Volume 640 Week 48 - Thursday 28 June 2007 
Volume 640 Week 48 - Thursday 28 June 2007 
[Volume:640;Page:10317] 
Thursday 28 June 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House goes into a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 July priority will be given to the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill which is an 8-hour debate and the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services (Remedies) Amendment Bill and the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for giving us an indication of the next sitting’s business. I wonder whether he might give us a comment about the likelihood of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill passing during this term of the Government. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think we can say that is still being market tested at the present time. 
Questions to Ministers 
Bail—Electronic Monitoring 
1. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by a Ministry of Justice document from October 2005 which states that targeting electronic bail towards those defendants who would otherwise be remanded in custody “conflicts with the fact that such defendants are more likely to have characteristics or criminal histories that would make them unsuitable for release on bail with electronic monitoring.”; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I stand by the advice that was tendered to Ministers in 2005: “Some defendants who would otherwise be remanded in custody could be released on bail with electronic monitoring.” 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that the same document states that electronic bail was established “with the primary aim of reducing inmate numbers” and is saving 46 prison beds really worth the risk to the public when violent offenders make up the largest group of those on electronic bail including those accused of aggravated robbery grievous assault rape; and that a staggering 87 percent on electronic bail have already been convicted for offending whilst previously on bail? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As the member knows because I told him in writing in January the document he is referring to was not one I was even aware of the existence of. It was not— 
Simon Power 
: It’s your department. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The paper was an internal document never released to Ministers— 
Hon Members 
: Aw! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: —under the Official Information Act. It is a draft document internal to the ministry. What I am telling the member is that the advice the Ministers received when raising questions about this is as per the answer I gave the member in the principal answer. I can say to the member that of the 274 who have applied and the 126 the court has heard only three have been charged with any new offences. 
Simon Power 
: Why should the public have any confidence in the Minister’s policy of letting violent offenders out on electronic bail just to save a few prison beds when police have opposed their bail in 85 percent of cases including a member of the JDK gang who had previously offended while on bail is currently on the run and is someone police have warned on national television is “extremely dangerous”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As the member indicates in his question he quite correctly understands that the operational responsibility for electronic bail resides with the police. But I can say to the member that in terms of the actual advice Ministers received from the ministry the ministry also emphasised that the reasons to progress to electronic bail were that it had positive implications around improving rehabilitation options and enhancing public safety by enabling stricter supervision for offenders. 
Simon Power 
: The primary reason was prison beds. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member is misleading people who are listening because of course some of those who are getting electronic bail provision previously would have had non-electronic bail provision. In this case it enhances the security of those getting the sentence. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with the advice of an official who was asked to estimate the number of offenders remanded in custody who might be eligible for electronic bail and replied by email: “Basically it seems very few remands are made without good reason. Sometimes police will apply for remand under one charge while they look for evidence under another charge so the remand can also be something of a risk-mitigation tool with known serious reoffenders.”; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As the nature of the member’s question indicates there are a series of issues. The first is to provide a tool the second is for the police to determine their recommendation and thirdly of course—and most important—is for the court to decide what provision it makes use of on its judgment of all the facts at the time. 
Ron Mark 
: What is the public to do when first it has a National Government that introduces home detention containing back-end home detention and that allows violent offenders placed on home detention to offend again; and second it sees a Labour-led Government allowing violent offenders—who have previously offended whilst on bail—to be given electronic bail from where they offend again other than to vote for a sensibly led Government that being a New Zealand First - led Government which will not accept the sorts of airhead recommendations that both he and National give? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As the member is aware the House is considering at this time a range of sentencing options to enhance the choices for judges to use. But I can say to the member that contrary to the implication of the latter part of his question of those who have currently been involved in an electronic bail sentence only three have been charged and in fact only one convicted of a new offence. The member’s question was legitimate in terms of whether we are evaluating the work that is being done. That is perhaps most important and I can tell him that yes we are. There is an evaluation. An independent contractor has been engaged by police to provide that data. There will be a report to Ministers in November and we will have a substantive evaluation of what has actually happened whether this is working and whether it requires any change. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that when his predecessor the Hon Phil Goff was asked to come up with ways of reducing the prison population he told Cabinet in March 2005: “I do not propose that electronic monitoring as a condition of bail be reconsidered at this time.” yet that same month he was rolled by Cabinet into doing more work on it; and is that because the Government was more concerned about prison numbers than it was about the type of offender who is currently on electronically monitored bail? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can confirm that in December 2005 when I was the Minister the advice provided to Cabinet was as per the answers to the questions I gave to the member earlier. I can say to the member that that advice was tendered as part of a suite of advice dealing with a range of options that gives the Government and ultimately the courts better sentencing options to achieve both community safety and the best results in terms of the criminal justice system. That is the point of the exercise. 
Simon Power 
: Has he received any reports from the Minister of Police about whether the police actually support electronic bail when they not only have to assess the eligibility of remandees for electronic bail but also have to monitor them while they are on electronic bail despite the fact that they almost always oppose electronic bail in the first instance? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I have not received any reports from the Minister of Police stating that the police oppose their involvement in the electronic bail process. But as I indicated to the member the police have conducted and are conducting an evaluation. They have independent research being done. That will provide a basis of reporting to joint Ministers later in the year. 
Simon Power 
: Is this scheme about keeping prison numbers down or about protecting the public from people who have previously or who have allegedly had violent criminal charges laid against them? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If the member means by “this scheme” electronic bail then it is but one of a number of ingredients in a range of sentencing options provided to the courts through legislation that is going through this House in order to achieve the most effective use of the criminal justice system. 
Ron Mark 
: Can he now then give this House an absolute assurance that his Government will be issuing instructions that no offender who has had a previous history of offending whilst on bail will now be eligible for electronic bail end of story; can he give the House that assurance right now? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can give the member an assurance that the Government has made it very clear that the use of this sentence needs to be applied alongside a first principle of public and community safety. In the end it is up to the judges in possession of all the facts at the time to make a choice as to the appropriate use of sentencing. 
KiwiSaver—Business Support 
2.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on business support for KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen reports from companies as diverse as Air New Zealand Gallagher Animal Management Systems and the New Zealand Exchange saying that they will adopt KiwiSaver because they want to do the best for their staff and for New Zealand. Indeed this morning I visited Pacific Steel where the management facilitated a visit and which is putting in 2 percent straight away from 1 July. I have also seen reports showing that record numbers of people are visiting the website and calling the 0800 KiwiSaver line. I am glad to see so much interest in the scheme. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has he seen on attempts to discourage businesses from supporting KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a taxpayer-funded letter to businesses that is clearly designed to discourage them from supporting KiwiSaver. But it seems that in addressing this letter of Mr Key to Child Youth and Family and Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Mr Key cannot tell the difference between businesses and Government agencies. We know that the National Party favours privatisation but this seems to be going a little bit too far. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Has the Minister seen the cumulative increase in the value of the Australian sharemarket which corresponds with Australia’s stock of superannuation funds over the years; and can he confirm that one of the advantages of having a large pool of savings in New Zealand would be the availability of onshore capital to allow Kiwi businesses to invest with New Zealand money? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed. That explains why I have had a lot of approaches from individual business people over the last few weeks who are very strongly supportive of the KiwiSaver scheme. The National Party in failing to sign up to support for the enhanced KiwiSaver scheme is simply out of step with where the major portion of New Zealand business is at the present time. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has he seen any other reports on support for KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. In Mr Key’s letter supposedly to business he claims that National supported KiwiSaver in its pre-Budget form. This is somewhat surprising given that National is the only party in Parliament to vote against the third reading of the KiwiSaver Bill. I also note that the letter claims that after taking into account the benefits of the company tax rate companies could be worse off in the first year of the scheme and there is a 1 percent employer contribution despite the $20 a week tax credit. That does not add up. The employer contribution is fully paid on the first $104000 of employee income in the first year which is 2? times the full-time average wage. 
State Houses—Subletting 
3.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: On what date was the investigation into the October 2005 to March 2006 subletting of a Mangere State house completed and on what date was the file of Case No.320060053 detailing this investigation sent to the Crown solicitor for consideration? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand that the Minister’s answer will be a little longer than normal. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yesterday when this issue was raised in the House I had not been given full information by Housing New Zealand on the details of the case raised by the member. I now have made extensive inquiries into this case and I have uncovered additional information that the member and this House are not aware of. That information does raise serious questions about the speed with which Housing New Zealand is dealing with serious tenant breaches of honesty. The information is as follows. An allegation about the tenant was received by the corporation on 24 February 2006. Relevant material was assembled and the case was allocated to an investigator on 13 May 2006. When the investigation was completed on 31 August 2006 the results of the investigation were considered as is usual by the next scheduled meeting of the investigation committee in October 2006. Subsequent to that meeting it has taken until earlier this month to establish the $32650 debt now owed by the tenant. Late yesterday the file was sent to Housing New Zealand’s legal team to prepare for forwarding to the Crown solicitor. Yesterday in the House going on the information I had available at that time I advised that the case had been referred to the Crown solicitor. This was not accurate. The case was referred only this morning—far too late and a lesson has been learnt. I accept that Housing New Zealand has taken far too long to investigate this case and a number of other cases sitting in its investigations unit. I am determined that the situation will be rectified. I do want to stress to this House that the vast bulk of Housing New Zealand tenants are decent people and that the actions of a few dishonest tenants should not reflect on everyone. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That was an extremely long answer. Although you did indicate that the Minister had asked for your indulgence in that regard it was much longer than many of the other long answers you have allowed previously. What is worse is that it was in the nature of a ministerial statement. I think the House should be very very careful about Ministers getting themselves into trouble one day by misleading the House then commandeering question time the next day to try to get themselves out of it without the sort of scrutiny that the House might reasonably apply in that circumstance. I accordingly seek leave for there to be a ministerial statement debate forthwith on this matter. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Do you have a view on whether the Minister should have taken leave at the first opportunity to correct the mistake that he must have known late yesterday he had made in the House during question time? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did give a very full explanation. Certainly the explanation I think did contain two issues. One was an explanation of what happened and one certainly did refer to the fact that the information given yesterday was not correct and the explanation for that was given. In future I—[ 
Interruption 
] Would the member just wait please? If members wait until the end not only when the Speaker is on her feet but also when people are asking questions and giving answers then that would be a courtesy and would also inform the House better. I think that in this instance those two mixed explanations were given but I would say that in future Ministers in this position should in fact make a ministerial statement if they had given information to the House that was not correct. That would have been the correct way to do it. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh I am so pleased that the member agrees! So could we please not have comments on whether the Speaker gets it right or wrong; I rule. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister please explain to the House how he can give such a detailed explanation of Housing New Zealand’s failings in giving him the correct information yesterday when the only information I and the media had yesterday came from the response to an Official Information Act request given to me by him with his cover letter and his signature—or did he not read the information that I read? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: First of all the member alleges that I sent him a letter. Actually I sent it to the National research unit not to him. It was in the form of a large Official Information Act answer which was put out some time ago. Ministers sign out information requests all of the time. I am glad that the member’s research unit got on to it. We made a mistake we are on to it and we are fixing it up. 
Dave Hereora 
: What steps has the Minister taken to rectify this situation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Today I have written to the chair of Housing New Zealand requesting that the board review the corporation’s investigation process with a due date for report back to me of 27 July. It is vital that New Zealanders can have confidence in Housing New Zealand which performs a vital social service in housing 67000 families. I am determined that all of our good work is not undermined by the sluggish investigations of a very very few people who seek to deceive and defraud. 
