmers who are grossly inefficient at all costs. It knows that that day is coming to an end. It knows it will have to talk to those people and take them along a path of opening up their trade to a much wider approach. In truth this agreement will end up being the precursor of full free trade within the Asia-Pacific region. It might take a bit more than 10 years—realistically it will probably take 20 or even 30 years—but it will have started with this agreement. China in particular knew what it was doing by going into these negotiations with New Zealand at this time. This is China’s attempt I guess not only to gain a further economic leverage within the Asia-Pacific region but also to boost its own prosperity by increasing trade within the region. 
One of the remarkable things about the submissions was seeing who was in favour of the agreement. I am saying this directly to the Maori Party which was not actually present during the submissions in the select committee. I am not suggesting it was deliberately absent but because it does not have representatives on the committee it simply did not have the opportunity. So I think it is quite important for the committee members to report to the Maori Party that the leading Maori business organisations—the Federation of Maori Authorities and all the leading fishing companies—universally said they needed this agreement. Probably of all the business organisations they were the most strongly represented by their submissions. The mainstream—for want of a better term—business organisations saw this as a kind of pro forma exercise and tended to just let Parliament get on with it. 
The Maori business organisations were making a very specific point here however. It seemed to me that they were signalling two things. The first was that they were interested in an international engagement and that they had stepped out of their usual pattern of being passive recipients of Federated Farmers the meat companies the fishing companies and so forth to being active traders in their own right rather than through intermediaries in the international arena. 
The second point which is perhaps more interesting is that those Maori organisations saw that China because it is a new economy and an emerging international trade partner would provide special opportunities to Maori businesses to get ahead to get a foot in because they would kind of understand each other—both coming to a resurgence in recent times. So there would be empathy sympathy and a gain in trade. That was a hugely significant point and I would suggest that the Maori Party needs to talk to a wider range of its own supporters to understand that this is actually a very strongly supported agreement because of the opportunities it provides for iwi-based organisations. 
I would have to say to those submitters opposed to the agreement that they were running the autarchic ideas—well-intentioned though they might have been—that have been run in this country from the 1930s through to the 1950s 1960s and even the 1970s. Those days are gone. It is about as relevant as assembling railway wagons and trains in New Zealand. The truth is that we have to get to a situation where we have free trade and where we find our points of international competitiveness. The Maori community has done precisely that by their submissions. Many other submitters saw this. 
National is very pleased to support this agreement. We see it as a historic and unique opportunity for this country to get ahead. The single biggest challenge facing this country over the next decade is how to get back up the OECD ladder instead of—as we have done over the last 9 years—going down it. It may have taken 9 years for Labour to get to this point but it seems to have finally realised that this country needs to get ahead. However I suspect it will not have time to convince the voters of that. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement and we do so with some sadness. We talked about this in the first reading of the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill. New Zealand First opposes free-trade deals with low-wage economies because in a deal with a low-wage economy the deal is always in the best interest of the economy with the low wages—never the other way around. That has been proven in several other free-trade deals we have had—one deal was with Singapore—and it will be proven in this case. As I said we talked about these concerns in the first reading of this bill and we are now seeing the beginnings of newspaper articles where other people in the community find that the deficiencies in the free-trade agreement with China are becoming apparent—they are causing them concerns. I have an  
Independent 
 article of 10 July of this year which is only a wee while ago where Tourism Holdings Fletcher Building and even Fonterra pointed out some of the dangers of the free-trade agreement with China to employment in this country and to the well-being of our businesses. 
In the case of New Zealand everybody here knows that we removed tariffs years ago and we have gone on OK. There was a lot of pain in that period but we have got over that and as Mr Groser was saying we have spent 30 years looking for other markets. But I will point out that under the free-trade agreement with China—and Dr Mapp mentioned that we are arguing over a few years—it could be as late as 2019 before tariffs are reduced to nil on milk powders and produce like that. I remind people who say that that is of no consequence that produce like that is 20-odd percent of our exports right there—from the dairy industry—yet it will be 2019 before tariffs finally come off those products. Even then there is a claw-back clause that allows China if the deal causes too much trouble to China or if it impacts on its industry in any way to push that date out even further. So I do not think the agreement is anything to get too excited about. 
This article of 10 July is headed up “Hidden hooks emerge in China FTA”. A professor at Victoria University Roger Bowden says that it could be a problem for local tourism if the Chinese choose to take the advantage they are given under this free-trade deal to its greatest extent. He says people can virtually organise their tours to New Zealand from China operating through Chinese companies with Chinese guides and New Zealand merely provides the platform for them to drive through. We have talked about those things in the first reading of this bill and we are talking about them now. 
I have also talked about other issues in debates that we have had in this House when I have said that China clearly does not intend to pay world prices for our products. Admittedly China is opening up its economy but that is because it has to. It will not be free-trade agreements that put us into China; it will be because we produce the best goods at the best prices for world markets. I am surprised that a so-called free-market party like the National Party says we need these sorts of agreements in order to get into China. We do not. We are getting into China because of the value of the produce that we make in the same way as we are getting into all of the other markets around the world. 
I have said and I will say this again—and it will happen—that ultimately China will look to this country just as England did as a producer of those things it does not want to produce itself. So the Chinese will lease or buy farms in this country—they are already buying dairy factories and other plants—because it is cheaper for them to vertically integrate what they need by buying land here in Australia and in South America. They buy a plant and run the product through it thus getting the product at a better price in their own country. We do not blame the Chinese for doing that; we understand why they would want to do that. But we cannot understand why politicians in this country do not support New Zealanders. We are hearing here all about why this agreement will be wonderful for China; I am not hearing about absolute cases that show why this agreement will be wonderful for New Zealanders. Will this agreement put up New Zealand wages? Will it help with regard to salaries in New Zealand? No it will not. 
Mark Blumsky 
: One hundred grand. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: No it is not and I will challenge the National Party—or the Labour Party for that matter—to show me where that will happen. 
We will not put product into China if it is not at the best price we will not put product into China if it is not of the best quality and we will not put product into China if China does not want it. The only reason— 
John Hayes 
: So what? That’s nothing to do with the agreement. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: You are right. It has nothing to do with the agreement because the agreement means nothing. The Chinese are taking our product because they need it. They are taking our product because they are short of water and they are taking our product because they need it. They are not taking it because of the free-trade agreement. In fact the free-trade agreement makes sure that they will not lower their tariffs on many of the products that we produce for many years into the future. 
We also know as does every other parliamentarian here that China is making a big move into the South Pacific. The Chinese are making their presence known there and are spreading their largesse throughout the region providing courthouses and whatever facilities those countries want—and I say “Good on them.” But China is not doing that for the Pacific Islanders’ benefit either; China is doing that in order to spread its influence. We do not blame China for doing that but let us not be totally naive when it comes to this free-trade agreement. Let us not be blinded by the numbers we see in China. Let us not be blinded by the numbers we see in India where we are also negotiating a free-trade agreement. The money for our products—which are at the top end by anybody’s language—is still in America and Europe and will be there for many years into the future. 
Sadly because New Zealanders are not going to be advantaged by this bill to the degree they think they are New Zealand First will have to vote against it. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 In the first reading of the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill the Green Party outlined its objections to this implementing legislation for the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement. In the minority report back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee there is a summary of the Green Party’s objections. In this second reading speech I want to talk about the timing of this bill and the signing of the free-trade treaty in the light of the pressure that is being put on the Chinese Government internationally to improve its human rights record around the time of the holding of the Olympic Games in Beijing. 
I would like to say in relation to some of Tim Groser’s comments that the Green Party is not against trade with China and it is not against trade agreements with China per se but that we believe it is very bad timing for us now to be signing a preferential trade agreement that gives the Chinese regime advantage at the very time when it is so violating the human rights of its citizens and international attention is on China around the time of the Olympics. It is our view that if enough pressure goes on to the Chinese Government during this period we might be able to give extra leverage to the many millions of Chinese who are trying to achieve greater freedoms. For this bill to go through at this time is a betrayal of the international movement that is pressing for greater democracy in China. 
Let us now look at the background to that international movement. Back in June 2001 when Beijing was trying to get the games its mayor Liu Qi said the games “will also benefit the further development of our human rights”. Jacques Rogge the president of the International Olympic Committee told the BBC on 23 April 2002: “We at the IOC urge the Chinese Government to improve as soon as possible their record in human rights. However the IOC is a responsible organisation and if either security logistics or human rights are not acted upon to our satisfaction then we will act.” There should have been action because the Olympic Charter projects its sporting competition as being “with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.” It further states: “Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race religion politics gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.” That refers to belonging to the Olympic movement yet here we are talking about a host country for an Olympic Games. 
Can we really say there is no discrimination on the basis of race when we think of the treatment meted out recently to the Tibetan people; can we say there is no discrimination on the basis of religion when monks are beaten and arrested and when we think of the persecuted Falun Gong practitioners; and can we say there is no discrimination on the basis of politics when we think of the many thousands of people imprisoned in China simply for dissenting with the Government in various ways? But when has there been action from the International Olympic Committee? The main concern of that body seems to be to prevent protests on human rights issues at Olympic venues by athletes or officials or anyone else. The New Zealand Olympic Committee unfortunately has backed the International Olympic Committee on that going beyond the Olympic Charter and even warning New Zealand athletes that a protest could be defined as something that happens at the New Zealand athletes’ accommodation. 
All of that inaction is despite the fact that in some ways the human rights situation in China has become worse in the lead-up to the Olympics. It is worse than it was in 2001 when the Mayor of Beijing made that statement about human rights. It is worse for the Tibetan people. Their peaceful protests back in March were brutally crushed and many monks are still in jail. Freedom of movement—a crucial right—is denied to most Tibetans. The foreign media is largely shut out of Tibet despite the fact that Sun Weijia the head of Beijing’s media operation for the Olympics said on 27 September 2006: “We have no restrictions on travel for foreign journalists in China so once they get the visa they can travel anywhere in China.” That is not the case. Some foreign journalists have been hassled or even arrested for reporting outside acceptable bounds such as reporting on the faith of dissidents. 
It makes a joke of human rights at the Olympics for Chinese democrats like Ye Guozhu Hu Jia and Yang Chunlin to be imprisoned specifically because they stated publicly their intention to raise human rights issues during the Olympics period. They were chucked in jail. A pre-Olympic crackdown on dissenters has been going on—a clean-up as they call it—and we have seen the arbitrary detention of many petitioners human rights activists and the like. We do not know the full details of that and one thing that our Government and the international movement should be demanding is the full details of all of those people and what they have been arrested for. They should also be demanding the release of those people. The media has not been granted access to those details. 
Some of the people who have been arrested both recently and over the years have been treated quite brutally. There is a programme with about 300000 people in it by some Chinese reports called “re-education through labour”. It is forced labour that sometimes involves ordinary prisoners but at other times involves political dissidents and many thousands of members of the Falun Gong organisation in particular whose crime is to insist that their organisation be independent of the Communist Party of China and not be under its control. For that reason they are deemed to be part of an organisation that is illegal and is effectively to be crushed. Some dissidents have been killed. It is clear that in terms of the exercise of capital punishment which is something New Zealand is very much against the Chinese Government is the largest executioner in the world today. 
So this is not the time to be signing a preferential trade agreement with the Chinese Government particularly in the situation where we can make some progress around the time of the Olympic Games. The memorandum of understanding associated with the treaty on labour issues is a very weak one. It just involves discussions between officials if something comes up—not even ministerial meetings as in the Thai - New Zealand free-trade agreement. There is a reference in the memorandum to the ILO commitments. Those commitments include things like allowing free association of people or unions and being against forced labour being against child labour and being against discrimination in employment. Those things are non-evident in China. There is a very weak provision—much weaker than the Thai - New Zealand free-trade agreement provision which states: “The Parties respect their sovereign rights to set their own policies and national priorities and to set administer and enforce their own labour laws and regulations.” Well in the case of China that means very weak regulations in terms of protecting labour rights. 
This bill and the treaty it implements are not good for the human rights of Chinese working people. They are not good for the Chinese people as a whole. It is quite the wrong time for us to take this step at a time when our Prime Minister and others should be getting behind the international campaign to help democracy in China. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou e te Whare. Hoi no i te hui a-tau o te Ropu Haina ki Aotearoa i tera tau i puta te korero a te Ahorangi a Makere Mutu kia mahi tahi te Maori me te Hainamana kia haere whakamua wa raua wawata haerenga tangata. Tu he uri no Ngati Kahu no Te Rarawa no Ngati Whatua hoki a nana te ki kua hohonu haere te whanaungatanga i waenganui i te Maori me te iwi o Haina. Ki a ia ka puta tenei whanaungatanga i te mahi kaikiri a tauiwi ki a ia “Kei te pehia 
  
kei te whakaparahakotia taua tahi.” 
Tera te piri tahi e whakaaro nei au i au e wananga ana i tenei pire ara te Pire Hokohoko Kore Utu o Aotearoa me Haina. E hangaia ana he ara kia watea ai te uru atu o nga taonga hokohoko me nga putea whakangao ki Haina; a a tona wa kia tangohia nga here utu kei runga i nga taonga o Niu Tireni me te whakawatea ano i te haere o nga kaipakihi ki Haina. I naianei kua tau mai te honore he whenua aronui a Aotearoa me ona tikanga kore here kia orite wa tatou kaiwhakarato moni ki wera ake o te ao.  
Ko te korero ka penei i te mea koia nei te oranga mo Aotearoa. Na te aha i riro i a tatou te tunga whenua aronui? Na te aha i riro i a tatou tera tunga hakoa mai ra no to matou whakaiti i a ratou i roto i nga ture me nga kaupapa hei kati kia noho-ki-waho wera e kia nei e te tuhinga tawhito ko te “taniwha kowhai”? He korero tawhito tenei kia kaua te Hainama e uru mai nei ki Niu Tireni. Ka kitea enei korero i te tatau taake i te tau 1881 e orite ana ki te utu o te Hainamana mo nga tau e wha ki te ono. Kotahi rau pauna kia haere mai ki konei kia utaina nga korero whakaparahako ki runga i a ratou nga korero he paruparu he tahumaero he tahawahawa a he whakakinotanga. I whakaritea ko te tekau ma rima anake nga Hainamana kia haere mai i runga tima i te wa kotahi. I tohua ano he whakamatautau kia mohio mai ratou i nga kupu Ingarihi kotahi rau engari i tupurangi te whiriwhiri o te kupu. Tae atu ki te tau 1920 i tohua mai te tiwhikete whakaaetanga anake ka uru mai.  
Tae atu ki te tau 1925 i tohua te Kawanatanga kia kaua te wahine e uru mai kia kore tona iwi e whakarahi atu. Tae atu ki te tau 1951 e kore taea te Hainamana kia tu hei iwi whenua a tae atu ki te tau 1965 ka taea tonu te pirihimana kia uru atu ki roto i nga whare a te Hainamana i raro i te ture Rahui i te Rongoa Whakamoe hakoa horekau he pukapuka whakaae. Ka mutu ko nga ture kaikiri kia kore ai nga toa hoko hua rakau horoi kakahu hoko kai hoki o te Hainamana e tukituki i nga toa o te Pakeha. Na i runga i tenei momo hitori kaikiri whakahawea i nga Hainamana he aha te take e tino hiakai ana tenei kawanatanga kia whakaritea i tetahi tiriti kia Haina. He aha te tikanga nei kia hurikoaro te kotahi rau tau o nga whakaiti tukinotia kia hoa tahi tatou ki a Haina? Maumahara mai ki nga kupu a Mutu: “Kei te pehia kei te whakaparahakotia taua tahi.” 
Kotahi anake te kaupapa hei tautoko i tenei pire. Kia peke ki te tuara o tenei whenua tino kaha rawa kia watea ai te iwi nui nei hei hoko taonga. Ko te wawata kia whai moni a Niu Tireni i te iwi rawa o Haina. Engari he whakaaetanga koura tenei kahore ranei? Kahore te ropu whakawa i mohio mena ka kite koe i nga korero i tae mai ki te komiti hei whakatau. 15 i tautoko 12 ki runga tonu i te taiapa 27 e kore e whakaae. Ahakoa te tini o nga yuan i te ao kore taea te whakarere ke he nui ake wera e kore whakaae ki wera i whakaae. Ka hoki mai ki tera rere ketanga o te tuunga whenua aronui i tetahi ringa ki te mahi whakahawea tangata i tera atu.  
I whakaae ake te komiti whakawa ko te tikanga a te tangata i Haina a “he nui he 
rahi ona raruraru” 
.  
I whakaae taua komiti i mohio ratou ki nga awangawanga kua korerohia mo nga mahi takahi tangata i Haina. Engari i te mutunga ki nga pati nui horekau he awangawanga. Tika ana te whakarapopoto a Unite. Ko te “FTA” nei he kaupapa mo te painga o nga kaipakihi ehara mo te painga o nga kaimahi nga whanau nga iwi kei tawahi kei te kainga ranei. Ko nga whakaaro mo ratau kei muri noa atu. E whakapono ana a Unite ko te “FTA” nei he mahi tukituki kia whakaiti te utu o nga kaimahi o konei i te whakataetae utu mo nga taonga o Haina. Na te mahi a nga kaipakihi nui i waho atu o te ture o tenei whenua ka whakaiti te mana o te kawanatanga whakahaere a-iwi rangatiratanga hoki.  
Ki ta Ahorangi Jane Kelsey ki te komiti ko te mate o te tohu whenua aronui koia ko te hinga o te rangatiratanga o te kawanatanga i a “FTA”. Ahakoa e whakahokia mai ana te mana whakahaere o nga kaupapa a-tangata ki te kawanatanga i te mea e kore te kaupapa makete e whakamana nei i a Niu Tireni engari ko te “FTA” nei kua rere ke atu ki taua whakapono.  
Kore taea e matou o Te Pati Maori te tautoko i tenei pire. He nui wa matou awangawanga mo nga mahi takahi tangata a Haina. He awangawanga hoki mo nga taonga ka utaina e Haina ki runga i a tatou. He awangawanga ta matou mo nga mahi kia ngaro. He mahi tinihanga hoki tenei kia tukua mai te pepa nei kia tirohia. Kua oti te whakarite me pehea ra te haere kua tamokohia nga pepa. Kua oma ke te hoiho he moumou taima te kati i te keti. E mara whakamutua atu. Ko te iti o te utu ko te kore e aro ki nga kaupapa whakaruru kaimahi ko te kore e manaaki i te taiao ko nga taumahatanga ka tau ki runga i o tatou kaimahi ko enei katoa nga ahuatanga e kore matou e tautokongia i tenei pire.  
Kua rongo ripoata matou e rima miriona nga tamariki i raro i te tau tekau ma rima e mahi ana mo nga haora roroa mo te utu iti noa. E rima miriona nga take nei kia kaua matou e tautoko i tenei pire. Ko nga iwi whenua e kore nei i kitea i nga Whakataetae o te Ao te tini o ratou no Tibet kua mauheretia. E kore taea te aro ake mo era momo mahi tukino.  
Me mihi atu ki nga kaipakihi Maori nga ropu a-iwi hoki e whai ana i te oranga mo o ratou ake uri kia whai whakaaro kia whai putea mo ratou. Kei a ratou tera a e mohio ana matou ka taea e ratou te whakanui i to ratou ake putea. E mohio ano hoki matou ko te tu o te kaipakihi he mea nui ki te Maori a e tautoko ano matou i taua whainga. Engari e titiro tonu ana matou ki nga taumahatanga ka tau mai ki runga i nga papakainga Maori ratou te pani me te rawakore ratou e kore e kitea i nga painga e maturuturu mai nei i nga mahi kaipakihi. E tautoko ana matou kia totika te utu mo te taonga engari e kore tautoko i te korero kia kore utu nei. E tautoko ana matou i te whakangao e whanuitia ana tona painga me te mea ano e hiahia ana matou kia kitea ko nga wahi mahi i konei i Haina hoki he wahi pai mo nga kaimahi. E kore e taea e matou te nohopuku ina maukinohia nga kaimahi i tawahi mo te painga o to tatou ao a kore hoki matou e noho pohehe ana e tiaki ana te pire nei i wa tatou kaipakihi. E hiahia ana matou kia mohio ka tu tonu te Maori hei iwi motuhake i raro i te whakaruruhau o tona Tiriti o Waitangi. Me te mohio ano hoki ka taea te pire nei ki te whakamarumaru ki te whakanui ano ra i to matou whenua me ona iwi i mua noa atu i te painga mo nga kaipakihi nunui o te ao. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker kia ora tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
At the annual conference of the New Zealand Chinese Association last year Professor Margaret Mutu told the hui that Maori and Chinese should work together to advance their political agendas. She stands as one of Ngati Kahu Te Rarawa and Ngati Whatua genealogy and told the conference of the significant relationship that had developed between tangata whenua and Chinese. It was in her words a relationship formed in reaction to Pakeha racism: “We are 
both oppressed and discriminated against.” It is that relationship I think of in considering the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement Bill. The pathway is being set for increasing access for New Zealand trade and investment in China—for the removal over time of tariffs on current exports to China from expanding the movement of business people. We are now being honoured with the treatment of a most favoured nation non-discrimination provision to ensure that our investors remain no worse off than investors of any other countries. 
It is all being painted as a major development as fundamental to the future economic well-being of Aotearoa. How did we achieve most favoured nation status? How could we achieve this based on a history of consistently passing laws against the Chinese of creating policies to restrict and exclude what the history books describe as the “yellow peril”? This is a history to keep the Chinese out of New Zealand. a history that derives its source from the 1881 poll tax which was the equivalent of between 4 and 6 years’ earning for a Chinese person at the time.  
One hundred pounds to come here to be subjected to attitudes associating Chinese people with terms like filth dirt disease contamination and degradation! L 
imits were set on the numbers of Chinese able to travel to New Zealand—a limit of only 15 Chinese passengers per ship. A reading test of 100 English words chosen at random was imposed and in 1920 entry was allowed by permit only. 
In 1925 the Government decided to exclude women from the quota in an effort to prevent reproduction. Up until 1951 the Chinese were not allowed to be naturalised; and up until 1965 under the Opium Prohibition Act police were able to enter any Chinese home without a search warrant. Finally a series of laws were passed to stop Chinese fruit shops laundries and groceries from competing against Europeans. So how is it that in a land with such a shameful history of exclusion and institutional racism against the Chinese the Government is suddenly bending over backwards to become party to a treaty with China? What has been the dramatic turn-round to reverse over a century of racism into a determination to develop ties with the region? Remember Margaret Mutu’s words: “We are both oppressed and discriminated against.”  
There is one motive for this free-trade agreement. It is about jumping on the back of an economic superpower and gaining access to the largest consumer market in the world. It is about the forlorn hope that New Zealand will make money from the wealth of a burgeoning Chinese middle class.  
But is this agreement all it is worth in gold or not? The jury is out when we look through the submissions that came into the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Fifteen supported it; 12 abstained and 27 opposed the deal. All the yuan in the world doesn’t change the fact that the numbers of “No” votes outnumbered the “Yes” votes. It comes back to the fundamental mismatch between being most favoured nation  
on one hand with a past that is less worthy.  
The select committee acknowledged that yes the human rights record in China has “many and substantial imperfections”. The select committee acknowledged yes they were very conscious about the legitimate concerns raised about human rights in China. But when cash came to crunch major parties did not care.  
Unite summed it up. The free-trade agreement policy is designed to serve interests of big business with the interests of workers of families the people abroad or at home who have to suffer the consequences being very much a secondary concern. Unite believes that the free-trade agreement will create competition and drive our own internal wages and work conditions down as firms struggle to compete with Chinese imports. The opportunity for big business to trade outside of Government influence or control in its effects serves to both erode democracy and economic sovereignty.  
What Professor Jane Kelsey also brought to the attention of the committee is that the most favoured nation obligations mean that each new free-trade agreement will have the domino effect of removing foreign investments further from control of Parliament. So at a time when the Government is reregulating services and resuming State ownership because the market model does not serve the national interest it is acting in quite the other direction in pursuing free-trade agreements such as this.  
The Maori Party cannot support this bill. We have ongoing concerns about China’s human rights record. We have ongoing concerns about the potential for China to dump goods on our domestic markets. We have ongoing concerns about the potential loss of jobs in our manufacturing sector. And we believe that being allowed the opportunity to scrutinise the free-trade agreement at this stage of the proceedings only after it has been signed makes the whole select committee process a farce. The cheap labour the weak health safety and environmental standards the poor protection of workers the adverse impacts that will be suffered by New Zealand workers are all reasons why we cannot support this bill.  
The reports of some 5 million Chinese children under the age of 15 lumbered with long hours for low pay are 5 million more reasons why we are voting against this bill. The dissidents being hidden out of the radar of the Olympic spotlight the hundreds of Tibetans being imprisoned the international stigma of China’s human rights issues cannot simply be ignored.  
We fully respect the right of organisations of iwi of Maori businesses to take up the opportunity to pursue their own best interests and to return dividends to Maori shareholders. That is their prerogative and we are confident that they will be very competitive and achieve impressive returns. We believe that economic growth is essential for Maori businesses to succeed and we will support them all the way. But we are also charged with looking out for the impacts on Maori communities especially those who may be least resilient and least likely to benefit from the trickle down of economic growth. We support fair trade not free trade. We seek socially responsible investment. We want to see the provision of healthy and safe working conditions both here and in China. And we cannot sit by and be silent when workers overseas may be exploited to benefit our economy or pretend that New Zealand industry and services will be protected.  
We must know that the rights of Maori will be actively protected as provided for under the Treaty of Waitangi And we need to ensure that our laws serve to protect and enhance our nation not globalist agendas. Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to us all. 
] 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I say to my colleague in the Maori Party that there is no fairer trade than free trade simply because nobody has their fingers in the pie or the till and I would like the member to think about that as we go through the rest of this debate. 
This legislation is the most important legislation introduced during the life of this Parliament over the last 3 years. I think it is one of the most important bilateral and commercial agreements ever negotiated by a New Zealand Government—certainly since the Closer Economic Relations agreement with Australia was signed 25 years ago. 
I would like to go back to comments made in this House by my colleague Mr Woolerton of the New Zealand First Party who challenged the National Party and other parties in this House to explain why this agreement was so important and to outline the benefits that it would bring to the people of this country—be they Maori be they Pakeha or be they any other ethnicity. Well let me say this. In the work completed by the joint study group within the Government that focused on the returns that would come from this agreement it was measured that over a 20-year period from about 2007 to 2027 New Zealand exports to China were expected to grow between $180 million to $280 million a year. Chinese exports to New Zealand were also expected to grow by an annual average of between $40 million to $70 million a year over that same period. If we think of that in percentage terms this equates to New Zealand exports to China increasing by between 20 percent and 39 percent above the baseline and Chinese exports to New Zealand increasing by between 5 percent and 11 percent. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JOHN HAYES 
: For the benefit of listeners I say that before our tea break I responded to my colleague Hone Harawira who said that the Maori Party supported fair trade not free trade. I said to him that there was no fairer trade than free trade. 
Metiria Turei 
: But that’s rubbish John and you know it. 
JOHN HAYES 
: For the benefit of the Maori Party and the member of the Green Party who is squawking from the sidelines I say that I think they both need a crash course in economics. The point to understand about a free market I say to the Green Party the Maori Party and also New Zealand First is that buyer and seller can opt out of a transaction. There is no compulsion. A transaction will not go ahead in a free market unless the thing someone is buying is worth more to that person than the asking price. So in a free market no one is forcing a transaction. That means that a free market improves efficiency because the transaction makes both parties better off. 