Phil Heatley 
: Now that the subletting rort investigation has been done what investigations have been made into allegations by a neighbour in March last year that the tenant told her that he “knew someone in Housing” and that was how he got the place given that that constitutes a claim of corruption in Housing New Zealand? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am as confident as I can be at this stage that Housing New Zealand did not know that the applicant was making a false declaration about his assets. As far as the matter is concerned of alleged insider-trading at Housing New Zealand I can say that that matter has been looked into and as yet no evidence has been found. 
Phil Heatley 
: How can the Minister claim that that allegation regarding insider help from Housing New Zealand has been looked into when that investigation has not been documented or even mentioned in the 8-page report that contains notes from all interviews? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I remind the House that the question I was asked yesterday concerned what confidence I had in Housing New Zealand. I had no evidence or information about this particular case. When I got back to my office I ordered an immediate investigation. Included in the material that has come over to me today is information that is not in the Official Information Act request but which pertains to this case. That is the information I have given in my answer. 
Phil Heatley 
: Will the Minister please supply the report on the allegations of corruption either to me this House or the media since he is putting his hand on his heart and saying there were at least some interviews and some investigation into the allegations of corruption? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: When this case has been fully investigated—and I remind the House it has been referred on to the Crown prosecutor for prosecution—I will reveal that information. But while a case is ongoing where prosecution is going to take place I am not prepared to discuss details of the case in this House. 
Phil Heatley 
: Does the Minister stand by his comments on Radio New Zealand this morning that “I am confident the allegations of corruption have been dealt with.” that “We have a comment from a neighbour which has been checked out.” and “We’re on to it.” when there is no mention at all in the papers that I received under the Official Information Act request that an inquiry into corruption has occurred at all? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member was obviously not listening to my previous answer. When I got back from the House yesterday I asked for information on a case that I had no knowledge about before I came to this House at question time yesterday. I asked Housing New Zealand to give me a report on the case. Of course included in that report is an extensive dossier about the investigations that have taken place. The question here is not has the corporation investigated it but why it has taken so long to get to court. That is an issue—I concede it is an issue—we are on to it and we are going to fix it up. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday in his answers to Mr Heatley’s questions the Minister stated that Mr Heatley had got it wrong. Do you think it would be appropriate in the circumstances for him to withdraw and apologise for that remark? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I think the time for that has probably passed and the Minister has given a full explanation for that. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker I am utterly prepared to say that I am glad the member has raised this case. I am glad his research unit plucked it out of the material because it has given me an issue I have to deal with which is the time it takes Housing New Zealand to deal with serious allegations and get them to court. So yes I thank the member for bringing it up in the House. It will hopefully have a good outcome. 
Environment—Monitoring 
4.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Is he satisfied with his ministry’s monitoring of Crown agencies and departments in relation to the protection of New Zealand’s clean green environment? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: Yes. The Government is committed to enhancing promoting and protecting our clean green image and on behalf of the Minister I can express confidence in the Ministry for the Environment and its monitoring process. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that it is a legal requirement that signs must be erected at every point of entry where 1080 poison pellets are dropped warning campers and hunters to take their own water into the forest with them as a precaution against drinking from streams contaminated by 1080 poison pellets but that the Department of Conservation habitually drops 1080 poison from the air without erecting such signs in breach of the law? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I recognise that that is a concern. However that question is best asked of the Minister of Conservation. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has so far indicated that it does not intend to test watercress for 1080 poison residue in spite of the fact that the documentary  
A Shadow of Doubt 
 which 
is to be screened on Maori Television on 14 July suggests a possible link between those residues and negative health outcomes amongst Maori? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: That matter is currently being considered by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. At the moment the process used to consider the reassessment of 1080 poison includes 150 written submissions 200 oral submissions in seven places and 10 days of public hearings. As that matter is currently being considered I am unable to comment on the content of those considerations. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister intend to insist that in carrying out its reassessment of 1080 poison the Environmental Risk Management Authority will ensure that full independent peer review studies are done to look into the effect of sub-lethal doses of 1080 on all living creatures in the environment as outlined in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article yesterday that stated: “most native species are completed unstudied. … considerable evidence shows there are chronic and sublethal effects to vertebrate endocrine and reproductive systems possibly including those of humans.”? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Although I continue to acknowledge the concerns raised with regard to 1080 poison the process undertaken by the Environmental Risk Management Authority is an independent one and once that report is presented to the Minister those matters will be considered. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I seek the leave of the House to table three documents. The first is the labelling on 1080 poison containers which states: “Danger deadly poison”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Gordon Copeland 
: The second is a photograph of a sign erected by the Greater Wellington Regional Council advising trampers to take their own personal water into the bush and not to take water from bush streams for consumption. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that sign. Is there any objection? There is objection? There is no objection. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did say that I objected. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; there is objection. Would members for once raise their voices if they do object. 
Gordon Copeland 
: The third document is a copy of yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 article entitled: “Poison facts belie the claims”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Participation 
5.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his statement that “86000 children will definitely get 20 free hours under Labour”; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. I will announce the initial take-up of 20 hours’ free early childhood education for 3 to 4-year-olds on Monday as has always been planned. I expect that over the next year the numbers benefiting will climb as more and more centres sign up because New Zealand families recognise that this policy is an excellent one as does the member’s leader. 
Katherine Rich 
: How far short of his 20 free hours target will he be on Monday and can we assume that the numbers of 3 and 4-year-olds are nowhere near the 86000 to 92000 to whom his Government promised 20 free hours because if the numbers were remotely near those targets he is just the sort of Minister who would be trumpeting that success from the rooftops right now? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It is worth drawing the member’s attention to the fact that she has asked these questions for a number of months and has been given the same answer for a number of months. That answer is that we are optimistic about the number of centres that will come in on 1 July we are optimistic about the number of young people who will be in and that from 1 July which is the beginning of this policy the numbers will climb steadily over the following year. That is what we have said that is what we expect that is what we have said for months that is what we are still saying and that is what will happen on Monday. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is the benefit to early childhood education centres of the Labour-led Government’s policy of 20 hours’ free early childhood education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the past centres have had to rely on parents for fees donations and fund-raising. This policy will give them security and certainty of funding. On Monday centres offering 20 hours’ per week free education will receive an advance payment covering the next 4 months and the sum will be around $105000 for an average centre. By contrast National offers complete uncertainty. Paula Bennett told Radio New Zealand that National would not offer the policy. Katherine Rich is quoted in the Christchurch 
 Press 
 today as saying that National never said it would scrap it and has not decided what to do. It looks to me like a case of aspirational John Key versus bean counter Bill English. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Would the Minister agree that if the objective of the free early childhood education policy is to increase early childhood education participation rates the $109 million would have been better targeted to children 2 years old and under rather than to 3 and 4-year-olds whose participation rates are already much greater than 90 percent? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the member is indicating where policies like this might go over the years. We have to start somewhere; 3 to 4-year-olds who are moving towards the age of starting school seem the best place to start with this policy. But I think the member is raising the fact that probably as time goes by people will be looking for the expansion of the policy to different age groups. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the first payment for 20 free hours is due to be direct-credited into accounts on Monday why does he keep up the pretence that he has no idea how many centres have opted in or how many kids are actually going to receive 20 free hours; does he seriously think this House believes that the Ministry of Education can undertake such a complicated financial transaction without having any idea of the numbers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have never kept up such a pretence. The fact of life is that I have been saying to the member for some time that she should just relax. The ministry has done a great job of administering this policy. The sector has responded very well to it. We have always planned—for Mr Nick Smith who will not stop yelling—that the announcement will be on Monday. That is what we have always planned and that is what we will do so I ask the member just to relax and to get the news when it is due. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does he understand that when he said that 86000 New Zealand kids would get 20 free hours come 1 July most parents thought that their kids would actually receive it. And what is with this inane coo cooing that the Opposition should relax; who the hell does he think he is—Frankie Goes to Hollywood? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The stress is starting to show—that is all I can say. At no time have I said there would be 86000 kids involved on 1 July. When that figure was put into the public arena that was the number of 3 to 4-year-olds enrolled in early childhood centres. That is why that figure was used at that time. I say to the member that I have said a number of times over many months that when the policy rolls out we will give the updated figures and I think that is a reasonable thing to do. 
Katherine Rich 
: When will he just— 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I really like Frankie Goes to Hollywood. 
Katherine Rich 
: He likes Frankie Goes to Hollywood? When will he just relax focus on his own policy and admit that come Monday nowhere near the 92000 children whom he told New Zealand parents back in 2005 would get 20 hours’ free early childhood education will get it and that his policy of 20 hours free is just a fraud? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not think I could be more relaxed if I tried. What I have always said on the way through this policy is that on 1 July it will start and there will be a good muster of centres and of children. We are optimistic about that. Then the number will steadily climb. I would say that I think the number will be a little lower than it might have been because the campaign to confuse people— 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My apologies to the Minister. It is simply that I am finding it extremely difficult to follow a word that the Minister is saying because of the level of noise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with the member. I do not want to rule that we should have the answer in silence; that seems to be too much of a provocation. But would members please just keep the level down. Would the Minister please respond. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In summary I have established who is relaxed and who is not and I was moving on to say that we have always made it very clear that 1 July was a start date that there would be a good optimistic number of centres and children in the policy and that it will climb steadily from there. I did note that I think the campaign against this policy has meant that on 1 July some parents will not be getting their $60 $70 or $80 back from the policy because of the campaign against it. No doubt once they see it rolling out they will roll into the policy as well. 
Paula Bennett 
: When he said yesterday that kindergartens have never been free because they have always asked for donations and optional charges was he finally acknowledging that his 20 hours free policy is not free because centres can ask for donations and optional charges? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: For the member’s information I was quoting the Waikato Kindergarten Association which was pointing out that there always have been donations there has always been a fee and there always has been the fund-raising process that goes around it. The big benefit for kindergartens is that they now get a guaranteed sum of money; the average centre will get $105000 on 1 July—advanced funding for 4 months. That is stability and that is certainty. 
Paula Bennett 
: How can the Minister continue to argue that 20 hours will be free when most people will end up paying for their free hours through optional charges and when he himself said yesterday that kindergartens had never been free because people paid donations and optional charges; and does he finally understand that when one is paying for something it is not free? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can only repeat because the member seems to have missed it that the quote yesterday was from the Waikato Kindergarten Association which was pointing out the history of kindergarten funding. I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to repeat that the 20 hours free policy applies to the regulated level of 20 hours’ early childhood education. This is a hugely popular policy it is hugely popular around the country and it is one that I know that the National Policy is looking forward to flip-flopping on and supporting as soon as it can. 