Doug Woolerton from New Zealand First challenged the House just prior to the tea break to prove that Fonterra and the dairy farmers would be better off with this agreement. For New Zealand First’s benefit I rattled into my papers during the tea break. I will quote from the Fonterra submission to our select committee and I will table it at the end of this speech. Essentially it stated: “Within weeks of the signature of the agreement we have already seen a concrete and commercially very valuable example of these benefits. Since it was announced that tariffs on nutritional milk powders … will be eliminated by 2012 and despite strong competition from other countries Fonterra has been able to secure an agreement to supply these products to a large multinational customer directly from New Zealand. We expect this business to generate revenue in excess of $300m over the next four years. These value-added dairy products will be manufactured in NZ factories using NZ milk capital labour and technology. Without the FTA with China lower priced product from New Zealand would almost certainly have had to have been processed offshore in Asia.” However I have digressed. 
The National Party supports this legislation because it knows that New Zealand interests are global interests. If we are to improve the prosperity of our communities if we are to stop the outward flow reported in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 which was recorded as being 80000 people turning their backs on this country and its Government each year—its overbearing Government I suspect—we must look outward with clear priorities. New Zealand must secure access to the markets of growing economies. Trade access for producers and manufacturers will do most to improve wealth for our people. To maximise our effectiveness as a country with limited resources but global interests we must continually and carefully prioritise our foreign affairs effort. 
Asia is a very vitally important part of our region. It is crucial to our longer-run security and prosperity. As China and India continue to grow we can expect geopolitical weight to shift towards Asia. China’s economic growth for three decades has been exceptional. Millions of people have been lifted out of poverty because of pragmatic reforms made by the Chinese Government. This free-trade agreement which this House will pass this week will deepen the relationship between our countries and improve market access for businesses trading in both directions. As China grows it will need resources to fuel its economy. This drive for resources—timber food and particularly energy—will underpin China’s growing presence in our region and it highlights why this relationship is of such vital importance to New Zealand. 
The free-trade agreement with China will give us access on reasonable terms but this is no guarantee of success. We still need to get our tax levels competitive we need our infrastructure to be up to scratch and we need our education system—including Makoura College in Masterton—delivering acceptable results if we are to turn trade access into economic access. We also have to be pursuing other trade agreements particularly with Japan with Korea and with America. I think that we have to put huge effort into doing this because freeing up international trade over the last 40 years since we signed the CER agreement has been a key driver for New Zealand’s economic growth. 
Global negotiations for the World Trade Organization (WTO) round are at a crucial stage but I do not think that they will deliver commercially meaningful outcomes. But trade—trade liberalisation particularly—involves more than the WTO. The last 20 years has seen a plethora of free-trade agreements signed between countries on a bilateral basis and also by groups of countries. Their very nature is that they are exclusive. I have said previously in this House that the greatest risk to our future is that we are excluded from bilateral free-trade agreements signed up between other countries—for example America and Australia’s bilateral agreement. If we are excluded then we are in a very difficult position; we are cut right out. So our trade policy effort must be designed to mitigate that risk. 
At a bilateral level the major gap in our free-trade policy architecture as I have said is a lack of free-trade agreements with our major partners: the US Japan and Korea. We have to pursue those with all the vigour resources political bureaucracy and research institutes—including universities and businesses—that we can muster. It will be a long and daunting task which can be achieved only by a coordinated “New Zealand Inc.” approach—a cooperative partnership—which is why we are working in a cross-party manner tonight on this bill. We are doing that because our future absolutely depends on it. Viewed against this background it is obvious why the National Party actively and unambiguously supports the ratification of the China - New Zealand free-trade agreement. 
I will make just one other point in commenting again on earlier speakers who have said that there is a lot of opposition to this trade agreement. I can tell members that I have gone around the Wairarapa electorate and I have knocked on doors. I can tell the House that there is huge support for this agreement particularly from farmers but also from people like John Whitehead of Whitehead Productions in Masterton— 
Ron Mark 
: Ha ha! 
JOHN HAYES 
: —which manufacturers a lot of stuff for the military I say to Mr Mark. It makes a lot of clothing for the military. That industry has adjusted because it has already been exposed to tariff reductions. The only industries that I could find that will potentially suffer from this agreement are those like the Stihl dealers which have their very good products having to compete with the $10 gardening-type equipment that comes from China. Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker for giving me the opportunity to support this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the submission on the free-trade agreement between New Zealand and China prepared by Fonterra. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) 
: 
 I move  
That the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. 
This bill forms part of the steps that will enable New Zealand to ratify the United Nations convention. The bill will do two things. It will amend various legislative provisions that are considered to be inconsistent with the convention and secondly it will amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to clarify the scope of its provisions enabling a person to refuse to accommodate a person’s disability in certain areas of activity. The bill does not itself provide for ratification but instead it removes obstacles from this path. 
Historically New Zealand has set a high standard for ratification of international human rights treaties. We ratify only when the Government is satisfied that our laws policies and practices are not inconsistent with the treaty at issue. Since the release of the New Zealand Disability Strategy in 2001 there has been sustained progress by Government departments and agencies in removing barriers that prevent disabled people from participating in society. New Zealand has received international recognition for our efforts. 
Since 2002 New Zealand has been a leader in negotiations on the convention. We worked in partnership with disabled people in shaping the convention. This included ensuring that disabled people were part of our official delegation to the United Nations. We were able to use our experiences domestically with the New Zealand Disability Strategy to inform our contribution to the convention process. I was honoured to represent New Zealand at the United Nations on 30 March last year where I signed the convention along with 80 other States. This was the largest number of States ever to sign a human rights treaty on the same day. Since then I understand that 129 States have signed the convention and 28 States have ratified it indicating very strong global commitment. 
The convention does not create new rights for disabled people. Instead it builds on conventional understandings of what is required to implement existing human rights as they relate to disabled people. The convention provides practical guidance on the implementation of those rights both immediately in the text and over time through the regular periodic reporting process to the United Nations. Given the level of activity already undertaken to implement the New Zealand Disability Strategy and our human rights obligations no one in the House will be surprised that an assessment by Government agencies showed that New Zealand policy and practice does not present any substantial issues of inconsistency with the convention. 
Some domestic enactments require primarily minor and technical amendments before ratification can proceed. The bill proposes these legislative changes in two parts. Part 1 amends the Human Rights Act 1993. Discussion amongst officials indicated that the Human Rights Act is not sufficiently clear about prohibitions relating to discrimination. The proposed amendments will mitigate any risk of ambiguity. Specifically the amendments clarify that partnerships professional and trade associations qualification and vocational bodies educational establishments and dealers in land housing and accommodation are required to accommodate or to take account of the needs of disabled people to an extent that is reasonable. By definition reasonable accommodation does not impose an undue burden on those needing to make adjustments to accommodate disabled people. This is not a new obligation. 
Part 2 of the bill contains amendments to various enactments that are concerned with disqualification from certain public offices where a person is mentally disordered within the meaning of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. This is an inappropriate and unintended use of the Act which has no mechanism for determining legal capacity or capability to undertake a role or function. Although there is no problem with the Act itself status under the Act should not be used as a proxy for determining capacity. 
The amendments in Part 2 either do away with automatic disqualification for mental disorder or replace it with a test based on the exercise of certain powers under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. Different amendments were required for the various enactments depending on whether the enactment already included an alternative test for incapacity. Part 2 also repeals two inconsistent provisions relating to the hospital rates of social security benefits and New Zealand superannuation. 
As a result of activity to remove barriers to participation by disabled people the Government considers there will be minimal financial costs incurred by New Zealand as a result of ratifying and then implementing the convention. The monitoring process already in place for the New Zealand Disability Strategy will be adapted to meet the convention’s different reporting requirements. There is widespread support and high expectation in the domestic disability sector that we will ratify the convention quickly and take a leading role in its implementation. 
I appreciate the support of other parties in the House to expedite the passage of this bill. Ratification of this the most significant United Nations human rights treaty of the new millennium will add to New Zealand’s strong role in the United Nations as a human rights champion. I pay tribute to the many people and organisations that made the convention happen officials both current and past disabled people and disability sector representatives. I thank my colleagues in the House for supporting and assisting the passage of the bill and I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill. National is very pleased to support this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
I appreciate that the Hon Ruth Dyson has made considerable efforts to ensure that all parties were informed of this issue even before her own Cabinet saw some of the papers. However I am concerned about the likelihood of this bill coming up for some long time. It is worrying given that it has been on the agenda that the Government now wishes to see the bill rushed through by the end of September. National members are very happy to do what we can to make sure that it goes through expeditiously but we feel that it should be thoroughly and properly scrutinised during that time. 
National is highly aware of the support given to the convention by our own disability sector. We acknowledge the tremendous amount of work it has done in order to prepare for this happening. We also regard the New Zealand Disability Strategy and Pathways to Inclusion as fundamental documents that need support. But again we are concerned that the ongoing select committee inquiry into disability services and how they might be improved has shown an incomplete implementation of the New Zealand Disability Strategy not to mention Pathways to Inclusion. In fact a graphic example of that occurred in Christchurch just 2 weeks ago. Although it may be slightly insensitive for me to mention it I think I should. 
There was an occasion at the town hall in Christchurch where an elderly man with Parkinson’s disease had been to a concert with his wife. His wife had attempted to pick him up outside the town hall which she usually does only to find the area cordoned off by the prime ministerial entourage. Much to her concern when she approached the young police officer she was told that if she did not move on she might be arrested. Consequently her 80-year-old husband had to shuffle down the street—more than 100 metres in the wet and the dark—before she could pick him up. 
Why this is of concern is that this demonstrates the fact that we have not properly implemented the New Zealand Disability Strategy in this country. The rhetoric is high but it is very important that we meet the rhetoric with practical applications. And although the Prime Minister has said that she was shocked at this incident I have rung the woman several times and she has said to me that there has been no apology whatsoever for the considerable shock and discomfort that this elderly couple experienced. 
Undoubtedly the purpose of this bill is to “amend legislative provisions that are inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” and to “amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to clarify the scope of its provisions enabling a person to refuse to accommodate a person’s disability in certain areas of activity.” and New Zealand signed the convention on the opening day for signing which was in March 2007. Just to reiterate the point that I made: anticipating getting this bill through Parliament has actually had quite a lot of time. 
As the explanatory note of the bill states: “The Convention came into force in May 2008 when the Convention received its 20th ratification by a State Party.” I understand that there are now something like 27 ratifications but they do not include ratifications made by Australia the UK or Canada. However the ever-enthusiastic Disabled Persons Assembly tells me that Australia will sign up to this convention imminently. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Keep up—they have. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It has already? Well that is excellent. Last week it had not. 
It is very important in our view that the select committee is given the opportunity to scrutinise the bill as the changes to the domestic law are extremely widespread. It is very important that Parliament gets this right as we want to ensure not only that the rhetoric is right but also that the practical implementation for the disability sector is right which is very important. 
Minister Dyson mentioned monitoring. This aspect again is quite important because there is a framework to promote to protect and to monitor implementation of the convention in article 33. Although New Zealand has instruments such as the Human Rights Commission the Office of the Ombudsmen the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner and others—and those are very important—it is also important to ensure that we put a monitoring regime in place. I understand that the Minister is planning for this to happen after ratification and that she have it reported to her by 5 December 2008. It is also important to point out that the monitoring implementation of the New Zealand Disability Strategy to date has largely focused on the activity of central government departments but it does not extend to local and regional government and that is the sort of situation that led to what happened in Christchurch only a month ago. 
The other area that perhaps has been lightly gone over is the financial implications of this bill. Again the Minister said there are no immediate or significant financial implications. However it is really important that the longer term ones are looked into. Again I understand that Government agencies may experience increased pressure from disabled people and disabled sector organisations to accelerate activity to meet the obligations under the convention. As is already the case the risk will need to be managed through a considered setting of Government priorities and budget allocations and open communication in respect of how the Government is meeting the convention’s obligations. This is very important in order to make sure that once again the rhetoric meets the practical applications. 
Thirdly I will talk about the timing issues because it is necessary to get the legislation through by 30 September if indeed New Zealand is to become a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Certainly the disability sector in New Zealand is very anxious that this happen. That is why National is keen to work rigorously at the select committee with other parties to make sure that we look at this bill thoroughly and hopefully we can expedite it quickly. 
I understand that if the legislation can indeed get through on 30 September then ratification will take place 30 days after the deposit of an instrument of ratification. Thus if New Zealand ratifies at least 30 days in advance of the conference of State parties which must be held by November 2008 it will be able to participate fully in the conference. This would put New Zealand in the best position for ensuring that the standards we advocated during convention negotiations are not diluted. I think that that is very reasonable provided that we ourselves have our own house in order. In addition ratification of the convention will reinforce New Zealand’s reputation as a State that leads and demonstrates in practice a commitment to human rights. 
National does indeed support this bill’s referral to the select committee. We are keen to work hard with the other parties and the Government to see that the bill gets the scrutiny it deserves and hopefully it will be in time to ratify the convention in an appropriate way. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise for a moment to put on record the extraordinary story around the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and in particular to note that it was really a combination of work by Don MacKay an extraordinary New Zealand diplomat; Ruth Dyson leading the political thrust and some key figures in the disability non-governmental organisation sector including Garry Williams the chief executive of the Disabled Persons Assembly; Mike Gourley the president of the assembly at the time; and notably Robert Martin who was previously a resident of Kimberley Hospital—which in itself in an extraordinary statement about the way in which people with disabilities were once treated in our society—and was part of the New Zealand official delegation. The delegation worked tirelessly and received international commendation for its work on this convention. 
I also recognise the comments of both Minister Dyson and the Opposition spokesperson that New Zealand likes to do these things properly. That is why quite rightly the bill will go through the select committee process. It will be great to see it come back to this House and go through all stages before the election. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 National will be supporting the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill going to the select committee. The purpose of this bill is to amend legislative provisions that are inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to amend the Human Rights Act 1993 to clarify the scope of its provisions enabling a person to refuse to accommodate a person’s disability in certain areas of activity. 
These amendments will enable New Zealand to ratify the convention that it signed on 30 March 2007. After signing the convention in March 2007 a process of consultation with disability groups and the Human Rights Commission began. As of April 2008 I understand that 126 countries have signed the convention and 71 have signed the optional protocol. This bill begins the parliamentary stage and National will be supporting the bill going to select committee in order for public submissions to be heard. 
If this bill is passed into law it will mean that a regular report to the United Nations on implementation will be required. The first report will be due after 2 years and then after every 4 years. I read the United Nations fact sheet on persons with disabilities and quite frankly the facts were chilling. Around 10 percent of the world’s population or 650 million people live with a disability. This figure is increasing through population growth ageing and medical advances. In countries with life expectancies over 70 years individuals spend 8 years on average living with disabilities. Eighty percent of people with disabilities live in developing countries. In OECD countries disability rates are significantly higher among groups with lower educational attainment. Ninety percent of children with disabilities in developing countries do not attend school. On average 19 percent of less educated people have disabilities compared with 11 percent among the better educated. 
In most OECD countries women report a higher incidence of disabilities than men. The World Bank estimates that 20 percent of the world’s poorest people are disabled and tend to be regarded in their own communities as the most disadvantaged. Women with disabilities are recognised as being multiply disadvantaged experiencing exclusion on account of their gender and their disability. Women and girls with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Mortality for children with disabilities may be as high as 80 percent in countries where mortality among under-5-year-olds as a whole has increased below 20 percent. Unemployment among the disabled is as high as 80 percent in some countries. Often employers assume that persons with disabilities are unable to work. Companies report that employees with disabilities have better retention rates thereby reducing the high cost of turnover. There is also concern about violence. Persons with disabilities are more likely to be victims of violence or rape and less likely to obtain police intervention legal protection or preventive care. Research also shamefully indicates that violence against children with disabilities occurs at annual rates at least 1.7 times greater than for their non-disabled peers. 
What about the New Zealand situation? I think we have a lot of work to do according to the 2006 New Zealand Disability Survey. In 2006 an estimated 660000 New Zealanders reported having a disability—approximately 17 percent of the total population. That figure is significantly lower than the two previous surveys in 1996 and 2001 and it is really unclear why there has been a drop in the percentage. The report does caution about making an inference about trends. 
Maori have higher disability rates than other ethnic groups in every age. The majority of Maori with a disability—that is 63 percent—are younger than 45 years old. Nearly one-third of children with disabilities and nearly one-quarter of adults aged 15 to 44 with disabilities were Maori. In 2006 82 percent of people with disabilities were adults living in households 5 percent were adults living in residential facilities and 14 percent were children under the age of 15 living in households. The percentage of people with a disability increased with age from 10 percent of children under the age of 15 to 45 percent of adults aged 65 and over. 
An estimated 5 percent of children have special education needs and this was the most common disability type for children. Chronic conditions or health problems and psychiatric or psychological disabilities were the next most common disability types. Conditions or health problems that existed at birth and diseases or illnesses were the most common causes of disability for children. The most common disability types for adults were physical and sensory impairments. Disease illness accidents and injuries were the most common causes of disabilities for adults. The most common types of accident or injury causing disabilities were those that occurred at work. Nearly all adults living in residential care facilities reported having a disability—99.7 percent—and most had multiple disabilities and high support needs. 
I would like to mention learning disabilities specifically. An estimated 5 percent of children have special education needs. That equates to 41000 children in New Zealand. I visited a local SPELD group which is the acronym for Specific Learning Difficulties that caters for children who learn differently. Parents and SPELD tutors provide assistance to people of all ages with learning problems notably dyslexia. It is thought that as many as 10 percent of the population may have learning problems. These children are often very intelligent and often incorrect assumptions are made. One of SPELD’s greatest concerns is that children with learning disabilities almost inevitably develop behavioural problems as a result of frustration and anger unless those difficulties are diagnosed and treated. The behaviour then becomes a symptom that attracts attention from school authorities that are oblivious to its real cause. One has to wonder how many adults with learning disabilities fill our prisons at the present time. 
SPELD is concerned that learning disabilities are under-diagnosed and that teachers are poorly equipped to intervene. Like anything in health early detection means better outcomes but this is not happening in this particular area. In summary National will be supporting this bill going to the Health Committee. Thank you. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill going to a select committee. We will be very interested to read the submissions from the interested parties because we do not have a member on that particular select committee. We must publicly say that we appreciate the efforts of the Minister to ensure that we have been fully informed of all aspects of the legislation and we congratulate her on the work that she has done in this area to ensure that New Zealand performs well on the international stage. To win an award is a fantastic achievement in itself. 
New Zealand First has a few concerns about the way that the process around conventions is carried out in this Parliament. Traditionally we always amend the legislation after the convention has actually been signed. We believe that the process should be the other way round: legislation is amended and then we sign the convention. It has happened on many occasions and we will be interested to find out why it has to happen like this. 
New Zealand First recognises the right of every New Zealander to equality of opportunity. We have come a long way with the recognition of equal rights for all people but we realise that there is still quite some way to go. Today I received an email from a deaf person who is experiencing some challenges with the lack of sign interpreters being trained at this point in time. We have to be fair and say that although the New Zealand Sign Language Act is not old legislation—it was only relatively recently passed—we expected that the training of sign interpreters would have shifted a little further south than just having one college up in Auckland. So we know that this group of people in particular are hindered by the lack of progress being made in this area. 
New Zealand First is only too aware that 20 percent of New Zealanders have a long-term impairment which is a significant number. In many cases the real handicap to full participation in society by people with disabilities is not the disability itself but the environmental barriers ill-informed attitudes and inadequate support services that we have here in New Zealand. I was very interested to hear from the previous speaker Jackie Blue that this includes people with learning difficulties from those attending SPELD to those with more complex learning difficulties. Autism is another area that we really do have some challenges with in New Zealand. New Zealand First believes that the New Zealand Disability Strategy needs to be fully implemented. This needs to be done by both local and regional government and it needs to be monitored continuously in order to ensure that changes are actually made. 
I was interested to read in the commentary on this bill that a large number of minor amendments are affected by this bill. I was also interested to read in the bill that section 16AA of the Juries Act allows a judge to discharge the jury summons of a person with a physical disability. One of the grounds on which a person is not capable of acting effectively as a juror is physical disability. I found that quite surprising. This does need to be reviewed; it is important. Section 19(6)(b) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act of 2001 gives the chief executive a discretion to pay a lower rate of superannuation to hospital patients “having regard to the patient’s capacity to appreciate the payments.” I found that to be of extreme concern. I believe that it does need to be reviewed; it is very surprising. 
These amendments being made have to be made in other Acts as well and there is quite a long list in the bill of some of the Acts that do need to be amended. I was interested to read that even the Human Rights Act needs some amendment. I thought that this Act in particular would already have worked through this particular issue. Obviously these examples all need input from affected parties who were quite pleased to see that quite a lot of work has already been done in this particular bill. New Zealand First supports this legislation going to the select committee. We will be looking forward to the work the select committee will do and to hearing back from it. Thank you. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is very pleased to support this bill today to begin the process for the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This convention along with the New Zealand Disability Strategy is a step towards the recognition of human rights as rights including all human beings. It is quite nice to see a new UN convention that does that. We are very impatient for such rights to be extended to indigenous peoples but we will not be holding our breath. I would like to give credit to Minister Dyson for her advocacy of the UN convention the New Zealand Disability Strategy and the issues around disabilities in New Zealand. 
This UN convention is the first human rights treaty to be adopted in the 21st century. It is the most rapidly negotiated human rights treaty in the history of international law. Although the convention does not include new rights for people with disabilities it spells out the rights that people with disabilities already possess alongside everyone else. I think that the expeditious ratification of this convention is another signal to people with disabilities that we recognise how important and overdue this is. 
The signing of the convention was the result of hard work by Government agencies and the disability sector. New Zealand consumer rights advocate Robert Martin a member of the delegation was the first person with an intellectual disability to speak before the UN General Assembly. Special thanks are due also to the Disabled Persons Assembly the Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand IHC New Zealand IHC Advocacy CCS Disability Action the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind the New Zealand representatives of Disabled Peoples International and Inclusion International. They were very active and effective in negotiating this convention using the platform “Nothing about us without us”. 
One of the key issues identified by those with disabilities of course is the need to develop and have access to their own leadership. The Green Party believes that people living with impairments are entitled to take leadership roles and to have a powerful voice for effective change in their communities and services. In the disability field independent advocacy organisations like DPA (New Zealand) People First New Zealand and the Down Syndrome Association struggle to get the resources they need to be effective. If we were to nominate a percentage of funds allocated to services to go directly to these initiatives their share would increase automatically as the services grew. 
I am very pleased to announce that today the Green Party has released our disabilities policy Removing the Barriers. One key policy plank is that 3 percent of the disability services budget should be set aside to directly fund leadership training for people living with impairments and for independent advocacy organisations. These resources are critical especially for the advocacy and proper audit of disability services. People with impairments are entitled to take leadership roles in auditing services. Too often audits concern money and buildings but not the people whose lives are made either joyous or wretched by those services. Many of the tick-box audits are done by teams who lack the skills to evaluate whether the needs of tangata whenua and other groups are being met by a particular service. 
The Green Party policy says that people with impairments are entitled to take leadership roles in the evaluation and auditing of services and that tangata whenua must be involved in auditing all mainstream and kaupapa Maori services. We fully support the provision of services by Maori for Maori and we would also work with the sector to resource and implement improved pay conditions and training for disabilities service staff and caregivers. 
Also key to the disability sector is the provision of lifelong educational services. Despite the rhetoric parents constantly have to advocate so that school principals and trustees understand their obligations and work in positive non-discriminatory ways. Some teacher education still does not include a component on supporting children with diverse needs. Many children living with impairments are made to feel unwelcome when enrolling at their local school partly because of prejudice but mainly because the resources are not adequate to meet those families’ needs. With individual funding capped this means that children with moderate needs often miss out and then we sit in this House and wonder why there are so many behavioural issues in our schools. 
A recent report by the organisation See Here which focuses on supporting children with mild and moderate vision impairment has found that only 44 percent of Maori and 29 percent of Pacific Island children access vision screening programmes. Up to 20 percent of our children have mild to moderate vision impairment which if undiagnosed can greatly impact on their learning and confidence leading to learning difficulties and behavioural issues. Our policy supports the 2006 IHC Code for New Zealand Schools and we agree with DPA (New Zealand) that schools must be brought into the New Zealand Disability Strategy implementation and reporting process. All children have the absolute right to attend their local school and have the resources available to do this. Schools must be accountable for the way they use disability funding. Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding must be doubled and the special education grant ring-fenced. 
CCS Disability Action’s recent campaign Early Family Support has highlighted the fact that if a whanau has proper access to community services their lives as a whanau can be significantly better simply because they have the support they need to lead an ordinary life. Our children’s policy supports an integrated framework to monitor the development of every child and young person through the coordinated assessments at key life stages and we look to increasing the child disability allowance given the extra financial needs that parents and caregivers have when raising a child with special needs. 
We know that quality education is key to accessing quality employment. People living with impairments are still overrepresented in low-paid occupations and amongst the unemployed and those on benefits. Only a few have access to supported employment. Many with impairments are setting up small businesses but with little support. Even the Government’s mainstream programme providing subsidies to Government departments employing people with impairments can be effective but it urgently needs expanding. People with impairments who are in employment must have the same employment rights as all other workers. Exemptions to employers to pay statutory minimum wages to workers who have impairments should be granted only on the basis of the individual’s productive capacity and as assessed by the Department of Labour. Employers should also have access to financial assistance for adaptations for equipment and personal support where they employ people with impairments. 
Many people living with impairments particularly those with intellectual impairments are subject to discriminatory treatment when it comes to sexual and reproductive rights. Currently some people with intellectual disabilities are subjected to compulsory sterilisation and/or chemical castration. The Green Party believes that people with impairments are entitled to the protection of their bodily integrity just as much as anyone else and should not be subjected to treatment or invasive processes that they would not otherwise be subjected to were it not for their impairment. The Green Party would ban all sterilisations and chemical castrations of individuals under the age of 18 years unless they are being performed as a lifesaving measure or as a medical emergency. Implicit in this is the recognition that individuals under the age of 18 cannot be expected to provide informed consent to sterilisation or chemical castration. 
The 2007 report from the Minister for Disability Issues on implementing the New Zealand Disability Strategy noted that three core Government agencies did not deliver on the obligation to report on progress. This highlights the need for advocacy and implementation and the Green Party would establish a Disability Issues Commission to provide the leadership needed to ensure that disability services become more responsive flexible and empowering. The commission would work with key sector leaders and families to develop a national strategy oversee and monitor its implementation and provide advice to the Minister. 
The Green Party fully supports individualised funding for all people living with impairments and their families who wish to choose this option and services available must be available based on the level of need and not on the cause of impairment. The Green Party would get rid of the discrimination in funding between the Accident Compensation Corporation and the Ministry of Health. 
Our new disabilities policy is very comprehensive. I simply cannot describe it all here in this 10-minute speech. So much still needs to be done and we have amazingly skilled advocates in the disabilities community ready to do that work. We want to speed this legislation through the House as quickly as possible so that we can refocus ourselves on the implementation of the details especially our own policy and so that we can truly make a difference to the lived lives of the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders with impairments. Thank you. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kei te raruraru tonu au ki te whakapakehatanga o tenei mea o te haua. Ko te haua ki te reo Pakeha he disability he kaha-kore. Kare au e pai kia whakakorea tetahi ahuatanga o te tangata. E ai ki te reo tauhou o te rangatahi ko te “dis” i te tangata he whakaparahako i a ia he whakaiti i a ia. Otira i a au e korero ana ki te tangata haua ahakoa na te aitua no te whanautanga mai ranei tona ahuatanga haua ka rongo au i te wairua motuhake o te korero. Tena kua rongo au mo tetahi waiata kaha nei kua waiatatia e ai ki ta etahi na Patrick Thompson i waiata mai koia hoki te kaiwhakahaere ratonga Maori o te Hunga Turi i tera wa. Ko tana waiata kahore he rangi kahore he reo engari ara ano te hohonutanga o te korero.  