Human Rights Commission—Definition of “Institutional Racism” 
6.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has he received a definition of “institutional racism” from the Human Rights Commission following the complaint from Ngati Uenuke-kopako regarding a decision of the Rotorua District Council; if so what was that definition? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Would the Minister agree with the 1986 Labour Government policy document  
Puao-te-ata-tu - Daybreak 
 which stated that the most insidious and destructive form of racism was institutional racism; if so what evidence can he see of changes having been made to Government institutions to remove that blight from our society? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I have not read the document recently but generally yes I agree that institutional racism is an insidious form of racism. Huge changes have been made in the intervening period since that document. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware—obviously not—that  
Puao-te-ata-tu - Daybreak 
 describes the differences between Maori and non-Maori across a range of indicators such as life expectancy and prison admissions as being a picture of “crisis proportions” and what response does he have to the fact that 20 years on the picture remains either unchanged or more dire? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There are many social indicators and first among them perhaps—and certainly the one that drove me to stand for election to this House—was the blight of unemployment on many families. I can say to the member that that negative statistic has been radically driven down. Is there room for even further improvement? Yes and this Government is committed to that. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware that Ngati Uenuke-kopako is considering a request for a cultural audit of the Rotorua District Council in order to address institutional racism and would he consider the Human Rights Commission to be an appropriate entity to undertake this audit? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: In answer to the first part of the question I was not aware of that and in answer to the second part I say that it is entirely for the Human Rights Commission to consider any such approach made to it. 
District Health Boards—Junior Doctor Vacancies 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports about a data request being distributed to district health boards seeking confirmation of the number of junior doctor positions for a recruitment programme in the United Kingdom; if so what was the estimated demand for junior doctor positions indicated by the 14 district health boards who responded? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. The approximate vacancy rate for junior doctors in New Zealand is about 5 percent. Most of those vacancies are filled on a day-to-day basis by locums. Given that there are about 2800 junior doctor positions in New Zealand 5 percent represents about 150 positions. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister seen this second leaked document from District Health Boards New Zealand which makes it clear that recruitment will be sought in Britain for over 250000 vacancies; and if there is no staffing crisis amongst junior doctors why are district health board representatives going urgently to London to recruit these additional staff? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think even the member exceeded himself when he said that district health boards were going to the United Kingdom to try to find 250000 doctors. He might have meant 250. 
Simon Power 
: He said that. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: OK. Well if he meant 250 what he has done is add in the registrars as well and the vacancy rate for registrars is less than 5 percent. Mr Ryall can try to beat up a storm as hard as he can but he should get his figures right. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a quote from the leaked document today: “In brief there is an estimated demand to fill a total of 238 junior doctor positions.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Lesley Soper 
: Does New Zealand have a 5 percent vacancy rate in junior doctor positions because there is a reduction in junior doctors available to work or because the health system is growing and creating new junior doctor positions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is a pretty good question and the answer is the latter. It is because our health system is growing. We have employed 1400 more doctors since the change of Government and we want to employ about 140 more residential doctors—about 140 more. In the short term those vacancies of 140 will be filled by new graduates when they come out in November or December and there are about 285 of those each year; by junior doctors recruited from Britain and the district health board representatives are leaving for Britain on Monday; or by junior doctors who are working in New Zealand at the moment but are currently choosing to work as locums because they get better pay. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Government so willing to throw money at recruiting temporary staff from overseas while at the same time it is refusing to take any initiative to retain our own people in permanent district health board employment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think it is probably worthwhile pointing out that today—the day when the member decides to try to beat up a crisis—is the day that the junior medical industrial relations talks begin. Let us make sure that industrial relations discussions are not a very common feature of this Parliament. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister believe that the quality of health care in public hospitals has improved during his reign; if so does he also believe that patients are better off when they are treated by half a dozen different doctors during a 3-day stay in hospital which is the reality for many of our sick elderly patients; and is he so spaced out and out of touch that he does not understand that registrars are actually junior doctors? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I understand what a junior doctor is but I also understand we do not need 250000 of them. As to the number of doctors who are seen by a patient I think that the member is assuming that a locum is a short-term position only. He should take a look at the facts. Locums often operate in a hospital on their shift work for a long period of time. There is actually a market for locums and the market for locums is a little expensive for district health boards which is one of the reasons why they are going to Britain. 
Heather Roy 
: Is the real problem that the Government has increased health spending by a whopping $4.5 billion a year with the only tangible result being that there are now more health bureaucrats than there are hospital beds and is the Minister not embarrassed that this proliferation of pen-pushers has been at the expense of junior doctors and others at the coalface actually treating patients? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have a trick question for the member. Does the member think that the number of managers in our health system is 8 percent 6 percent or 4 percent? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is impossible to hear anything. Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The question was about bureaucrats and I am asking whether the number of managers is 8 6 or 4 percent. The answer is 3 percent. Three percent of our district health board staff are managers; 97 percent of our district health board staff are not managers. The member trots out the fact that there are too many bureaucrats around—3 percent ain’t bad. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does he agree with me that it is not acceptable for spending on hospital locums to double in 6 years to over $100 million and does not this reliance on temporary staff show that working in a district health board is not an attractive career option because for every new doctor employed district health boards employ another bureaucrat to keep an eye on that doctor? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do think the number of medical locums in New Zealand is too high. I agree with the member and I look forward to the situation arising where we have sufficient junior docs to be able to reduce at least somewhat the locum market. As to the allegation that for every doctor we employ we employ a bureaucrat I am not sure what bureaucrat the member refers to. It might be the bureaucrat who answers the phone it might be the bureaucrat who arranges for the pay it might be the bureaucrat who decides how the out-patient clinics will be put together or it might be the bureaucrat who keeps the medical records safe. Which of those bureaucrats would he not have? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: As the Minister has finally admitted that the number of locums working in our hospitals is a concern to the Government does the Minister agree with me that the skills and expertise of some locums can be variable the locums are not subject to ongoing performance review or training and their working hours are not monitored; and surely this must have an impact on the quality and continuity of care that particularly our older patients are experiencing in New Zealand’s public hospitals? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Far from finally admitting that locum—[ 
Interruption 
] The member may not know everything that I think or say. The member is not actually omnipresent. The member did not hear me talk at a workforce conference just this morning. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. The member has invited through his question an answer from the Minister. Would he please allow the Minister to respond. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Thank you Madam Speaker. There is nothing new for me in saying the locum market is growing too quickly. It has been growing for some years. It is an important part of the health system because it allows for flexibility. But my view is that it is getting a little large. As to the quality of locums I think the member needs to be quite careful. If the member is going to assert that locum doctors are of poorer quality or subjected to less auditing he needs to come up with the evidence because the Medical Council would be unlikely to agree with him and the doctors with whom they work would be unlikely to agree with him. 
Fingerprinting—Mobile Scanners 
8.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she endorse the police proposal to use mobile fingerprint scanners on New Zealanders who have not been arrested or charged with any offence; if so what steps will she be taking to introduce it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: I can advise that the possibility that police might use mobile technology to verify identity arises from the discussion document  
Policing Directions in New Zealand for the 21st Century  
which is the next step as part of a full review of the Police Act 1958. This discussion document is currently being consulted on with all political parties and the public throughout New Zealand. The discussion document is not Government policy. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question as to whether the Government actually endorses it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address that question through that answer. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister not accept that it is quite different and much more Orwellian to use these scanners on thousands of innocent New Zealanders who are not charged with any crime or have not been arrested and how can the Minister sidestep the issue in that way by saying that it is essentially up to the police to determine what happens? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not think I said anything that the member has just raised. I pointed out that there is a review going on a discussion document called  
Policing Directions in New Zealand for the 21st Century 
. There are a range of ideas in there and none of them constitutes Government policy at this stage. Because we are going through a process of discussion does not mean that the police are now going to go off and do anything that is in the document. This is a discussion that the member will be involved in and the whole House can be involved in because political parties have been sent the document. It is a well-overdue discussion about the Police Act which was passed in 1958. I would basically refute all the points made there. The document is there and I invite the member to get stuck into it. 
Judy Turner 
: What work has been done regarding an ethical framework for Government confiscation of biometrical information; and if no advice has been sought and quantified will the Government continue to progress the means of taking biometric information from New Zealanders without ethical guidelines? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My understanding is that this discussion document will provide a very good opportunity for having a look at those kinds of frameworks going forward. One of the points I want to make here on behalf of this document is that there will be a large number of changes over the next little while in technologies and in challenging issues like the ethical framework for taking samples from people. This is the chance to discuss that. This is the chance to see whether we can put in place a framework that will deal with those complex issues. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister not think it is going just too far even to be considering having the police being able to fingerprint members of the public at will and having commuting members of the public stripped naked by airport scanners especially when this Parliament does not want MPs sitting here in a suit having their picture taken? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I imagine there are a lot of MPs in this Chamber who would fear the technology the member has just outlined being used at airports but I do want to put on record that there is no such plan to make use of technologies like that as people go through airports. I also say that there are as I mentioned before opportunities for a large number of new technologies to be used in a variety of ways in years ahead and this is a chance to discuss them. No one is saying anything will be used. Nothing is set in stone. The police are not doing anything. They are simply offering an opportunity to talk about these kinds of issues and revue an Act that was put in place in 1958 long before for example things like mobile phones were even thought of. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the Minister say that the police are just offering an opportunity for debate or discussion when it is clear that they are going all out to introduce these mobile scanners which will violate the rights of thousands of innocent New Zealanders—surely it is our right in a democratic society not to have our bodily integrity violated without due cause; and why should the Government just stand aside while the police fast track us to a surveillance State? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can simply say that I understand the issue the member is raising. Of course we want to be cautious about these kinds of new technologies. But this is a discussion document that offers an opportunity to talk about a wide range of issues that may or may not be part of the scene in the future. This is an opportunity to discuss it. The police are not fast tracking anything to my understanding. 
Keith Locke 
: How can the Government stand aside from such a critical debate where its police force is arguing strongly for a course of bringing in these Orwellian devices for fingerprinting and also talking about bringing in iris scanners when we see that these have been brought in in overseas jurisdictions that the Government has been following—in fact just this week the United States is bringing in 10-finger fingerprinting devices for New Zealanders passing through American airports? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can only reiterate that there is nothing here other than a discussion at the present time. But I stress that this is the 21st century. This Act was passed in the middle of the last century. It is time to have a discussion about things like new technologies. In some cases getting identities worked out may mean a person does not get arrested and does not have to go to the police station because his or her identity has been established. This is a chance to have a discussion. This is an opportunity for the member to do so. 