He wa whakahirahira tenei e matapakihia ai te pire nei te Disabilities (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill kati me mihi atu au ki te turanga motuhake o Te Reo Waitohu o Aotearoa raua ko te reo Maori hei reo e whakapumautia i roto i nga ture o Aotearoa. “Ko te reo Maori te kakahu o te whakaaro te huarahi ki te ao turoa.” 
Penei i te reo rangatira e whakaputa ana i o tatou ake whakaaro hohonu rawa atu ma to tatou reo waitohu ka kitea ai nga taonga korero a te Iwi Turi. Kei roto i o ratou tikanga ka kite tatou i te hiahia manawawera o te iwi Turi Maori kia taea e ratou te ao Maori me tona reo motuhake. Me whai wahi nga tangata Turi Maori i roto i nga hui nga marae nga tangihanga kia whai wahi ai ki te reo me nga tikanga tuku iho tae atu ki te whakapapa.  
No ratou ano tera tikanga to ratou mana motuhake to ratou mana tangata e orite ana ki nga mana o nga iwi katoa o te ao. Ko te herenga o nga tikanga o te hunga haua ki nga tikanga o nga iwi taketake he take korero ka whakatakotohia ki tenei marae korero. Ko te patai nui ko tenei he aha te kawanatanga e nekeneke ai kia kaua e whakahaweatia tetahi momo tangata kia manaakihia ratou kia whakawhanaungatia ratou ko nga iwi o Aotearoa i taua wa ano ka kaha whakahe kia peratia ano mo tetahi atu momo tangata?  
Ko te tikanga o te pire nei he whakatika i nga pohehe me te ki ko a tatou awangawanga mo te hunga haua he rite ki te kahakore o te tinana haua tonu. No reira ka whakarere ke tenei pire i etahi atu ture pera i te ture e mea ana me kaua te tangata wairangi e tu hei mema komiti hei kaitiaki ranei. Na konei ka takataka mai etahi whakarere ketanga ture kia hangai tonu tenei motu ki te Kawenata o te Whakakotahitanga o nga Whenua o te Ao mo nga Tikanga Tangata Haua.  
Ko ta matou o te Ropu Maori e pirangi nei kia whakatika te kawanatanga i ona ake mate hinengaro e kore ai ia e manaaki i nga tikanga o nga iwi taketake. E whakahau ana matou kia whakamutua ana whakaaro koaro kia whakawangia nga whakaaro painga kanohi i waiho ai ko Aotearoa tetahi o nga whenua e wha anake i huri tuara ki te Whakaputanga o nga Tikanga o nga Iwi Taketake o te Ao. Kua tae ki te wa kia kaha tatou kia mutu te mataku kia awhina i nga iwi taketake ki te whai wahi i waenganui i nga iwi katoa kia pakari. Ko tenei te wa ki te ata whakaaro ake mo enei take ki te titiro whakamua ki te whakawatea mai i nga taiapa kia korero tahi me te iwi taketake.  
Koia nei te wa na te mea i nga marama tata nei kua tautoko te nuinga o te Paremata o Kanata i tetahi motini tautoko i taua whakaputanga nei. Ko te wa tenei hei whai atu i te kawanatanga o Ahitereiria kua tahuri nei ki te whiriwhiri korero kia takahurihia te whakatau whakahe i te Whakaputanga o nga Tikanga o nga Iwi Taketake. Ki te kore tatou e mataara ka whakarerea ko tatou anake o te ao ko to tatou kawanatanga Reipa e pupuri ana i nga ringaringa o Amerika e whakahe tonu ana i nga mana tangata o nga iwi taketake e kore nei tatou e tu ki te whakapai ake i te noho a nga iwi taketake o te ao.  
Ka kite matou i roto i a matou whiringa korero me nga iwi taketake haua ko te pire nei he taumata tiketike mo nga iwi haua. E mohio ana matou ki nga korero mutunga kore a etahi mo nga tikanga motuhake o te hunga haua ara nga arapiki ki nga whare nunui o te marea. He rite tonu ki nga korero no mai ra ano mo te iwi Maori nga korero e rangona ana i roto i tenei Whare mo nga tikanga motuhake e ai ki nga whakapae hei whakarangatira i a matou.  
Kahore he tangata kapo atu i te tangata kaore e hiahia ana ki te kite. Ko ta te pire nei he huri ano ki nga tauira kia hanga tatou i tetahi kaupapa awhina i te hunga haua kia orite o ratou tikanga ki nga tikanga o te katoa. He tohutohu tonu kei te haere kia whakakore i nga taiapa e aukati ana i te hunga haua kia whakawateatia ratou. Tera te whakatauaki tika “Taihoa e tangohia te koi i te kanohi o to teina kia tangohia ra ano te poro i tou ake kanohi.” 
E mohio ana tatou ko nga hua ki te hunga haua i Aotearoa nei he iti iho i to te hunga kaha: nga turanga mahi te utu mahi nga tohu matauranga te hauora o te tangata. Ka whakakaha ake te whakataunga nei i te Rautaki Haua kia ora ake ai te hunga haua. Ko te tumanako ma te whakaaetanga ki tenei kawenata e waia ai te hunga kaha ki te hikoi i te taha tonu o te hunga haua. He manaaki i nga wawata o te hunga haua ehara i te whai i nga taumata i tohua mo ratou e nga kaimahi kawanatanga. He whakangawari i nga ratonga mo te whanau kua ruarua noa iho nga kaimahi e torotoro ana i a ratou. Kia whakamauru atu te hunga haua ki nga tohunga kia riro ma te whanau ano e whakatutuki. Kia matau ake kia whai tikanga te whanau kia taea te hiki i nga taumahatanga o te wa koia nei tana mahi. Kia piri nga whanau ki nga ratonga kia piri nga ratonga ki te kawanatanga i runga i te whakapono me te aroha.  
Heoi ano ka waiho ki mua i te Whare tenei korero whakahihiko ngakau mai i a CCS Disability Action. Ko to ratou kupu whakakaupapa  
Te Hunga Haua Mauri mo nga Tangata 
Katoa 
 he korero mana. He korero whakamahara i a tatou he mauri to tena to tena he orite katoa. Ko ta ratou hiahia ki te whakapu ki roto i aua kupu korero kia noho kotahi nga iwi maha nga tangata rere ke katoa o Aotearoa. Kua taea tetahi taumata teitei mo tenei motu ki te tautoko i tetahi ture whakapumau i te Kawenata a te Kotahitanga o nga Whenua o te Ao mo nga Tangata Haua otira he ture ano hei whakapumau i te Whakaputanga o nga Tika o nga Iwi Taketake o te Ao. Kei Mr Assistant Speaker he tohu tera tuturu he orite katoa nga mauri! Tena koe tena tatou katoa. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The concept of disabilities is one I have always had a problem with. “Dis” is commonly applied to words to show an absence of something a removal a separation a disadvantage. In the lingo of the street to “dis” someone is to indulge in disrespectful talk. Yet when I speak with people who whether by accident or by birth experience limitations in their movements their senses or their activities I often find myself in awe of the additional powers they bring to our conversation. Indeed I have heard of what some say was the most powerful song they have ever heard that sung by Patrick Thompson who at that time was the Maori services manager for the Deaf Association. It was a song in which no sound was transmitted but the meaning was profound.  
It is a particularly powerful week to be considering the Disabilities (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill as I recognise the unique status of the New Zealand Sign Language and te reo Maori as two of the three official languages of New Zealand. “ 
The Maori language is the cloak of thoughts the way forward in a sustainable world.” Te reo rangatira enables our most vivid thinking to be understood; the use of sign language also enables the rich artistic expression of the stories and traditions of the Deaf culture. Within that culture we recognise the passionate desire of the Maori Deaf community to access te reo Maori and Te Ao Maori: Maori Deaf who deserve to be full participants in hui marae events and tangi and therefore to increase their access to Maori language and culture including genealogy.  
This is their right to self-determination to enjoy the full and equal entitlement of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The intersection between the rights of people with disabilities and the rights of indigenous peoples is an association we are pleased to bring to this House. The irony that the Maori Party demands be part of this debate is to ask the question: how can the Government move to support rights to address discrimination and social inclusion for one group of New Zealanders while at the same time vehemently opposing them for another group?  
This bill before us now seeks to demonstrate that the accumulated myths and fears about disabilities are as much a handicap as may be any physical limitations that flow from actual impairment. So the bill has the effect of amending various statutes such as removing the automatic disqualification of persons with a mental health disability from certain public or fiduciary offices. The bill sets in train a chain of amendments that will make our nation consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
What we are seeking as the Maori Party is that the Government seek to address its own mental health limitations in recognising the rights of indigenous peoples. We seek to urge this Government to overcome its prejudices to face the racist attitudes that have resulted in New Zealand being one of only four countries to oppose the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Now is the time to dig deep to confront those fears and to enable the full  
participation and engagement of indigenous peoples in society to progress unhindered.  
Now is the time because in the least few months a majority of the Canadian House of Commons have adopted a motion in support of the declaration. Now is the time to follow the leadership of the  
Australian Government in announcing that is consulting with stakeholders about reversing its opposition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If we do not watch out because of this Labour-led minority Government we will be the only country left in the world holding hands with the United States in rejecting the opportunity to respect the human rights of tangata whenua and to make a stand to improve the lives of indigenous peoples right throughout the international community.  
We understand from our consultations with indigenous peoples with disabilities that this bill today is being thought of as a significant benchmark to meet the needs of disabled peoples. We know the perpetual myths that some in society see associated with the signs of what they call special privileges for the disabled: the ramps and elevators of public buildings. It is a similar argument that Maori have always experienced: the references to so-called race-based special privileges that are so frequently chucked around this House. 
There are none so blind as those who will not see. What this bill does is to build on best knowledge about what is required to actually enable disabled peoples to enjoy human rights on an equal basis with others. It delivers guidance about how to remove barriers that may serve to deny disabled peoples the opportunity to take up their full human rights. It may be a case not so much of focusing on the splinter in your brother’s eye but of pulling out the log from your own.  
What we know in terms of outcomes for disabled peoples in Aotearoa is that they typically experience lower employment rates lower incomes lower education attainment and more inadequate health than non-disabled peoples. This convention will serve to strengthen the New Zealand Disability Strategy to help to make a real difference in the lives of disabled peoples. We hope that the greatest thing that could come from signing up to this convention is the willingness for non-disabled persons to walk in the shoes of the disabled. It is about respecting the outcomes that individuals and family are seeking rather than bureaucrats prescribing outputs that they consider in their best interests. It is about ensuring that service delivery is whanau-friendly minimising the number of agencies traipsing through their lives. It is about reducing the reliance on formal and specialist support structures by instead building up the strength of family capability. It is about families having knowledge and strategies that will give them greater resilience during cycles of stress. It is about building relationships of trust between both services and family and services and the State.  
Finally I want to leave with the House the inspiration I have found in the words of CCS Disability Action including all people. Their foundation statement Te Hunga Haua Mauri Mo Nga Tangata Katoa forms the basis of their identity. This statement is a powerful reminder that all people have a life force and that all life force is equal. The vision that CCS Disability Action believes in encompassed in its foundation statement is to build a truly inclusive New Zealand—a country that embraces diversity. It would be a moment of great significance in our history if we could not only move to support legislation to enact the 
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities but if we could also support legislation to enact the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Such an act would be a powerful sign that all life force is indeed equal. Greetings to you and to all of us. 
] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the first reading of the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill. United Future believes it is a good thing that New Zealand joins with other countries and that we benchmark ourselves against international best practice and against international standards. 
United Future believes that New Zealand is a world leader in its thinking and its philosophy towards the disability sector but we also believe that New Zealand is currently underperforming when it comes to meeting its own standards let alone any international ones. Let me give members some examples. Currently schools in my area are dipping into their general operational grant to meet the shortfall in Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding for students with special needs. This is unsustainable and unacceptable. Any Government that is serious about changing outcomes for people with impairments needs to look seriously at new money for that part of the education sector. 
In some areas in New Zealand we have a chronic shortage of appropriate respite carers for children with high and complex needs for teenagers with high and complex needs and for adults with high and complex needs. However I suggest—and United Future would suggest—that if we were actually supporting families better with their impaired family members the need for respite may drop significantly. 
Previous speakers have talked about the need to increase and improve the services around supported employment opportunities and about the general ability for people to participate in things that are happening in their community. We need to upgrade the needs-assessment protocols here in New Zealand and we need to make sure that needs-assessments are kept separate from those who fund and provide services so that honest and true assessments are done even if we have to admit that we cannot currently meet the level of service that those needs require. We also believe that New Zealand is falling behind in some areas in providing services in a timely way and that people are waiting far too long for an upgrade of essential equipment to help them participate in everyday New Zealand society. 
United Future supports the call from the sector to have a much greater level of individualised funding. We have too few people—we could count them; it is fewer than 100—who are currently receiving individualised funding. This is the only sector in New Zealand society whose members get told how to live their lives who is going to walk in the door and who is going to clean their flat. They have so little say so little power and so little autonomy over their own lives. 
We also believe that the way in which we audit service providers needs to be fixed up. Currently we are very focused on compliance and safety standards. We have very little focus on service development an area that would be hugely welcomed by people who are reliant on those services. We do very little to include the clients themselves in the audit process. 
United Future agrees with the Green Party that currently this sector does not enjoy proper parliamentary scrutiny. We would welcome the establishment of either a commission or a ministry that focused solely on the needs of this sector in a holistic way so that clients are not having to get needs-assessment for every little pottle of money around Government departments that they need to access. We would also like to see parliamentary scrutiny of how that money is spent because one of the things that concerns us is that there is a huge amount of wastage currently. That alone if it were tidied up could provide some much-needed resources to people who currently go without. 
Our approach to accommodation within the community needs to be reviewed because what we have done is close down institutions and in many cases we have established a lot of mini-institutions with similar philosophies and similar protocols. We need to change that so people have homes to live in not an institutions. 
It is unacceptable to United Future that there is a huge gap in services between those with trauma-based disabilities and those with non - trauma-based disabilities. I think we have to be honest about the fact that this is going to be costly and that the money is not going to be easily found in current budgets. So we need to be looking at new funding models to discover how we are going to address the complete inequity that currently exists for people with non - trauma-based impairment. 
I think greater acknowledgement needs to be given to those who enjoy a different culture because of the world they live in due to impairment. I think the deaf community is a classic example of a group of people who enjoy a specific culture of their own and that needs to be recognised acknowledged and celebrated here in New Zealand. 
In the last couple of weeks my family has welcomed into our ranks a new little girl who has Down’s syndrome. We are very excited to have her as a member of our family. I have spoken to her grandparents and parents and said this is a great time in New Zealand for a special child like this to be born into our family. I believe that the types of things we are setting in place by ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will be building for her a future that 20 years ago families would not even have been able to dream of. So our commitment to this is at a very personal level. We are also committed to all those we have spoken to over the last few months who live with impairment and who because of the constraints and barriers we place as able-bodied people on their inclusion are therefore labelled disabled. United Future is happy to support this first reading. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise tonight and speak to the Disability (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) Bill. New Zealand signed the convention at the United Nations on 30 March 2007 along with 80 other States. Since then 129 States have signed the convention and 28 States have ratified it. The convention does not create new rights for disabled people. Instead it builds on conventional understandings of what is required to implement existing human rights as they relate to disabled people. 
When signing the convention in March 2007 the Hon Ruth Dyson stated: “It is important to bring the Convention into force as quickly as possible so as to fill the gaps that exist without it and to redress some of the discrimination and injustices that persons with disabilities have faced over many years.” Yet legislation was introduced into Parliament only in July 2008. Disability is a significant issue for New Zealand and for many New Zealanders. The 2006 New Zealand disability survey estimated for example that 414000 disabled people—one in 10 of all New Zealanders—relied on some form of disability support. Of these about 105000 people needed daily help with tasks such as preparing meals shopping housework bathing or dressing. A further 308000 people need an assistance device or help with heavier or more difficult household tasks. 
Most disabled people live at home with a small proportion living in community-based residential services. Although most support is provided by family friends and other people in the community disabled people can also receive a range of Government-funded support through a range of Government agencies to help them live as others do at home and in the wider community. This ranges from support with household and personal care to support for education and employment and to move around the community. Much of the support is provided directly by paid and unpaid caregivers but also it can include items of equipment and home and motor vehicle modifications. 
Over the past 50 years there has been a considerable shift in the way that disability and disability supports are thought about. This shift has been away from the medical model of disability and an emphasis on charity towards disabled people to a focus on human rights for disabled people and the social model of disability. Under the medical model disabled people are seen as having various illnesses and diseases that require intervention especially by people with specialist medical knowledge. This leads for example to many services being provided through hospitals and being delivered by health professionals. At its extreme this model can lead to some disabled people being removed from society because they are perceived as being unable to function effectively. 
Associated with this was the notion that some disabled people were more deserving and therefore entitled to support. The human rights approach focuses on disabled people being recognised as having the same human rights as all other members of society. This led to notions such as mainstreaming and normalising the lives of disabled people with implications for disabled support. Disability was included as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993 and in 2001 it was extended to cover discrimination in Government services. Then in 2007 the Government signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 
In 2001 the New Zealand Disability Strategy was developed in collaboration with disabled people and their representative organisations and was based on the social model of disability. It has a vision of a fully inclusive society in which people with impairment live in “a society that highly values our lives and continually enhances our full participation.” This strategy emphasises that improvements for disabled people will arise from changes in societal attitudes and in their environment as well as improvements in disability supports themselves. 
The type of pressure for change is not unique to New Zealand. For example  
Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People 
 set out a programme of initiatives for improving disability supports in response to serious concerns that had emerged in the United Kingdom. That document had a strong focus on improving the lives of disabled people through moving to individualised funding and supporting disabled people to work. 
In 2001 New Zealand moved in a positive direction with the New Zealand Disability Strategy but unfortunately there has been limited progress in implementing this strategy. Firstly the disability strategy is given insufficient priority within Government agencies. This is reflected in various types of issues. No Government ministry has overall responsibility for policy funding and implementation. This means there has been a lack of guidance and that has led to approaches to implementation that are inconsistent with each other. 
Although central government agencies are required to have disability strategy implementation plans there is a lack of a national implementation plan that applies to local and central government. The monitoring of the strategy is not robust enough and its coverage does not extend to all Crown entities local authorities disability support providers and all community organisations. Second there is still inadequate involvement of disabled people in decision-making processes at all levels. Third there continue to be negative attitudes towards disabled people within society which many disabled people see as the single biggest barrier to disabled people leading an everyday life and achieving full participation in society. 
These attitudes are a reflection of such things as society continuing to do things in ways that exclude disabled people and disabled people having difficulty finding employment. Nowhere does it tell us who is accountable for the ongoing difficulties although it states we should improve the disability-related accountability of Government agencies. It seems there is far too much emphasis on holding others accountable and no indication of how Government agencies themselves will be held accountable. 
We can have as many strategies and conventions as we want but this country needs commitment to implement change. So why is this country in a worse position when it comes to workforce training than ever before despite the creation of such things as Careerforce? Why is there no cross-departmental strategy to implement the national disability strategy 5 years after it was launched? Who will take responsibility for seeing that families and people with disabilities are not passed endlessly from one place to another? How will the issue of the very significant funding discrepancies to support people with high needs in everyday services be addressed? Why can we not develop an effective national developmental evaluation programme that is cost-effective does not involve endless duplication and is neither difficult nor costly compared with present processes? 
The disability community fairly vigorously stated its belief that when disability gets involved in competing with health it will inevitably come off second-best and that when it comes to resource allocation it is offered at best bureaucratic medical-model solutions to what are disability issues. Despite these changes the Health Committee during the disabilities inquiry heard of many problems related to ministry-funded disability supports and some of the stories heard by the committee were particularly distressing. 
The committee heard about the following types of things. Disability supports are funded and provided in ways that unnecessarily limit disabled people’s choice and control over the supports they receive and how they live their lives. Many submitters pointed to the National Health Committee’s report  
To Have an “Ordinary” Life  
which described the ways in which community-based residential services for people with intellectual disabilities limit their choice of controls over their lives. The disability supports that some people receive are not of an acceptable quality and expose them to unacceptable risks of harm. This was emphasised recently with the release of a report by the Health and Disability Commissioner which describes the deplorable quality of support that one person received in a residential service. Disabled people’s autonomy is not always respected and supported. 
The select committee heard about the lack of advocacy support inadequate complaints processes and inappropriate responses to concerns when matters of risks of harm are raised. There are gaps in the availability of disability supports. They unreasonably limit the ability of some disabled people to participate in the wider community. The select committee was told about gaps in the funding available for home and vehicle modifications. The disability strategy has not been implemented as much as disabled people would like or consider acceptable. The responsibility of human rights in terms of disabilities stops with central government. Without the ability to implement and make change conventions and strategies are just words. What disabled people actually want are actions. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 3 July. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Thank you for the call Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: This will be interesting! 
Nathan Guy 
: They are looking forward to it. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I am delighted the Ministers opposite have chosen to join me in the House. It is a bit of a privilege for me to be able to speak to the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill and I need to declare my hand very quickly because I am one of those authors who from time to time— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Do you write your own speeches? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: No I make them up as I go along unlike the member. I have from time to time observed that member’s ineptitude when he gets to his feet and I try to do better than members opposite. I am one of those authors who benefit from this scheme and very gratefully too. When an author writes a book many people seem to just think it is free property. It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who say: “I saw your book in the shop. Give me one.” The material that New Zealand authors write has a value. This fund has been in place in various forms since 1973 I think by way of Cabinet minute and one of the things it does is acknowledge that such material has value. The National Party will be supporting the referral of the legislation to the Government Administration Committee but we are very aware the committee has a big job to do. This is typically late Labour-proposed legislation. 
It has been interesting to survey previous speakers on the bill and I enjoyed the way the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Judith Tizard took the opportunity to try to rewrite a bit of New Zealand history! I note that amongst the authors she identified she left out probably the greatest author ever to sit in this Chamber. I wonder why Labour members did not mention the name of the former Labour Member of Parliament John A Lee who was probably the greatest author to have ever sat in this Chamber. In many ways John Lee’s writings probably redefined our understanding of life in New Zealand. His book  
Children of the Poor 
 describes growing up in poverty in Dunedin in the 1890s. That was followed by  
Delinquent Days 
 the book he wrote describing his experiences at the First World War. Most unlike a Labour man in the First World War he went he served and he lost his arm. Probably his most significant work and probably why the members on the opposite side do not want to know anything about it was  
Simple on a Soapbox 
 in which he exposed to the New Zealand reading public the real truth of the nature of the first Labour Government. And what did that Government do? It threw him out. It expelled him from its caucus and sent him on his way. It would have been nice if the Minister when introducing this bill had taken the trouble to acknowledge a former Labour member of Parliament who was and probably remains the greatest author to sit in this House—John A Lee. 
I was interested also to find amongst the speakers no mention of another great New Zealand writer Frank Sargeson. I note with interest that the member who spoke on behalf of New Zealand First raised the issue of whether there should be a claim on the estate of dead authors for the continuing use of their work. I do not have a view on that but I think it is nice to acknowledge the writings of New Zealanders who have gone before us. I think in particular of Sargeson and his collected stories which I used a lot in my previous life—just one-and-a-half or two-page little stories that are observations on life and on people—to teach young people a few basic common-sense good lessons in life. They are the sort of thing that would not be taught under a curriculum maintained by the socialists. 
I also note Mr Jones’ reference to Barry Crump. I too want to refer to Barry Crump who again is a great New Zealand author—and a good keen man as they say. As a teenager at school I read every one of Crump’s books the moment it came on the market. 
Brian Connell 
: Which one did you like the best? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Oh it is hard to go beyond  
A Good Keen Man 
 frankly. One’s first book is often one’s best. But the point is that the writings of the New Zealand author Crump have introduced many teenage boys to the enjoyment of reading. I know my own sons both read Crump and Crump will be an enduring literary presence. I share Mr Jones’ sort of despair when talking to a teacher of literature to hear the works of Crump passed to one side as not real literature. That sort of thing is nonsense. Barry Crump deserves all the recognition he has received and all the recognition he should continue to receive even beyond his death for the ability that he had—which any author who is able to publish must have—to use words in a creative way to use imagination to use colour and to use explanation so that other people can enjoy that ability. 
Libraries are great places. Libraries really for generations have underpinned where we get our knowledge from. I do not care how technologically smart one gets or how small a laptop one carries around there will always be a place for the book borrowed from a library read and enjoyed and returned for somebody else to read. When that cheque comes each year and in my case it is not particularly significant I do not even think about the amount—although I must say as an aside I get really really frustrated as to how much of it I have to give in taxation to that crowd on the other side to waste for the simple reason that they think they can spend that money better than I can— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s a good bit of speech. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Is that Mr Cosgrove? He really does not know when to sit down and be quiet. I recommend to Mr Cosgrove  
Simple on a Soapbox  
by John A Lee so he can find out about one of his predecessors a former Labour member of Parliament. Lee was a decent member and the Labour Party threw him out. The Labour Party threw that great author out. 
I will refer generally to the clauses of this bill because it worries me. It is not a long bill for which one is mercifully gratefully but it does not need to be a long bill in terms of what its objective is. Authors will appreciate having some sort of statutory authority for the protection of their work. We in the National Party actually believe in protecting the personal private property of people. When one writes a book that in effect is what one is creating—one is creating something in one’s name over which one has ownership and over which one deserves some sort of recognition and consideration. But when I look at the clauses and wander down as inevitably one will I see clause 10 entitled “Matters that may be dealt with in regulations”. Writing a book is a creative act. It is not something that one does when one is stifled and that sort of thing. Labour would regulate to define a New Zealand author it would regulate to define a New Zealand book and finally it would regulate to define a library. What a nonsense way to approach such a creative activity as writing a book. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: I move  
That the Public Lending Right for New Zealand Authors Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
 for consideration and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 22 August 2008. 
Motion agreed to. 
Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 19 June. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I am presenting the Green Party position supporting this bill on the basis of points that have been provided by my colleague Keith Locke who sat on the Government Administration Committee which considered this legislation but who is unable to be here tonight to deliver our position himself. 
First of all this bill was a victory—in our view—for the MMP system. When this bill had its first reading most parties in the House including the Greens were not aware that it so fundamentally undermined the free access that we have had to births deaths and marriages records access we have had since 1848. The country’s genealogists historians biographers and journalists soon put us straight and their complaints dominated the select committee hearings. Two of the smaller MMP parties the Greens and United Future then got together to restore open access and Peter Dunne and my colleague Keith Locke made a joint submission to the select committee; the fact that Labour no longer had the majority for the original bill meant that it had to be dramatically transformed possibly more than any other bill in recent times. 
Open access is largely preserved in this reformed bill. There will be some access restricted by regulation which is why it is important to put clearly on record in this third reading—to guide future regulation makers—what MPs intended when voting for this bill. It is not intended that anyone can simply exercise a choice to close off records or to close them off for any period that one may like and it is not intended that there be more than a few cases of this happening in any one year. Those wishing to close off their own birth marriage or civil union records have to have a substantive reason as laid down in regulation which means something like being chased by a former partner who may want to find out one’s new location details from those marriage or civil union records. This is an issue of safety. Also the closure must be for a defined period which does not mean many years other than in exceptional circumstances and renewals should not be easy to get. 