Foreign Nationals—False Documentation 
9.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: How many foreign nationals have entered New Zealand with falsified or fraudulent travel documents since 1 July 2003? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 As I said yesterday many fewer than under the previous National administration which took 7 years to appoint just one fraud investigation officer or to make any substantive amount of money available for border-related inquiries. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How effective are the systems that he told Parliament yesterday his Government has established since 2003 if he cannot even tell this House how many identity fraud cases have been detected entering New Zealand since 2003; how effective are the systems? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I told the House yesterday this Government has created a fraud detection unit in the Department of Labour which now has 18 staff. We have essentially established the central verification unit and the immigration profiling group. We have substantially increased border funding by $136 million since 2001. We set up the Advance Passenger Processing system in 2003. We set up the CRisM risk management and identity system last year and the regional movement alert system in 2006 and we have a substantial Immigration Change Programme under way. Compare that with the previous Government’s effort! 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How effective are any of those measures which he claims his Government has done if he cannot tell this Parliament how many of the 596 immigration identity fraud cases identified by the Auditor-General involved people who are currently in New Zealand? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There are several reasons why I decline to give a number to the member. They are as follows. Firstly identity fraud includes a complex set of subcategories and it would be a mistake to compare apples and oranges. Secondly of those cases of alleged identity fraud a number no doubt in fact have not committed fraud. Thirdly I am not prepared to disclose information that might affect ongoing investigations or apprehensions. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that New Zealand’s international reputation depends on the Immigration Service having robust systems for the detection of immigration identity fraud and that serious lapses by his department as highlighted in the report have put our reputation at serious risk; does he accept that? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I fully accept and support the proposition that of course our immigration system is important to both our border security and our international reputation. As I have said from the moment the report was launched I support the report. It contains many valuable suggestions about ways in which we can further improve our system. We are implementing all of them and we will make that progress public. The contrast here is with the previous National Government which did essentially nothing. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Precisely when was the Minister first advised that the Immigration Service was falling behind in its investigations of suspected immigration identity fraud cases? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That would depend on what one meant by “falling behind”. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers will the Minister assure the House that processes will be put in place to ensure that those who should have been deported and are currently sitting in our prisons because they will not sign the appropriate forms will in fact be deported in relatively short order; can he give the House that assurance? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I gave the House an assurance yesterday that I have instructed the chief executive of the department to implement all 15 of the recommendations of that report. I have noted that three of them to my estimation include Budget commitments which will be matters for consideration by Cabinet in due course. The cases that the member specifically raises which are of people detained in prison for refusing to sign travel documents are I would estimate unlikely to be related to cases of identity fraud and more likely to be failed refugee claimants. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was the Auditor-General correct that almost 6 years after 9/11 the Immigration Service has no specific plan in place to detect identity fraud little or no specific staff training in the area no evaluations of effectiveness in preventing identity fraud substandard tracking systems and a large backlog of cases that the Auditor-General calls a “significant risk”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Right at the start of the Auditor-General’s report he makes two important points. Firstly the department does have a set of processes and systems in place for which he suggests some improvements. Secondly right at the start he indicates an awareness of the Immigration Change Programme which already is and has been for some time working to address exactly those issues. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does he stand by his statement made to the House yesterday: “in the last year the department has conducted 55 prosecutions.”; if so how does he reconcile his statement with figures supplied by his own department that show that just 47 identity fraud - related cases were prosecuted over not just the last year but the last 4 years combined? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member should be careful not to confuse apples with another fruit that is the colour of his tie. The number I gave yesterday of 55 cases was for the period from July 2005 to June 2006 and related to all types of immigration fraud prosecutions. The number given by Mary Anne Thompson to the Christchurch  
Press 
 of 47 cases since 1 July 2003 related to only immigration identity fraud cases which is a subset of the former. 
Renewable Energy—Developments and Deployment 
10.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What reports if any has he received on developments in the deployment of renewable energy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Lines company Vector has commenced trialling a new wind turbine suitable for home and small-business use. Micro wind generation does have the potential to both improve our energy security and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and it also helps interested consumers to reduce their power bills through the use of a free energy source—wind—in a similar way to which reductions are achieved through solar hot water systems. I congratulate Vector on taking this initiative to test the viability of small-scale wind power with a view to bringing it into mainstream use. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Can the Minister tell the House of other recent examples of significant renewable energy development? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Scion and AgResearch have recently announced a joint venture with a US-based firm to develop transport fuels based on the conversion of cellulose to ethanol from forestry and agricultural products. The second similar venture in the biofuels area is LanzaTech where a leading US investor Vinod Khosla is investing $3.5 million in LanzaTech to establish a pilot plant to produce ethanol from carbon monoxide gas. To paraphrase the self-appointed spokesperson for Labour’s biofuels policy Nicky Wagner this is another significant step towards carbon neutrality. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why should anybody believe this Government’s commitment to renewable energy when the proportion of renewable power has dropped in every year Labour has been in Government to the lowest level ever in New Zealand history; when his Government has built a huge new oil and gas-fired power station; and when the proportion of electricity produced from coal has trebled in just 7 years? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Should we not have built E3P when we did the country about now would be facing the risk of blackouts. That seems a pretty good reason to have built it to me. In respect of greenhouse gas emissions from thermal generation this year compared with last year assuming that lake levels or inflows into hydro lakes stay as they are at the moment it is likely that thermal electricity emissions will be lower this year than they were last year. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Minister seen the Marlborough District Council’s decision to grant consent to the Wairoa River hydro scheme provided that natural river flows are maintained and there is minimal effect on river ecology and the survival of key endangered birds; and will he undertake that the Crown will not oppose stringent environmental conditions on that project even if it means that there may be some lowering of the electricity output of the power station? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have seen brief reports of the decision. I have not read the decision as yet. If the member’s point is that we need to take care to have appropriate environmental constraints around renewable developments as with other developments then I agree. I for one support the principles of the Resource Management Act and do not call for it to be “gutted” to quote one National Party member. I think that the help that councils and the Environment Court give to get the balance right between development and environmental protection has worked in New Zealand in the last decade as evidenced by the fact that new versions of for example Project Aqua and the previous Dobson dam are coming forward that would be viable but with a lower environmental impact. 
Child Youth and Family—Caregivers 
11.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she stand by her statement in the House on 8 May 2007 that “I have confidence in Child Youth and Family’s approval process and selection procedure for the caregivers of young people who are in the youth justice system”; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes. I also have confidence in the procedure for caregivers and other support workers for young people who are not in the youth justice system. That includes the young man incorrectly described by both the  
Dominion Post  
and Anne Tolley as being under 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week supervision ordered by the court. Those allegations which are liable to cause distress in the community are untrue. 
Anne Tolley 
: How is it possible that yet another teenage sexual predator on 24-hour-a-day supervision from Child Youth and Family is escaping from his minders and playing with neighbourhood children and the authorities say they are powerless to control him? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: For the record and for that member’s benefit although the information may have been more useful to her prior to her putting out her incorrect press statement I say he is not in the youth justice system he is not in the adult justice system he is not in the custody of Child Youth and Family he has no court-imposed supervision order or any other supervision order he is not required to be under supervision by anyone and there are no conditions imposed by anyone a court or otherwise on any of his movements. Therefore by definition he cannot escape or get out. He is not required to be under supervision. He is not required to live anywhere. He is a free person. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister confirm the reports received by my office and communicated to Child Youth and Family and to the Minister that a Child Youth and Family worker introduced this teenage sex offender to other local children in the department’s care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That is not the allegation that the member made to me. I just repeat that this man is not under any supervision. He is completely free as every member in this House is and he is entitled to meet anyone he likes. There is no supervision requirement at all on this man—not a single requirement. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister stand in this House day after day wringing her hands and saying that this sort of thing is unacceptable; and how many failures of the Child Youth and Family system and cases of young offenders being out on the loose will it take before the Minister will admit there is a systemic failure in youth justice at Child Youth and Family? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would like to make two points in response to the member’s question. The first is that people in the youth justice system are generally not those who have recently graduated as dux from their local secondary school. They are not generally young people who come from a strong supportive functional family. They are more often than not young people who have lived in violent abusive dysfunctional families for their entire lives which contributes to the likelihood of their being in the youth justice system and they are frankly not easy to contain. In my view on the occasions that they are at large we should look at two things. First of all was the supervision correct? If it was not then I say to this House that that is unacceptable. Second where it was correct then I think that the caregivers should be supported. The member mentioned I had said that things were unacceptable. What I find unacceptable and morally reprehensible is that member misleading the public by saying incorrect things that are likely to cause distress to and a vigilante response from people in the Porirua community. That is unacceptable. 
Anne Tolley 
: When will the Minister publicly release the Child Youth and Family report into the Wairaka Kokiri Trust which lost one of its young offenders and did not report him missing for 3 months in 2005 as she said she would in this House on Tuesday? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: When I get it. 
Oral Health—Children and Adolescents 
12.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports of recent developments in child and adolescent oral health services? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received many many reports. Child and adolescent oral health services are gearing up. They have already been reconfigured and upgraded in Southland and district health boards in other areas have finalised or are finalising their business cases with some district health boards—for example Canterbury District Health Board—making their business cases public. Hawke’s Bay District Health Board has done the same only on Monday this week. Various central investment decisions are likely to be made for new facilities including mobile services soon. There is more action in child and adolescent oral health now than there has been in this country in many decades. 
Dianne Yates 
: Why is all this activity and investment needed; and does it mean that we are responding to a known need? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is needed because the National Government shut down dental therapy training in New Zealand in the 1990s and it has taken until now to produce enough graduates to staff these new facilities that we are now building. And yes there is a known need amongst our children. The National Government’s neglect can be measured by our children’s oral health which is declining. This is a serious situation and an absolutely avoidable one; we must respond. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What funds if any have so far actually been distributed from the $40 million set aside in last year’s Budget for children’s oral health services given that it is now more than a year since the Budget announcement? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid I do not have the precise figure at my fingertips but it would be quite a small amount. A number of investment decisions will however quite possibly be taken tomorrow. 
Evidence Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Evidence Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced on 18 June 2007 and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. That committee reported the bill back to the House on Friday 22 June 2007. I start by thanking the committee for its work in consideration of the bill within what was an agreed tight time frame. 
This bill deals with an amendment to the Evidence Act 2006 which was passed last year but is not yet in force. The Evidence Act retains the common law rule— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member addressing it. Courtesy is contagious and if we keep within the spirit of the Standing Orders it will be good for everybody. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Evidence Act retains the common law rule that a defendant’s statement is admissible against him or her but is not admissible against a co-defendant in the proceeding. However the Act does not include the exceptions to that rule. This bill captures those exceptions so that they will now be included in the Act. Two of the exceptions are known as the co-conspirators rule which allows for the statements of a defendant to be admissible against a co-conspirator or others involved in a joint criminal enterprise where the statements are made in furtherance of a common design. The prerequisites to this rule applying are that there is independent evidence of both the existence of a conspiracy or a joint criminal enterprise and the defendant being a member of that conspiracy or enterprise. This rule is preserved in a new section 12A which provides that nothing in this Act affects the rules of the common law relating to the admissibility of statements of co-conspirators or persons involved in joint criminal enterprises. The select committee made no amendments to the substance of the preservation of this common law rule. 
There is another common law exception to the rule—that is that the defendant’s statement is admissible against him or her but is not admissible against a co-defendant in the proceeding. That is where the co-accused by his or her words or conduct accepts the truth of the statement made by the defendant. The bill as introduced incorporated this common law exception into the Act by way of an amendment to section 27. The committee has amended the bill and moved this amendment to clause 12A with the co-conspirator’s rule. The amendment provides that nothing in the Act affects the common law rules relating to the admissibility of a defendant’s statement against a co-defendant in circumstances where the defendant’s statement is accepted by that co-defendant. This amendment will ensure that an amendment to section 27 will not have unintended consequences. 
This bill contains important amendments that have serious implications for criminal trials involving multiple accused and evidence obtained by interception of communications. Those cases generally involve major drug-dealing organised criminal enterprises or serious violent offending. These types of multi-defendant trials are costly lengthy follow from resource-intensive investigations and often have a high profile. It is therefore important that the common law is maintained. 
In commending this bill to the House I again thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its diligent work and the tight time frame inside which it has delivered this bill back to the House. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I thank the Minister of Justice for those generous and kind comments. 
The National Party will support the second reading of this bill because it is necessary to make it clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that the common law exceptions that he referred to are retained in the law following the enactment of the Evidence Act last year. In dealing with this second reading speech I want to go through the legislative history because there is at least a question that perhaps the legislation is not necessary and I want to deal with that matter. 
The Evidence Bill was introduced I think in 2005 and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. A specialist subcommittee of the select committee was formed chaired by Mr Fairbrother a Labour list MP and on that specialist subcommittee were Dr Richard Worth and myself from the National Party and Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party. We were ably assisted by the officials from the Minister’s department and also by Robert Fisher QC a former judge of the High Court of New Zealand. I also think it is fair to say that a great deal of work was done on the bill as can be seen from the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee when the bill was referred back to the House. I think it is fair to say that the second reading and Committee stage were dealt with very quickly indeed. 
When the bill was introduced and when it went to the select committee the relevant clause which is now the subject of consideration in this amendment bill was clause 23. As originally introduced this clause provided that evidence offered by the prosecution in a criminal proceeding of a statement made by a defendant is admissible unless the statement is excluded under certain clauses which are not relevant for the purposes of consideration this afternoon. 
During the course of the select committee deliberations concerns were raised about the form of that particular clause as drafted and that message was picked up in the report back to the House. The committee recommended “that clause 23 be amended so that a defendant’s statement would be inadmissible against a co-defendant in joint criminal trials. A statement made by a defendant would be admissible only against that defendant.” But it is very important that I quote the following sentence: “This would maintain the current law relating to statements by co-defendants.” There is at least a very good argument that that would have picked up the common law. So the clause was amended to reflect that intent but there was certainly no intention on the part of the subcommittee to alter the existing law and those common law exceptions. 
Indeed there is an argument based on sections 10 and 12 of the Evidence Act that if this matter had ever gone to litigation then the courts would have said that the common law exceptions were still relevant even if the words were not explicitly referred to in the section. I say that because section 10 which is a very important section deals with the interpretation of the Evidence Act and it provides among other things that the Act “may be interpreted having regard to the common law but only to the extent that the common law is consistent with—(i) its provisions; and (ii) the promotion of its purpose and its principles; and (iii) the application of the rule in section 12.” Section 12 deals with evidential matters not provided for and again provides that the common law can be brought in “to the extent that the common law is consistent with the promotion of that purpose and those principles and is relevant to the decisions to be taken”. In those circumstances regard can be had to the common law. 
So based on the statement in the report back to this House on the Evidence Bill and based also on sections 10 and 12 of the Evidence Act there is a very respectable argument that this legislation that we are dealing with today is not in fact necessary. The point is however that after the enactment of the Evidence Act 2006 concerns were raised that the common law exceptions had not been captured in the codification. The Minister very fairly outlined the concerns that a large number of hugely expensive complicated time-consuming trials could be aborted because someone might run the argument that the common law exceptions had not been captured and so the law had fundamentally changed. Hence the need for this amendment legislation and the select committee has dealt with it as quickly as possible in order that it be clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that the common law has been preserved. 
Now then let us look at the Evidence Amendment Bill as introduced and how it has emerged from the select committee. The Minister quite rightly says some changes have been made by the select committee. It is important first to refer to clause 5 which inserts section 12A. As originally introduced that section baldly stated: “Nothing in this Act affects the rules of the common law relating to the admissibility of statements of co-conspirators or persons involved in joint criminal enterprises.” 
 Clause 6 deals with an amendment to section 27. It originally provided that section 27 was to be amended by adding “unless by the co-defendant’s words or conduct the co-defendant is taken to have accepted the truth of the statement made by the defendant”. Not only has the select committee amended the new section 12A so that we bring into the body of that section the rules of common law relating to admissibility of statements of co-conspirators or persons involved in joint criminal enterprises but also we have picked up those concluding words that clause 6 was to add to section 27(1) and made them paragraph (b) of new section 12A. That of course refers to “the admissibility of a defendant’s statement against a co-defendant in circumstances where the defendant’s statement is accepted by the co-defendant.” 
Then through clause 6 we have amended section 27 by adding subsection (4) which states: “To avoid doubt this section is subject to section 12A.” Some members may think it is rather odd when dealing with an amendment to section 27 of the Act which is in Subpart (3)—in Part 2— which deals with defendants’ statements to have a new section 12A which will be in Part 1 dealing with general provisions. But what we wanted to do was make it upfront in the general principles section that the common law exceptions have not gone west as it were by a side wind but they are still very much part of the law. 
Even if some of us think there was no doubt as to whether the common law was still retained I agree with the Minister that because this is such an important issue because of the cost and the complexity of these multi-defendant trials in the circumstances he has described it is better beyond doubt to dot the i’s and cross the t’s and make it quite clear that the common law exceptions are retained. 
Reference to the common law is not the best way of legislating particularly when there has been such a fundamental root and branch reform of the law but in the circumstances and in the time available what we have done by way of amendment to the new section 12A was considered to be the best way of dealing with this. In my third reading speech I will perhaps point out some routes for the future particularly when it comes to the first 5-yearly review of the Act. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in the second reading debate of the Evidence Amendment Bill. I do not intend to speak for a long period of time. Much of what ought to be said relating to this technical tidying-up amendment has been said by the two previous speakers. 
As has been noted the bill will correct an accidental arguable omission from the Evidence Bill passed in November last year. Clearly there would potentially have been serious implications for a number of criminal trials involving multiple defendants if tidying-up legislation were not passed by Parliament in a timely fashion. 
As has been noted under the common law and under section 27 of the Evidence Act 2006 a defendant’s statement is admissible against the defendant but not admissible against a co-defendant in the same proceeding. There are three exceptions under the common law to the rule. These clearly ought to have been inserted into the Evidence Bill during the select committee process but that omission was not picked up. I must say that this is a rare omission on the part of a committee that otherwise works hard and thoroughly and normally addresses matters wholly and thoroughly. Those common law exceptions are where the co-defendant accepts the truth of the statement; things said and done in furtherance of a common design in a case where conspiracy is alleged; and things said and done in furtherance of a common design where the accused are alleged to have engaged in a joint criminal enterprise. The bill as has been noted will put these three exceptions into the Evidence Act 2006 putting it beyond doubt that it will reflect the common law. Obviously there will also need to be an amendment to section 5 of the Evidence Act to replace the word “Act” with “section” to reflect the fact that there is a split commencement date in the principal Act. 
I conclude by recording my appreciation for the multipartisan way in which this legislative tidying-up measure was able to be progressed and expedited and I commend the Evidence Amendment Bill to the House. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Evidence Amendment Bill has the support of the Green Party notwithstanding the rather unusual procedure of the bill’s passage in terms of both the speed with which it was introduced to the House and then dealt with by the Justice and Electoral Committee—it was unfortunately hasty—and the procedure today where we will be dealing with all of its remaining stages at this sitting. I have to say that the Green Party is normally very reluctant to support procedures of this kind because it is very easy for the House to make inadvertent mistakes through the hasty making of legislation. There are important constitutional reasons why we have normal procedures—in particular to ensure there is adequate opportunity for members of the public for professionals involved for other people involved and for experts to come and make comment on the legislation we are seeking to enact. It is unfortunate that that has not been the situation here. 
Nevertheless we have accepted the Government’s argument that there is urgency around this matter—that the amendments made by the select committee to what is now the Evidence Act left some confusion around a matter and left some concerns—and that it needs to be rectified promptly in order that cases currently before the courts are not adversely affected. So the Greens are supporting this unusual procedure and we are supporting the bill. 
The first question we had to determine in coming to our position was the question of whether the bill was necessary at all and I make reference to the comments of Mr Chris Finlayson around this matter. It was something the select committee discussed and it is an important point because the question was whether the amendments made by the select committee actually did away with the common law or preserved it. That is the concern and the reason why it is important to pass the legislation is to make absolutely clear that the common law is retained. 
There is a reasonable argument to be made that the common law provisions should still remain. As I say Mr Finlayson has canvassed those arguments but I think it is worth referring to some of those specifics. Let us take a look at the Evidence Act—and excuse me while I just find my way through this— 
Simon Power 
: What’s the member got down there? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: It is a laptop. I am sure Mr Power has heard of them; I know some members of this House are unfamiliar with the term. The new Public Access to Legislation website is great stuff. 
Section 12 states: “Evidential matters not provided for—If there is no provision in this Act or any other enactment regulating the admission of any particular evidence or the relevant provisions deal with that question only in part decisions about the admission of that evidence—(a) must be made having regard to the purpose and principles set out in sections 6 7 and 8; and (b) to the extent that the common law is consistent with the promotion of that purpose and those principles and is relevant to the decisions to be taken must be made having regard to the common law.” The question then arises whether that provision gives adequate direction to the court to include those common law considerations into the decision about whether the particular evidence will be admitted. Of course if we look at those purposes—which I will return to—we see that it does not seem that they would be inconsistent with the bill’s purposes. 
But the question does of course remain with some of the other sections. Section 7 states: “Fundamental principle that relevant evidence admissible—(1) All relevant evidence is admissible in a proceeding except evidence that is … (b) excluded under this Act or any other Act.” The concern is that that actually overrides that common law provision. I think it is fair to say that we came to the view that the bill is required not because we are certain that the amendments did away with the common law but because we are uncertain. It leaves a degree of uncertainty that is important not to leave in place because of the cases I have previously mentioned. 
The question then arises—given that the bill is necessary—as to whether this is the best way to solve the problem. Again Mr Finlayson has referred to these arguments. There is a contradiction in including in an Evidence Act an amendment that is expressly designed for the purposes of clarifying the laws of evidence collating them in one place and making them accessible to the general public. Those purposes are countered then by having a reference to the common law a reference that by its nature is unclear. So it is unfortunate that this is the way the bill has had to go and that is one of the issues that I and other members raised in the first reading. Yet given the requirements of haste that are so important with regard to this bill the argument was made by advisers that the attempt to make explicit the common law rules was problematic. 
This was partly because of the time frame but partly because there are undecided questions still to be determined in the higher courts around these issues of co-conspiracy. My understanding—and I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with the cases— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: You should be. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I thank the member; that is very kind—well I think it is very kind. 
My understanding is that the case in particular that was being referred to is around the question of what actually qualifies as a co-conspiracy. Although that is different from the question of what evidence is then allowed the point about where those rules are going to apply is clearly germane to the whole issue. So in accepting the argument that some undecided issues are still to be resolved we accept that this is the way forward. 
Just as a point on the side I was quite interested about why we talk about the statements of co-conspirators or persons involved in joint criminal enterprises rather than of those alleged to be involved in those things. It seemed to me to be contrary to that basic principle of being innocent until proved guilty. But the point was made that it is put in that way because for these rules of evidence to apply the co-conspiracy or joint criminal enterprise has to be already proved. So we are not talking about people alleged to have been involved in such enterprises; we are talking about co-conspirators or persons involved in joint criminal activities. It not the best thing that these things remain undefined because as I said one of the main purposes of the bill was to codify and to clarify the legislation and to make it accessible to the general public. Again if we go back to section 6 of the Evidence Act where it talks about the purpose we see that “enhancing access to the law of evidence” was one of the quite explicit purposes outlined there. 
So it is unfortunate that this has had to be this way. The Justice and Electoral Committee made an amendment in relation to the issue of where a defendant accepts the truth of a statement of a co-defendant. The suggestion which I think came from Mr Fairbrother of a way to restate that was a very good one and it avoided some of the problems that were raised in the first reading. I also note that there is a review process to ensure that these issues can be dealt with again on a later occasion and so the actual codification which is what we actually desire can be done more clearly at that time. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Ka nui te mihi ki a tatou katoa mo tenei wa. No area is probably under more negative public scrutiny at the current time than the criminal justice system. This in itself is probably a good thing. Too often the system comprising our courts our jails and our judiciary is shrouded in mystery. Incarceration and sentencing decisions are vigorously debated around kitchen tables but they are not it would seem open to nationwide discussion. 