This retention of openness is particularly important for us as a young nation. Many New Zealanders are desperate to trace their family roots and for Maori being denied access to records that could prove one’s whakapapa would be very hurtful. My colleague thinks it is also a sentiment among select committee members to keep down the costs of access. As far as Government costs go they should be cheaper than in the past because of the increasingly computerised databases. We would expect people in the future to be able to access details by computer with the right identification provided and their access actions will be added to the new access register under this bill. 
The whole question of the effect of the computer and Internet age on how this legislation works is still a bit uncertain. The idea expressed in this bill is that the Government helps access through the computerisation of records keyword checking and the like and we sincerely hope that this happens. When we review the legislation under the review clause in the legislation we can deal with those matters further. It is best that the Government matches up to the task of providing easy access because the reality is that we live in an age when everything is being digitalised and there is no way of stopping people accessing birth death and marriage records in newspaper files or in other ways using keyword searches or the classic techniques. Genealogical databases are being stored on overseas sites beyond the reach of our law. 
We agree that the Government was right to be worried about identity fraud but there was not that much evidence that the Births Deaths and Marriages database was much of a source of false identities. The main problem with identity fraud is that many private agencies in New Zealand are slack when checking identities and the law cannot substitute for those agencies getting their act together and providing a quality service. Actually there is a huge amount of information about us on various databases and any agency can ask any applicant for a credit card or for whatever plenty of tricky questions so that he or she would have to be the genuine person to be able to answer them properly. 
In effect the Greens are pleased with the outcome of this bill. We are very pleased to have worked with the other MMP parties to make the changes that were made. We are pleased that the MMP parties were able to exercise the influence that MMP was designed to provide to those parties. It is a victory for openness for the community and for MMP itself. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe. Na reira kei te tautoko te Pati Maori ki tenei pire kia mohio mai a tatau mokopuna ko wai ratau no whea ratau. Kia kitea hoki enei matauranga e nga mokopuna e nga kairangahau na te mea he hitori he korero ranei mo te whanaungatanga me te mana o te hapu o te iwi hoki. Kia kaua e noho huna enei korero. Kia puta enei korero na reira mehemea e pirangi ana te Pati Reipa ki te moe tahi i a matau o te Pati Maori ka pai! Ka whakakite mai kia kaha ki te whakapuakina. Kaua e noho wahangu. Mena hoki he tino wawata ta te Pati Nahinara me kuhu ki roto i te moenga o te Pati Maori ano. Whakakitea ki te ao kia rongo ai nga kaipoti katoa. Hei aha te kohimuhimu erangi whakapuakina mai i runga ra ano i nga tihi rakau ki te ao. Na reira Mr Deputy Speaker tena koe tena tatou. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
The Maori Party supports this bill so that our grandchildren will know who they are and where they are from—so that grandchildren and researchers as well can find items of knowledge such as these because they are historical or about relationships or about tribal and subtribal jurisdiction too. These matters should never be hidden; they should be made public. So if the Labour Party wants to get into bed with the Maori Party that is OK. But make it known make it really public so that voters hear about it. Do not keep it quiet. Now if the National Party really wants to get into bed with the Maori Party as well make it known say it so that the whole world knows about it. Never mind the whispers; shout it out to the world from the treetops! So greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us as well 
.] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have to say that I am very deeply indebted to the National junior whip for giving me this opportunity to come down and speak on a bill that is of such interest to the House and to me personally. Anyone who has followed this debate in the House knows my position on this Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill very clearly and it is this. This bill has been introduced into this House because we have a very tired Government coming to the end of its tenure and thank God for that! The voting public of New Zealand who are desperately— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speaking of political deaths bring out the body bag for this member. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Oh the pigeon puff from Waimak is at it already and I have hardly even got into my speech. But I will come back to him in a couple of minutes. All I can say is that he is all the evidence we need to accept the fact that genetically modified organisms have escaped. I say that Mr Cosgrove should leave it at that while he is ahead. 
The point I was making is that this bill is on the legislative agenda because the Government was desperate to find something to fill up its programme. That is the only reason that this garbage is before the House. The member for the Green Party made some good comments; I accept that. She shared my concerns about the state of the bill when it was first introduced to the House and I think that some progress was made on it through the select committee process. But I will come to that because it is easier to read history backwards. 
The only reason that this bill is in the House is the Government’s lack of a legislative agenda but the bill will not solve anything. It will not solve anything because there was never a problem to fix in the first place. It will not add anything other than to the frustration and compliance costs of those who want to engage in legitimate authorised genealogical research. Those people will be frustrated. 
A number of renowned guest submitters come to the Government Administration Committee and I will quote to the House from a selection of their comments. A journalist by the name of Graeme Hunt had this to say to the committee: “The bill encroaches on well established principles held sacred within open and free democracies.” He went on to state that the latest Government move to clamp down on the public’s right to sight public information is an outrage and that it is out of step with the trends in similar democracies such as the United Kingdom and the United States. But still the Minister wanted to punch on. 
So why does the Government want to do this? First we were told by the Minister that it was to stop identity fraud. That is a smokescreen if ever I have seen one. Just a cursory investigation of the evidence about identity fraud in this country blew that argument right out of the water. Officials could quote something like only six to eight cases in our recent history and I think I am making a very liberal interpretation of the evidence that they presented to the committee. I do not think that it was even as many as that. Secondly—and here is the real reason the Government is putting this legislation before the House—some of the Government’s PC mates and they were probably using an example of one wanted to restrict access to information. They wanted to restrict access to information and that very issue brought submitter after submitter to the select committee to say that this is not right and that it is an attack on our democracy. The suggestion to use their PC speak was to incorporate appropriate privacy safeguards. 
Probably some of the Government’s placard-waving Labour supporters raised this issue because they were concerned about which side of the bed grandma or grandma had slept on 20 30 or 50 years ago—as if anyone really gives a damn. But the Minister jumped into it anyway. He just could not help himself because he thought he had an issue. [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry no—grandad or grandma—I agree with that. Even if there was a privacy issue this legislation will not fix the issue. I thank Ms Rich. I think that I did get that wrong but with the benefit of hindsight I will put it right later in the debate. 
The Hon Peter Dunne in the course of the select committee debate summed up the flaw in this legislation very nicely when he said: “Wander down to any cemetery and you will be able to do your own research and find all the information you want about any individual any time you like.” None of these arguments is new which of course is the irony about this. Peter Dunne the National Party and hordes of people who came to the select committee pleaded with the Government to back off. But it still pushed on—too proud too blinkered too arrogant to heed advice. 
Let us sample some of the advice that we got from some of those submitters at the select committee. The first submitter I want to refer to is Professor Geoffrey Rice who is none other than the head of the school of history at Canterbury University. He said to us: “If passed this amendment bill will render the writing of New Zealand’s 20th century history well nigh impossible.” What a chilling warning that is. One of New Zealand’s leading academics a historian told the select committee that and still the Labour members on the select committee and the Minister rejected that advice. He went on to say that the Minister of Internal Affairs Mr Barker referred to the prevention of identity theft as one of the aims of this amendment but that such cases are rare in New Zealand as I have already alluded to and this legislation will not prevent them. Here is an example of a bad law being proposed to remedy a very small problem. I suggested to members of the select committee that we get some of these leading academics to come in and give their advice to the select committee so that we could be aware of all the facts and make informed decisions. But again the Minister and the Government members of the select committee refused to do that. 
The National Party commentary on the bill which I commend to the House—it is extremely well written and very concise—also points to our concerns and I will quote from that as well. I know it is available to members but I doubt very much that the Labour members have taken the time to read it. 
Katherine Rich 
: Read it. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Just in part. It states: “It is the view of National members that these restrictions will continue to hamper academic and genuine genealogical research and other legitimate purposes needing access to births deaths and marriages information. National members support openness and transparency and we believe more can be gained from the tradition of public access to the registers with the government continuing to act in a custodial role.” 
I really believe that it was when the Minister went home and picked up the National Party report for his bedtime reading that he suddenly realised the error of his ways. It was then that he started to say in the public domain that he felt he needed to start to listen to submitters who were coming to the select committee and accepted in political-speak that maybe he had got things wrong. 
These were not isolated examples. The Minister being torn and bruised then introduced a Supplementary Order Paper. This is where I differ from the Green member. Although we now have legislation that will not bring the House down what it does do is erode one fundamental principle of our democracy and it is that by introducing a Supplementary Order Paper that completely guts the bill it denies the public their democratic right. They were not allowed to argue or articulate their points of view in the select committee and that is wrong. That is the fundamental reason why the National Party continues to object to this bill. None other than the Government’s own socialist rag the Christchurch  
Press 
 went into attack mode over this as well and climbed into the Government by saying: “There is no compelling need for the secrecy provisions of the bill and certainly no sign of any public call for them.” 
That is the issue that I started with. There is no call for this legislation to be in this House. It is a waste of our time and it is a waste of Parliament’s time which is the biggest offence. It will not solve a problem because there was no problem to solve in the first place. As Peter Dunne said the access to information will still be available and we have spent God knows how many hours in this Parliament debating legislation that will have no bite at all. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Bill read a third time. 
Judicial Matters Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Attorney-General 
: I move  
That the Judicial Matters Bill be now read a first time.  
It is my intention that this bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Judicial Matters Bill is an omnibus bill. It makes some important technical amendments to two statutes relating to the judiciary. These amendments will enhance public confidence in the judicial complaints process and ensure that adequate resources are available to meet the growing workload of the judiciary. 
Part 1 of the bill amends the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. The Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner was established by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 with effect from 1 August 2005. The office provides the public with a transparent and accessible judicial complaints process. It allows for a proper investigation of matters that may lead to the removal of a judge while adhering to the principle of judicial independence. Mr Ian Haynes was appointed as the first Judicial Conduct Commissioner for a 5-year term in 2005. 
The Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s office receives approximately 100 complaints a year. Of those approximately 80 percent are dismissed. In his annual report to Parliament the commissioner has noted that the most common reason for dismissing a complaint has been that the complaint stems from a complainant’s disagreement with the judge’s decision rather than the judge’s conduct. In the first 2 years four complaints have been referred to the relevant head of bench and resolved through the voluntary internal judicial complaints process. So far the commissioner has not made any recommendation for the appointment of a judicial conduct panel. 
The amendments contained in Part 1 of the bill aim to strengthen the Act’s primary objective of ensuring the prompt handling of judicial complaints. They are based on the commissioner’s recommendations in his 2005-06 and 2006-07 annual reports to Parliament. Currently the Act does not permit the commissioner to delegate the power to conduct a preliminary examination of a complaint. That has caused difficulty where the commissioner has had a conflict of interest regarding a complaint or has been unavailable. The bill enables the appointment of a permanent deputy commissioner to whom the commissioner can delegate his functions in such situations. Where the deputy commissioner has a conflict of interest he or she will be able to refer the complaint to the relevant head of bench or the commissioner as and when appropriate. The bill also allows the commissioner to dispose of a complaint if in all the circumstances further consideration of the complaint is not justified. That is appropriate where the complainant is satisfied following an explanation or an apology from the judge. 
However the bill clarifies that the resolution of a complaint following an apology by the judge will not of itself justify disposal of the complaint. In such cases there may still be a question of conduct that the commissioner may want to refer to the relevant head of bench even if the complainant is satisfied with the outcome. Those provisions will ensure that judicial complaints continue to be handled efficiently and independently. 
Part 2 amends the Judicature Act 1908 by increasing the current statutory cap on the number of associate judge appointments from six to nine. This is the first increase since 1991. The 1986 amendments to the Judicature Act provided for the appointment of Masters of the High Court to provide a more effective and efficient service by clearing the court lists of the smaller miscellaneous matters. Since their inception the jurisdiction of masters has steadily increased from hearing matters such as summary judgment applications to hearing more complex commercial matters such as insolvency proceedings. In 2004 Masters of the High Court were renamed associate judges and secured permanent tenure. Associate judges have a specialist civil jurisdiction and are invaluable in alleviating the workload pressures of judges by undertaking a range of companies and insolvency work. They have extensive jurisdiction in interlocutory matters including summary judgment applications. They also have jurisdiction to assess damages. The increase in the statutory cap will enable future associate judge appointments if and when required without unnecessary legislative delay. This in turn will ensure adequate resources are available for the growing workload of associate judges especially since the commencement of the Insolvency Act 2006. 
The proposed amendments are important improvements that will enhance public confidence in the judicial complaints process and will ensure that adequate resources are available to the judiciary. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I have listened with interest to the comments that the previous speaker Mr Cosgrove has made on this legislation. I think he is very competent in his field but certainly this is not his field. I think it reflects a tragedy in the present Labour-led Government that those who have been put in positions of responsibility in respect of judicial roles do not have any legal training or any sense of what is appropriate or what is not appropriate. It is not a particular criticism of the member—he has just been put into a position that is unenviable—but sadly it also applies to the Attorney-General. As others may well know we have not had a situation in the history of New Zealand where an Attorney-General without legal qualification has occupied that particular responsibility for so long. 
National is strongly opposed to this bill for what I suggest are really good reasons. There are two essential elements to the bill. The first relates to changes to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. That legislation was recently enacted to deal with what was perceived to be a mischief—instances where judicial conduct fell below an acceptable threshold. Under the Act the commissioner’s role was to receive and assess complaints about the conduct of judges. What basically happens is that the commissioner following the receipt of a complaint about the conduct of a judge notifies the judge of the complaint and seeks any comment that the judge may wish to make. He can obtain court documents transcripts of hearings listen to any sound recordings and make whatever inquiries he considers appropriate. Once he has completed his preliminary examination he dismisses the complaint on one or more of nine specified grounds. If the commissioner does not dismiss the complaint then he must either refer the complaint to the head of bench or recommend that a judicial conduct panel be appointed. 
This particular Judicial Conduct Commissioner has made two reports: one for the year ended 31 July 2006 and the more recent one for the year ended 31 July 2007. There would be some who would cynically observe that this process is very much akin to a whitewash. If I look at that second report and the outcomes of the work he carried out in that year which ended 31 July 2007 I see that he dismissed 72 complaints he did not refer any complaints to a head of bench under section 17 of the Act and that a reasonable number of complaints are not finalised. It seems impossible to credit that there can have been in that complaint history not one complaint that was justified. I would say that beggars belief. We have here a system that I strongly believe is not sufficiently robust. Of course the justice system is a man-made system. It suffers from imperfection but I cannot accept that of 72 complaints received 72 should have been dismissed. 