So it was a matter of some interest when Norm Withers of Christchurch instigated a petition in 1997 after an unwarranted brutal attack on his 72-year-old mother. This petition eventually led to the 1999 law and order referendum so it was obvious that there was intense public interest in the laws of criminal justice. This interest in the law is not just about the outcomes of the law in operation; it extends also to the system’s inner workings—the ambiguities the complexities and the rules around evidence. 
So today we come to the Evidence Amendment Bill which is another example where the law itself is proven to be faulty. In essence it is about an error made at the select committee that meant the co-conspirators rule was unintentionally deleted. We hear that the three common law exceptions to the rules about ensuring that a defendant’s statement can be heard against a defendant but not a co-defendant in the same proceedings have been missed out of the Evidence Act 2006. The passage of law that this House went through last year in supporting the Evidence Act 2006 was such that we were all really partners in crime to the central problem that today’s bill addresses. It is this sort of blind faith that Parliament entered into that I believe is useful to examine a little bit further. 
The legal system should not be beyond the scrutiny of the law. The fact that the Justice and Electoral Committee intended to maintain the co-conspirators rule but did not do so should be subjected to scrutiny as well as be addressed as we are doing today. In the interests of a healthy democracy we must ensure that open access to criticism is a part of the normal way of running business. 
In the case of this urgent amendment to the Evidence Act 2006 the consequences would have been particularly important in cases where evidence is obtained whereby one defendant makes a statement that under the current law is able to be used against another defendant. My co-leader Dr Sharples talked extensively the other day about the implications of such a ruling in the case of serious drug-dealing trials which often involve organised criminal groups. He talked about his own experience with the Patua te Ngangara or Beat the Demon drug education programme and how the mistake in law unintentional or not would have counted heavily in multi-defendant trials such as class A drug trials. So it makes us think that if one error can happen such as the one we are dealing with today then what about the other miscarriages of justice that may not as yet have been identified? 
It reminds me of the old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. What about those people who may have spent years fighting for damages and who are struggling with dwindling finances with the toll of the case weighing heavily on their relationships or on their general state of health? It will be well known in this House that even lawyers have expressed a lack of faith or confidence that justice will be done through the legal system. For a particularly comprehensive understanding of this issue I refer the House to a 1999 publication by the Law Commission entitled  
Te Tikanga o te Ture: Te Matauranga o nga Wahine Maori e pa ana ki tenei 
. This report on Maori women’s access to justice—he putanga mo nga wahine ki te tika—sums up the issue of how well our justice system functions: “Maori women identified the dominance of colonial values and lack of Maori personnel in the legal system as the major barriers to justice. Looked at from another angle the lack of knowledge of Maori values and culture and the lack of Maori personnel heightened their perception of injustice”. So of course the notion that there is injustice in the system of justice is not new but it is always useful to consider when another opportunity presents itself as it does in this case around abolishing the common law rule relating to co-conspirators. 
How does the law work in practice? How well does the adversarial system serve the cause of justice? How can we ensure that the systems of decency integrity honesty and accountability apply as much to lawyers and judges as they do to expert witnesses or clients? We have been interested in the context of such questions to learn about the establishment of a legal issues centre at the University of Otago which has been set up to provide such a bird’s-eye view. The dean of the University of Otago’s faculty of law Professor Mark Henaghan described it as follows: “Everything about the system hinders accessibility. Even the cost of lodging an application stops many people from pursuing a claim even where the evidence is overwhelmingly in their favour”. So the professor has raised concerns about the monitoring and enforcement of codes of ethics such as those stipulated by the Law Society. He has also raised the concept of alternative models of resolving disputes—an area that the Maori Party is keenly interested in. 
 The pursuit of justice te whainga i te tika has always been important in the Maori world view. In Maori terms justice recognises that kaupapa and tikanga are the first law of this land. The Maori Party acknowledges that justice is best achieved not by merely changing the content of existing laws but also by reconsidering—in good faith—the processes through which laws are made and the principles that underpin them. So we believe that if manaakitanga is to be effectively acknowledged the mana of all peoples might be properly and respectfully acknowledged. 
It is essential that the ideal of a fair and just community be established both in the structural functioning of society and in the operations of the justice system. The Maori Party is pleased to support the Evidence Amendment Bill not only in terms of rectifying the initial error but also to remind the House of the importance of ensuring that there are appropriate and responsive social conditions and legal processes to properly acknowledge the fundamental importance of a functioning democracy. Kia ora tatou. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I just take this opportunity briefly—and I emphasise the word “briefly”—to thank Chris Finlayson for putting in the time and effort on behalf of National during the select committee process for the Evidence Amendment Bill. He was very helpful to us when the Minister of Justice first wrote to National as a party on 14 June seeking its cooperation in expediting this legislation through the House and National members are grateful for the expertise he brings to issues like this. 
I also echo the comments made by the Green member Nandor Tanczos. Historically National has not been comfortable with legislation moving this speedily through the House. In fact arrangements as initially suggested were further discussed to result in the passage of the legislation that we are seeing today. Proper scrutiny of legislation is important to members on this side of the House. Although we can debate at length whether the Evidence Bill as it first emerged from the select committee needs the work done that the amendment bill proposes in terms of whether the common law would cover off the exceptions and the like in respect to admissibility of co-defendants’ evidence the point has been made by both Charles Chauvel and Chris Finlayson—and Nandor Tanczos to be fair—that at the very least Parliament has an obligation to clarify the law beyond doubt. I do not believe that the issue of whether an initial error was made is of significance at this point other than to say that we now know that the legislation will contain a degree of certainty that we hope will not see this particular legislation returned to the House for some time. 
It is the intention of the House to move to the Committee stage shortly and then to the third reading of this bill—all this afternoon. I just remind members that moving legislation through that process in the way that we are doing this afternoon is not at all—except in very exceptional circumstances—a satisfactory way to see legislation moved through Parliament. Certainly those who have responsibility for areas like justice or those who have shadow Attorney-General roles or the like will agree—as I am sure the Minister of Justice himself would—that such processes are not ideal. 
I believe that in order for this legislation to be as good a law as it possibly can be and to avoid court proceedings discussing whether the common law covers off some of the issues raised by this amendment bill getting the certainty around this legislation before its implementation is a helpful thing to do. National members will be constructive during the remaining stages of this bill’s passage through both the Committee of the whole House and its third reading. On this occasion I think I can say that the House has decided to put aside traditional matters of partisanship on issues in the justice—including criminal justice—area and will try to see this legislation move as speedily as possible. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I too shall take a very brief call on behalf of New Zealand First to indicate that we will support this amendment to the Evidence Act. I make a couple of notes. Firstly New Zealand First does not have a member on the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered this bill. We therefore will be holding to the opinions of the members of the committee and to the research and work done by them. We thank those people for their reports. We get a little bit concerned when legislation is pushed through swiftly—there is an old saying “Less haste less waste”—and we have a habit of finding ourselves back in this House redressing legislation where errors have occurred because bills have been moved through hastily. But the select committee members seem happy that they have done the necessary work. 
I do note that the conclusion of the commentary states: “Despite making these recommendations … This amendment should not be seen as resiling from the purpose of the Act. Section 202 of the Act sets out a very clear mechanism for mandatory review of this codification. The first review is to commence on 1 December 2011 …”. That is a little confusing because it then states: “or at a later date set by the Minister of Justice.” I guess we would like a bit of clarification. Will it be on 1 December 2011 or not? Again even in passing the bill through this stage there appears to be a little bit of uncertainty as to whether it will completely do the job whether it will need to be reviewed again and whether that review will be done in 2011 as stipulated or some time thereafter. It does seem to inject a higher degree of uncertainty again into what was essentially legislation that many questioned the need for in the first place. 
 That does leave New Zealand First with the very curious question: “What’s it all about Alfie?”. I guess we will simply trust in the select committee. Our overriding concern is that for people involved in criminal activities—particularly organised crime and high-level crime—the law as it currently stands would not make it possible for co-defendants or co-conspirators to be prosecuted successfully. That in this day and age where methamphetamine is reportedly becoming an $800 million industry to the gangs and organised crime is of grave concern to us. 
It is interesting to hear some of the concerns about the justice system as a whole in the light of press statements and press releases today by various MPs about organised crime. I again put it on the record that New Zealand First has no truck with organised crime. Legislation that can be put through this House that makes it easier to prosecute and gives the police the tools they need to put out of business gangs who meddle and peddle in mind-altering drugs that are fed to the children in our communities will always have New Zealand First’s support. In fact we look forward to the day when this House supports our anti-gang legislation. 
We do not buy into some of the rhetoric we have been reading today. To those who would advocate that “Hug a Gang Day” is here we would simply say: “Been there done that and it didn’t work.” Robbie Muldoon tried it and a range of other people have tried it. We have talked until we are blue in the face and the only thing we see is that gangs are bigger and stronger than they have ever been and that they are attracting young people into their midst in numbers that are of grave concern. 
This legislation hopefully will put a stopgap in the small hole that makes it difficult for the police to prosecute people and successfully gain convictions against conspirators and co-conspirators. That has to be a good thing. We will support the bill through the second reading and through the Committee stage. But we will be listening I have to say to gentlemen like Chris Finlayson for further views and analysis to see whether it indeed is the case that a subsequent review of this second amendment proves that there needs to be a third amendment to a piece of legislation that was widely considered as being not necessary in the first place. We will see. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Consistent with what I understand was the general discussion at the Business Committee to facilitate the progress of this bill I seek leave for the Committee stage be taken as a single wide-ranging debate and for there be one question at its conclusion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Clauses 1 to 9 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am happy to speak to Parts 1 and 2 although it is fair to say that in the second reading I probably have tortured the House sufficiently on how we actually got to where we are in the bill as reported back. But let me make a couple of comments because to the observer it might seem strange that section 27 of the Evidence Act is amended by inserting new section 12A in quite a different part of the Act. Why we are putting it in the general or preliminary provisions is to make it quite clear upfront that in this category of case nothing will affect the rules of the common law relating to either the admissibility of statements of co-conspirators or persons involved in joint criminal enterprises or in that second category the admissibility of a defendant’s statement against a co-defendant in circumstances where the defendant’s statement is accepted by the co-defendant. 
I have already explained in the select committee how section 12A as introduced in clause 5 will differ from the new section 12A as it will be enacted. It was simply that rather than tack a subordinate clause on to the end of the existing section 27(1) which is in the legislation we have brought it together in one section so that the law is as clear as it can be. 
Mr Tanczos made the extremely good point in the second reading that the law even as enacted in this form is not clear beyond all reasonable doubt or beyond any doubt whatsoever—one can apply one’s own test—because there is a reference to the common law and the common law by its very nature is always changing and evolving. It could well be that this area of the common law will change again in the near future because as he said a couple of cases before the superior courts of this land at the present time touch on these issues. 
I will address the points made by Mr Mark in his second reading speech when I deal with those issues in the third reading. It would be good if by the time of any review the Law Commission and Parliament try to codify what exactly are the principles of the common law that we are dealing with here. As Mr Chauvel said there are three exceptions at the moment but it would be good to bring them into the Act because section 6 which is a very important section of the Act talks about one of the purposes of the legislation being: “(f) enhancing access to the law of evidence.” 
 As a result of the changes we have made to clause 5 and to the new section 12A there have to be a couple of minor amendments to clause 6. Rather than have the clause that I have referred to tacked on to the end of section 27 we have put it in the new section 12A and then linked section 27 to the new section 12A by adding a new subsection (4) to section 27 that makes it clear and avoids doubt that this section dealing with defendants’ statements offered by the prosecution is subject to section 12A. 
Part 2 deals with consequential amendments. As can be seen from section 27 certain evidence is not admissible if it is excluded under the provisions of sections 28 29 or 30. As a result of the changes we have made it follows logically that sections 28 29 and 30 need minor amendments by inserting after the words “the defendant” the phrase “or if applicable a co-defendant”. So those consequential amendments are necessary to give some structure to sections 28 29 and 30 in the light of the amendments made to section 27 and to the new section 12A. 
I hope that clarifies the position. The National chief whip is indicating to me that I have been as clear as mud but there we are. It is a technical matter but at the end of the day it is an important matter for the reasons the Minister has outlined. That is why having the Committee stage follow on immediately from the second reading is so necessary. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I thank Mr Finlayson for that contribution. I think it was helpful for members of the public to hear some of the reasoning that went on behind some of the amendments made by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I would like to expand a little around the new section 12A in clause 5 because I think people may find it useful. 
As has been stated in the original amendment bill as introduced clause 6 read that section 27(1)—about rules against the inclusion of the evidence of co-defendants against a defendant—was amended so that that evidence was inadmissible “unless by the co-defendant’s words or conduct the co-defendant is taken to have accepted the truth of the statement made by the defendant”. In my first reading speech I referred to concerns around that. The issue was illustrated by a hypothetical example that Mr Fairbrother raised in the select committee. In fact he was the author of the example I mentioned in the first reading which was a situation where there are two co-defendants neither of whom is giving evidence. A statement made by defendant A asserts a number of things. That evidence is not admissible against defendant B and defendant B is not taking the stand. In the course of cross-examining another witness defendant B’s lawyer makes reference to some of the assertions made by defendant A. For example defendant A has said: “We were in a blue car.” so defendant B’s lawyer asks: “Is it true that there was a blue car?” and asserts some of the secondary facts contained in that evidence. 
The question that Mr Fairbrother had was whether the use of those assertions would imply an acceptance by defendant B of the truth of the statement made by defendant A. I think it was a fair question because part of the concern was that by clause 6 being framed in the way it was it was actually unclear what was meant by “is taken to have accepted the truth of the statement”. Clarifying that was important as was nevertheless retaining the common law around it. As was stated there already were quite clear common law rules about where this evidence would be admissible. 
That is why the select committee came to this formulation. Mr Fairbrother was instrumental in our achieving it. The advisers and the Parliamentary Counsel Office were also crucial in getting the right phrasing. Now instead of that rule being in a separate clause it is included in the new section 12A. Rather than that rule being stated in that way new section 12A “Rules of common law relating to statements of co-conspirators persons involved in joint criminal enterprises and certain co-defendants preserved” now states: “Nothing in this Act affects the rules of the common law relating to—(a) the admissibility of statements of co-conspirators or persons involved in joint criminal enterprises;”—which is the issue I addressed in my second reading speech but also—“or (b) the admissibility of a defendant’s statement against a co-defendant in circumstances where the defendant’s statement is accepted by the co-defendant.” The crucial thing is that the common law position that already exists is retained rather than a new formulation being created that creates uncertainty. 
So I think that was a helpful thing. It shows that even though we had only 1 day of consideration of this bill—it was a very speedy process—that 1 day was important and significant in our addressing this problem and tidying it up to a degree where that certainty has now been preserved. 
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Evidence Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill deals with an amendment to the Evidence Act 2006 which as we have heard rather repeatedly this afternoon as the House has facilitated the progress of this Evidence Amendment Bill was passed last year but is not yet in force. 
The Evidence Act retains the common law rule that a defendant’s statement is admissible against him or her but it is not admissible against a co-defendant in that proceeding. However the Act does not include the exceptions to the rule. This bill therefore captures those exceptions so that they are included in the Act. These exceptions as we have discussed are included in the new section 12A which is inserted by clause 5 of the bill. This section provides that nothing in this Act affects certain common law rules. 
The first of these is known as the co-conspirators rule. Section 12A preserves the rules of the common law relating to the admissibility of statements made by co-conspirators or by persons involved in joint criminal enterprises. At common law if certain prerequisites are met then the acts or words of a defendant are admissible against co-conspirators or others involved in a joint criminal enterprise where the acts or words are done in furtherance of a common design. The prerequisites are that there is independent evidence of the existence of a conspiracy or a joint criminal enterprise and that the defendant’s participation in the conspiracy or joint criminal enterprise is established. The other common law rule section 12A preserves is that relating to the admissibility of a defendant’s statement made against a co-defendant in circumstances where the defendant’s statement is accepted by that co-defendant. 
These amendments are required in order to retain the current law once the Evidence Act comes into force; they do not change the current law. Not retaining the current law would have serious implications as I indicated during the second reading. It would have serious implications for criminal trials that involved multiple accused and evidence obtained particularly by the interception of communications. As I have indicated and as I think members fully appreciate these cases generally involve the likes of major drug dealing organised criminal enterprise and/or serious violent offending. 
Clearly these types of trials with multiple defendants are costly they are lengthy they follow resource-intensive investigations and they often have a high community profile. They are not the sorts of cases that any member would want to see put at risk. Therefore members have generally cooperated to ensure the rapid progress of the legislation through this House. 
Simon Power 
: “Generally”! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am sorry; members have cooperated completely. The member is absolutely correct. If these amendments are not made then those people accused of serious crimes could indeed in a worst-case scenario be discharged or the charges would have to be dropped. That is not a situation that members would want to see happen. 
I close by acknowledging again the cooperation we have had from members of the House and the diligent work of members of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thank them for it. It is refreshing and I have to say enjoyable to have participated in a cooperative and collaborative process in order to see the House achieve a small but important piece of work that we all agree is necessary. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 It is a somewhat surreal experience to go through a second reading stage Committee stage and third reading stage as quickly as we have done this afternoon. There seems to be little point in going back and making reference to my second reading speech when it was given only about an hour ago. So I will not do that and I will not upset the chief whip by going through yet another turgid analysis of the newsection 12A to be inserted in the Evidence Act 2006 by clause 5 of the Evidence Amendment Bill or addressing why we come to have the amendment to section 27 in clause 6 of the bill and the consequential amendments in Part 2. 
The situation could be summarised in this way. After the new Act came into force there was some doubt about whether in relation to the circumstances outlined in section 27 the common law had been preserved. As both Mr Tanczos and I explained in our second reading speeches there is an argument that it has been; however to put the matter beyond doubt legislation was considered to be the desirable option. That is why we moved very quickly to have the Evidence Amendment Bill introduced and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee and then this afternoon we have dealt with its remaining stages. 
One point I want to close on though is the conclusion to the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee emphasised that the Evidence Act should be regarded as a codification of the law of evidence in New Zealand that the amendment should not be seen as resiling from the purpose of the Act and moreover that section 202 of the Act sets out a very clear mechanism for mandatory review. Mr Mark raised a number of very good questions. If I can summarise the honourable member he said that we have a section that deals with periodic review and that there are some arguments as to why the legislation should have been introduced in the first place so he asked whether we would have other amendments. I think that fairly summarises the points he made. 
In dealing with the second of those points first—why we have legislation dealing with the law of evidence—I say we had a major exercise throughout 2005 and 2006 because evidence law as it was was unsatisfactory. It was contained in legislation like the Evidence Act 1908 and the Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) 1980 which had introduced some major changes some of which never actually came into force because the Governor-General in Council did not sign the necessary documents. We also had an array of common law judge-made law on evidence. 
The Law Commission wanted to bring it all together and that is what has been done through the Evidence Act 2006. That is why Mr Tanczos and I for example expressed concerns about references in legislation to the common law bringing back as I said in the Committee stage somewhat uncertain references to the law because the common law is never static but is always developing. But as far as possible and consistent with the purpose of the legislation every endeavour was made to bring all relevant rules relating to the law of evidence into one statute. A primary purpose of that was as set out in section 6(f) of the Act to enhance access to the law of evidence. The law of evidence is one of those things that affects anyone who is caught up in the civil or criminal justice system. Sometimes people represent themselves—they may not have access to lawyers—so it is to the advantage of everyone that the law of evidence is clear and accessible. I hope that answers the first question. 
The next question relates to periodic review. Section 202 which was inserted by the committee is a very important section. It is considered given the importance of thend there will be a period while the Evidence Act is in its infancy when there will be a lot of cases on it—that after a certain period there needs to be systematic review of the Act. This is a mechanism that has been inserted to provide for mandatory post-legislative review of the Act. At a particular time hopefully no later than 1 December 2011 the Minister of Justice will ask the Law Commission to take a fresh look at the Act as it has developed since it came into force taking into account all relevant cases and then to decide what changes if any need to be made. 
It is the sincere hope of the select committee and of this Parliament that that mechanism will work so that there can be a principled and systematic review of the law of evidence. I certainly hope that is the case. I know that when the Law Commission was looking at the law of evidence I was one of those who suggested that rather than our running back to Parliament every time an amendment needed to be made perhaps the law of evidence could be enacted as a code and a specialist committee could make changes to it. But because of the nature of the law of evidence which deals with major substantive matters that can affect the liberty of the individual it was considered that it was a subject that was properly the preserve of Parliament and not of a specialist committee and that is why it was not enacted as a code. 
The final point I would make is that I predict this amendment is probably not a one-off experience. Given the huge nature of the exercise of reforming the law of evidence comprehensively for the first time in a century and given the changes that have been made it could well be while the legislation is in its infancy that some other questions will arise. We may have to deal with other questions because when we try to reduce everything into a code and express ourselves clearly in Englishsh covering as many situations as we can there may well be other circumstances that require clarification. I am afraid that is the name of the game. When I was speaking in the first reading I said that after the High Court Rules were introduced in 1985 the Rules Committee needed immediately to have a number of meetings to make some urgent changes to them because certain things had not been looked at. I am afraid that will possibly happen here simply because of the nature of the exercise that we have undertaken. 
We cannot cover every single contingency but I think it is fair to say in answer to Mr Mark’s questions that we have certainly tried to do so. I hope I do not sound defeatist but it could well be that there will be a need to legislate in other areas. Given the mechanism for review that we have in section 202 of the Act where a review is not to take place until 5 years hence there may be a need for this Parliament to look at other matters. But having said that I certainly hope that is not the case. We have done our best in the time available to cover the contingencies that the Minister has outlined so as to prevent either satellite litigation on whether the common law exceptions have been maintained or our running the risk that a court finds they have not been maintained thereby then imperilling a large number of highly complex and very costly cases. At least this legislation makes it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the common law exceptions in this particular area have been maintained. 
For that reason National supports the third reading of the legislation. As I say I hope we are not going to deal with other amendment bills in this area of the law. But who knows? We may do so. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Allow me to begin with an apology. I doubt that I will be able to give a full 10-minute speech in the third reading debate without repeating myself on issues that have already been canvassed in previous stages of this debate. I know that members would not like to hear repetition so I will try to confine my remarks to fresh issues. 