In both these reports as the previous speaker has said the commissioner criticises the structure of the legislation and considers the desirability of having a deputy appointed. I think the argument he advances is interesting. It is presumably an argument that the Parliament is being asked to accept here tonight—that there are circumstances where the commissioner has a conflict of interest. This particular commissioner is associated with a major law firm in the city of Auckland. I find it incredible that conflicts of interest should be of real concern to him. He is not a court lawyer. The background of this man is that he is skilled in commercial law. He is not involved in situations of conflict with the judges. There are no such conflicts. So in this argument we are being asked to accept what Mr Cosgrove has told us which is that there is a situation of real difficulty here to use the commissioner’s words when these conflicts of interest—which I think are completely unreal—arise. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So you’re opposed to it. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: The Act provides that the commission is to act independently. Mr Cosgrove is calling across the House that National is opposed to this legislation. Well I said that right at the outset and we are. But that is only one part of the legislation that I think is of concern. 
The second part of the legislation proposed by the Government to be enacted in this death rush to the election date of 8 November is a series of changes to the Judicature Act to increase the maximum number of associate judges of the High Court from six to nine. I would like to say something about that in the context of what it is that these associate judges do. As at January 2008 the High Court consisted of 34 judges and seven of those were associate judges. That is an interesting circumstance because the proposition here for the Judicature Act is to increase from six to nine the maximum number of associate judges of the High Court. So an inference is that there is a current breach of that legislation. But members should leave that aside. Associate judges have a specialist civil jurisdiction; they undertake a range of companies and insolvency work; they have extensive jurisdiction in interlocutory matters including summary judgment applications; and they have a jurisdiction to assess damages. 
I would suggest that what this issue seems to be more primarily about is that there needs to be a sharp focus on the productivity of our judges and the processes in the courts today. The reality is that the commercial community is bailing out of civil litigation for two main reasons: the continuing long-running unhappiness with the Chief Justice’s refusal to let judges specialise in either commercial or criminal matters and also the vast amounts of money being spent on the needless discovery of documents. These associate judges are not involved in criminal work; they are simply involved in the civil jurisdiction. So why are we proposing to appoint more associate judges who are confined to the civil jurisdiction when the reality is that the commercial community is bailing out of such litigation? 
There are some very interesting figures on judicial productivity. My understanding of the position is that each High Court judge with support staff costs taxpayers more than $630000 a year plus superannuation. I would say that with that sort of money the public is entitled to expect fast inexpensive fair and just resolution of criminal and civil matters. Maybe the judges work harder than they did 40 years ago. But if we look at the statistics we find that although the population of New Zealand has grown by 73 percent since 1960 the number of High Court judges has risen by 200 percent. In 1960 12 High Court judges dealt with 2610 cases a year which is 218 cases each but in 2005 36 High Court judges handled 2500 cases which is 69 cases each. So to look at the issue of productivity per judge—I accept in a somewhat crude way—the judges of the past were doing 218 cases each a year and now they are doing only 69. What is desperately and urgently needed are solutions that will see less complicated and shorter trials and greater productivity from the judges. That is why National is opposed to this legislation—it makes no sense. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
:  
In respect of the third reading of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill the result of the vote needs to be amended. The correct result is that the Ayes are 69 and the Noes are 50. 
Judicial Matters Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) 
: 
 It is always a very positive thing to follow His Excellency the chairperson of the Regulations Review Committee and the honorary consul for Monaco Dr Richard Worth. He made a fine contribution. 
As the Minister noted the Judicial Matters Bill before us implements some important but minor amendments relating to the judiciary by amending the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 and the Judicature Act 1908. The office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner provides an important and I think generally accepted service that enables the lodgment and examination of complaints from the public about the conduct of judges—that is the point of the bill that we should not lose track of—while of course upholding the all-important independence of the judiciary. To date the commissioner has not found it necessary to refer any complaint to a head of bench nor to recommend that the Attorney-General appoint a judicial conduct panel but the inaugural commissioner Mr Haynes has identified some desirable and beneficial technical amendments to the Act in his 2005-06 and 2006-07 annual reports to Parliament. This bill effectively implements those recommendations. 
It is my pleasure to support this bill. It is a useful and important measure for Parliament to advance and it reflects this Labour Government’s commitment to a robust transparent and fair justice system which we recognise as being essential to a well-functioning society. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow the person who is so happy to be the MP for Taupo. In 2004 National opposed the substantive legislation. We said that it was an unwarranted attack on judicial independence and that it would encourage ineffective and stupid complaints—in fact that it would encourage a culture of complaints. And colleagues of mine like Judith Collins who spoke against the legislation were indeed prophetic because it has basically been a waste of time. We were right to oppose this legislation in 2004 and we are right to oppose this amendment bill the Judicial Matters Bill. 
That is not to say that complaints against members of the judiciary should be treated in a frivolous or light-hearted manner. This is in fact a very serious topic. Most judges conduct themselves competently and with integrity consistent with the judicial oath they take when they are sworn in. But sometimes judges do indeed need to be disciplined. 
The worst example I have come across in recent times is the 2005 case of a New York judge who jailed all 46 people in his courtroom after someone’s mobile phone went off. The judge was presiding over a domestic violence case in Niagara Falls when he was interrupted by the offending phone. He proceeded to rage: “Every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now. If anybody believes I’m kidding ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going.” When nobody owned up the judge was true to his word and ordered the arrest of every single person in the courtroom with bail set at US$1500 per person. Those who could not stump up the money were shackled and taken to prison. This judge was later removed from the bench with the chairman of the state commission on judicial conduct describing his actions as “two hours of inexplicable madness”. 
Then there is the case of Justice Peter Smith who was the judge in the famous  
Da Vinci Code 
 case. He entered into vitriolic correspondence with a law firm in England that he had hoped would employ him as a consultant. He then failed to recuse himself in a case involving that firm. The Court of Appeal was very critical of the judge’s actions describing them as “somewhat extraordinary”. Then there was the famous case in 1983 of circuit judge Bruce Campbell in England who was dismissed for smuggling substantial amounts of cigarettes and whisky into the country on his private yacht. Thankfully we have never had anything like that. 
In fact the annual report of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner for 2006-07 makes very impressive reading. In that financial year 92 complaints were received and there were 11 unfinalised complaints from the previous year. As Dr Worth said 72 of those complaints were dismissed and the number of unfinalised complaints at 31 July was 31. No complaints were referred to the head of bench under section 17 of the Act and no complaints were referred to the head of bench at the outset with the consent of the complainant because of a conflict of interest. It appears from reading the report that by far the most common complaint was that a decision ruling or order of a judge was wrong. But that simply cannot be a ground for complaint to this type of disciplinary body; such complaints are utterly misconceived. 
Other grounds of complaint included rudeness inappropriate remarks failure to listen and bias. There are various ways in which these matters can be dealt with. We can take for example a judge who is always being rude or who is taking too long to write a judgment. The sensible thing to do is to have a senior member of the profession have a quiet discussion with the relevant head of bench who can then sort it out. That is the National Party approach—do it subtly but do it effectively. 
The Labour Party approach is illustrated by this foolish legislation: set up an office create procedures appoint a commissioner and then bring on the inevitable amendment bill that seeks to appoint a deputy commissioner. The next thing we will have is a registrar a council of worthies hundreds of bureaucrats and lo and behold a culture of complaint being encouraged and nurtured. There are plenty of litigants out there who having lost their cases will personalise them against judges. They are encouraged by this ridiculous regime to make complaints. 
Of course judges can be rude grumpy or discourteous. In many cases one can hardly blame them given the quality of submissions they have to hear from lawyers. But are we such a weak-kneed sissy society that if a judge barks at us we have to run off to some judicial complaints body? I do not think so. 
We do not see any need for a deputy commissioner. In fact we do not see any need for a commissioner. I noted from the commissioner’s report that he said it would be helpful to have a deputy because of conflict of interest but Dr Worth has dealt with that. This person does not need a deputy because the prospect of conflict of interest is minimal. As I said earlier the number of complaints referred to the head of bench because of conflict of interest was nil in 2006 and 2007 and two in 2005 and 2006 so there is no demonstrated need. There is no need to legislate the obvious such as clauses dealing with the disposal of complaints and we are therefore opposed to this stupid legislation. 
The second part of the bill concerns an amendment to the Judicature Act to provide for an increase in the number of associate judges. These were created in the 1980s to assist High Court judges in a range of civil work and that is more specifically referred to in sections 26I and 26J of the Judicature Act 1908. In the 20 years or so since the office was created the incumbents have done great work and have made a huge contribution to civil justice. Without them the already crippling workload of High Court judges would have been made worse and it is to be noted that associate judges these days do great work in presiding over settlement conferences. But I wonder whether simply increasing their number at this time masks the real problem with civil litigation an area of the law that this Government has neglected throughout its term. 
The President of the Bar Association Jim Farmer QC commented in  
The Independent Financial Review 
 recently that the court system is fundamentally strong. He said and I agree that we have an independent judiciary respect for the rule of law—except with the Labour Party over the Electoral Finance Act—and a lack of corruption. But that system is undermined by costs increasingly prescriptive processes and delay. A real problem in civil litigation is the vast amount of money being spent on needless discovery of documents. Another problem in my opinion is the prescriptive case management procedures which unnecessarily delay the resolution of a case. 
Earlier this year I attended a very good Bar Association conference on the topic of civil litigation in crisis. One judge said that the adversarial system was seriously flawed and had passed its use-by date. “Citizens” he said “no longer had meaningful access to the courts.” 
I am very concerned about this issue and indeed I have been for a number of years. I look on the work of this Government with contempt. It has failed to address any of these important issues. Fundamental reform of the civil justice system is required. I do not think we need more associate judges; we need fundamental reform. We also need to free judges from the burdens of administration so that they can concentrate on their core job which is to judge. This Government increasingly treats judges like civil servants and that is wrong. 
This bill will not be supported by the National Party. The material dealing with the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner is as misconceived as the contents of the substantive legislation. Secondly although National has great respect for associate judges and the work they do simply increasing their number is not the answer. Reforming the civil justice system is the answer. Of course this Government not only does not know the answers; it is so hopeless that it does not even know which questions to ask. 
I will be very interested in what my friend from New Zealand First will say because New Zealand First opposed this legislation in 2004. I hope that it will not backtrack on that and support this foolish legislation because Mr Dail Jones has a lot of experience in the law. He knows what works. He knows what needs to be done. I very much look forward to his contribution to see whether New Zealand First will be staunch in the defence of judges or will backslide. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Although I really appreciate praise like that from any sector of the House and especially from Mr Finlayson in the National Party I regret to say I will have to disappoint him on this occasion. That is probably not for the first time or the last time but I can see that he will go home terribly disappointed—his handkerchief is out already—and he may not be able to make it back tomorrow morning because he will be so upset. The Judicial Matters Bill is really just a technical minor bill—that is all it is. The bill allows the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to have a deputy and it increases the number of associate judges. That is all it does. 
I am disappointed that the old tradition we used to have in the National Party in this House from 1975-84 where one sat and listened to the next speaker is not continued by current National Party members of Parliament. I raise the point that Mr Finlayson’s speech was in direct opposition to the speech made by Mr Worth in so far as associate judges are concerned and regarding judges. On the one hand we heard from Mr Worth that judges are not working hard enough—and he came up with some statistics on that—but on the other hand we heard from Mr Finlayson that High Court judges have a crippling workload. The National Party is hopelessly confused in so far as its approach to this legislation is concerned. I wonder what the next National Party speaker will say. We have had a sort of flip-flop already—we have had only two National Party speakers and they have contradicted themselves in the space of two speeches. Out of respect I listened to what they had to say and I think perhaps the next speaker from the National Party will clarify its actual view of the workload of High Court judges. 
Mr Finlayson is in fact more accurate than Mr Worth. Mr Worth was referring to practice in 1960 and comparing it with that today. Well strangely enough I did appear in the High Court in 1969 so I can say I practised in the 1960s—doing a jury trial or two and other High Court matters at the time; usually that divorce court stuff that we used to do hoping we would get Justice Woodhouse rather than Justice Moller to do the decree nisi. But the workload of a judge in the 1960s was quite different from the current workload and Mr Finlayson hit the nail on the head. In those days we did not have the needless discovery of documents; today that can go on forever. We did not have methamphetamine cases that go on forever and all those new types of issues that arise. We did not really need masters—or associate judges as they are now called—in those days to any extent and we used to just deal with those issues in front of a judge in chambers and usually in the High Court library. I am speaking about what used to be the Supreme Court in those days; we changed the name to the High Court in the late 1970s or early 1980s. 
So I can see the need for an increase in associate judges absolutely immediately. Of course the cap is a maximum. One does not necessarily have to appoint the additional associate judges immediately. It will all depend upon the circumstances and whether the Minister and the appropriate authorities decide that they are required. I was disappointed in the disagreement on the part of the National Party on that particular issue. 
Of course the most useful role of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner turns out to be that members of Parliament do not have their time wasted by people who say the judge got it wrong and ask what they are going to do about it. I am sure any number of members of Parliament especially those of us who have been constituency members of Parliament—I am not one now but for 9 years I was a constituency member of Parliament—would invariably get at least one or two cases bundled around various members of Parliament. One might have been the first or the fifth member to be contacted by the particular litigant who would be very upset about the outcome. Now of course that type of issue is referred to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner who must have a handle on how to deal with those types of issues and deal with them as gently and as wisely as possible. Really they are examples of upset litigants who are not happy with the outcome of a case. 
The other issue of course and again I was very disappointed in Mr Worth when he seemed to attack the Judicial Conduct Commissioner— 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.