I think it is important that we take this debate seriously and do make as constructive a contribution as possible because it is an important issue. The rules of evidence are enormously significant for the maintenance of justice of good rules of law of fair courts and fair process of the safety of the community and of the right to a fair trial. These are important issues particularly because of the nature of this debate and the very constrained nature of the process—the hasty procedure. Although I accept the need for that we have to accept that this is an unfortunately speedy process. So in that regard I think it is incumbent on members to make as constructive and full a contribution as we are able and I will do my best to fulfil the expectations of the House—and of you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Simon Power 
: Our expectations of the member are high. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Ha ha! 
Let me begin with a comment on a broader principle. As someone who is very interested in the deficiencies of an adversarial court system and in exploring alternative processes for dealing with legal issues and particularly in exploring further ideas around the applicability of the inquisitorial system to our own—and acknowledging that elements of the inquisitorial system already apply in some legal processes in this country—I am nevertheless someone who has a high regard for the elegance if you like of the common law system. It is unique I think to the adversarial system—this idea that there is this judge-made law with flexibility that evolves over time. 
We have developed throughout the common law system a rich intellectual tradition around questions of law and I think that is a good thing. Also within New Zealand there is the question of how much uniquely New Zealand common law we have developed. I know that that is a matter that has exercised better minds than my own and some very interesting contributions to that discussion have been published in recent times. I think it is important that we have a system that allows judges to consider not just statute law but broader principles of law constitutional considerations and the development of judicial thinking. 
I know that this Parliament has debated the question of the relationship between judges and Parliament at times and different members have different views. I know that Dr Cullen has made particularly strong statements around the sovereignty of Parliament. He has stated his position quite clearly—a position shared by some members of this House and not by others. I have to say that I am someone who tends to see myself on the other side of that debate. The question has been raised of course about what the mandate is for judges to make judge-made law. Judges do not have the democratic mandate that members of Parliament enjoy. Nevertheless I think that judges enjoy a different kind of mandate which is to do with the rule of law. It is to do with the protection of rights and with broader historical constitutional issues which can quite easily be neglected in the debates of this Parliament given that we represent moments of history moments of the collective political consciousness of our nation at a particular time. So I do not think that that takes away from the important considerations that a broader historical view might give. 
I remember well the debates between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice. Nevertheless of course the problem with the common law is that it is relatively inaccessible particularly to ordinary people. In fact the very beauty of its fluidity and ability to evolve is one of the things that makes it so difficult for people to penetrate it and to understand its full scope. Although in the select committee and in this House we like to indulge ourselves and loyally debate some of these things in my case I am able to do that only because of the support of advisers researchers and the like. 
Unlike other members of this House who are accomplished lawyers in their own right and are well-known and highly regarded in the legal world many of us here rely entirely on the enormously hard work of various support people in order to do our jobs. Of course those resources are not available to most people. That is why it is important that we have in the Evidence Act the purpose of trying to make the law as accessible as possible so that ordinary people can understand the laws of evidence understand that the laws comply with logical rules and understand how those rules work. Then they can start to understand better how judicial decisions are made because one of the problems we have in this country is that some people have a low regard for our judiciary. I do not think that that is deserved by and large but one of the difficulties is that people do not always understand the lines of reasoning that bring judges to make the decisions they make. So if we can make explicit the laws of evidence and bring them into one place and make them clear that is a very useful and important thing to do. 
The reason those issues are important in terms of this debate we are undergoing right now is that this bill appears to run contrary to that purpose and this is an issue that has been brought up previously. But I think it is important to stress that it is not the intention of Parliament to create further confusion or anything like that but rather to show that we are rectifying an important area of confusion in the law. If we have to do that in the context of the time by referring to the common law then we have to do that but we do want to see that it is tidied up at a later stage. 
Mr Finlayson is absolutely right when he says that this is unlikely to be the only time when we have to do this kind of thing. We did undergo a massive exercise with the enactment of the Evidence Act. It is a huge Act complex and technical so it is inevitable that in the course of time we will potentially see some oversights or places where there is a lack of clarity about the intentions of Parliament. Again as has been said case law will be developing around the rules as they are set out in that Act. So in that regard it is important that we have a review process incorporated into the Act. As has been said the first review is to commence on 1 December 2011 or at a later date set by the Minister of Justice. 
 I think it would be unfortunate if that review was unnecessarily delayed. The Green Party certainly would encourage that review to be timely because I think by 2011 it is very likely that we will have seen a number of the issues that will come from this. They will have come to our attention by that time and we will need to go through that review process to look at where the case law has got to and to see what amendments or rectifications might need to be made at that time. So of course it is true that this will not be the only time we do this. We need to ensure that we do have this process to follow up and to tidy up the loose strands. That is the important element of that. Nevertheless I think it is great to see the consensus and cooperation across the House on this important piece of legislation. I commend the Ministers and advisers for their good work and I commend members for their very constructive contributions to this hasty debate. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 First of all I say that as Chris Finlayson indicated National supports this bill through its third reading. I also have to say that the Green Party having indicated to the House it would not take its full 10 minutes in the third reading debate that was an impressive effort by Nandor Tanczos to get as close to the 10-minute mark as possible. 
I reiterate two important points that have been made during the course of the debate. The first is that National definitely sees this amendment bill as a clarification and as adding some certainty to the way in which this particular rule could be interpreted whether it be enshrined in statute or with the continuation of a common law position. The important point that has been made is that even if the common law retained the defence Parliament has an obligation to produce certainty in law and we certainly would not want to have a situation where this was tested at length in the courts. I thank members who have done the work on this amendment bill particularly as it was during such a rushed period in the select committee. 
Secondly I want to emphasise that National was happy to play a constructive role in seeing this legislation move through all stages of the House. It is not something that we would ordinarily agree to particularly because of the nature of the scrutiny that our democracy allows those parties not on the Treasury benches to pore over legislation that is put before the House. I think on the whole that robust process works pretty well. 
I know that the Attorney-General is anxious for me to conclude my remarks so I will just say that although the way this bill is passing is extraordinary with the introduction of the Evidence Act at the start of August it is essential. National supports the third reading of this bill. 
Bill read a third time. 
Points of Order 
Discharge of sessional order—Television coverage of the House 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the sessional order on television coverage of the House be discharged and that it be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That— 
(1) 
A provider of television coverage of the House must comply with the following rules: 
Television coverage rules 
1.The cameras will cover the member who has been called to speak until the member’s speech is finished or the member’s call is terminated by the Speaker. Coverage will normally be medium range head and shoulders. The director may choose to vary the camera angle to add interest to the coverage. Switching between such shots should be done at an appropriate point in the speech. 
2.The default shot will be on the Speaker or presiding officer including the arrival of the Speaker’s procession. 
3.The television director may choose other shots to reflect the business transacted such as a wide angle shot of the chamber or during oral questions a reaction shot of the Minister being asked a question or of a member listening to the reply to a question. 
4.The television director may use a wide angle shot of the chamber as a continuity shot for instance at the end of oral questions or when the House is going into committee. Sound from the Speaker or ambient noise microphones can be added to this shot. 
5.Generally interjections are not covered. But if the member speaking engages with the interjector the interjector’s reaction can be filmed. 
6.Officials (Clerks interpreters Serjeant-at-Arms) should be shown when they are participating in the business of the House by making announcements calling party votes interpreting speeches or carrying the mace. 
7.While a personal vote is in progress a graphic to this effect should be shown in place of live coverage. This graphic would be shown from the time the Speaker directs the Ayes to the right the Noes to the left and appoints the tellers until the announcement of the result. 
8.Shots unrelated to the proceedings are not permitted that is interruptions from the gallery and business occurring outside the House. 
9.In case of general disorder on the floor of the House coverage will revert to the Speaker or presiding officer. 
10.During an interruption to proceedings such as prolonged disturbance from the gallery the coverage will be of the Speaker or presiding officer with sound from only the Speaker’s and ambient noise microphones. Coverage from the chamber should continue unless the Speaker or presiding officer indicates otherwise either by suspending or adjourning the House or specifically directing that coverage should cease. Television coverage recommences when the House resumes or at the direction of the Speaker or presiding officer. 
11.Coverage ceases as soon as the Speaker or presiding officer announces that the House stands adjourned or the Speaker or presiding officer leaves the chair for the suspension of a sitting. 
These rules apply also to any other filming from the gallery. 
The Serjeant-at-Arms will intervene if it becomes apparent that cameras are filming matters not within the rules. Broadcasters who offend the rules may have their privilege of filming in the Chamber withdrawn; 
(2) 
Any use of the television coverage of the House in any medium must comply with the following conditions: 
Conditions of use of coverage 
Live coverage of the proceedings of the House of Representatives is made available for television broadcast webcast and recording in other mediums to provide greater public access to the legislature. The coverage is made available on the following conditions: 
1.Any broadcast or rebroadcast of coverage must comply with the Broadcasting Standards Authority rules. 
2.Coverage of proceedings must not be used in any medium for— 
•political advertising or election campaigning (except with the permission of all members shown) 
•satire ridicule or denigration 
•commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising. 
3.Reports that use extracts of coverage of proceedings and purport to be summaries must be fair and accurate. 
Breach of these conditions may result in a loss of access to coverage and may be treated as a contempt and proceeded against accordingly; and 
(3) 
The House may treat as a contempt the use of television coverage of the House in any medium contrary to paragraph (2) of this order.  
This motion gives effect to unanimous recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee that flow from the 2003 decision to provide for an in-house facility for televising Parliament. It creates a sessional order and it is important for Parliament to understand what that means. In other words it sets up a set of rules that will last for the life of this Parliament only. It can be revisited during the life of this Parliament in the light of experience and will need to be re-moved either in this form or in some different form during the subsequent Parliament to cover the rules of televising Parliament. Essentially as I said it has been triggered by the fact that we now have a new process of permanent televising of Parliament being brought into place. 
Before turning to the substance of the rules I would like to comment briefly on the process of developing these rules. The Standing Orders Committee is one of the few committees on which all parties are represented in this case except for the Progressives. Unlike some committees the Standing Orders Committee always seeks to reach a consensus before making recommendations to the House. I cannot remember a recommendation being carried through simply on the basis of a majority vote in the Standing Orders Committee. That is particularly important because the rules of the House need to have broad agreement from all members represented in the House. 
I thank the other members of the committee for the constructive way that we all approached the process of developing what were always going to be to some extent controversial rules—more controversial outside this place than inside it I think it is fair to say. I particularly acknowledge the role of the shadow Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee in attempting to reach some enduring rules because we do not want to make these processes ones of partisan dispute. I should note that in the committee the proceedings that have been proposed here received unanimous support in terms of the recommendations and all parties were present during the deliberations on this particular matter. 
I turn now to the substance of the proposed rules. It must be acknowledged that these represent a substantial liberalisation of the current rules. The current rules are very restrictive and do not allow the presentation of anything like a full experience of Parliament for viewers. The proposed rules are significantly liberalised in terms of allowing reaction shots involving questions and objections and permitting more general background shots so as to illustrate the mood of the House and introduce some greater variety into the coverage of the House. The current rules do not permit reaction shots or coverage of interjectors or indeed wide-angle shots of the House. 
This liberalisation of the rules around what can be televised coupled with the provision of a free broadcast-quality live feed of all proceedings of Parliament will allow the media much greater ability to cover the proceedings of Parliament than at present. It will also ensure that New Zealanders have greater opportunities to observe the performance of their elected representatives in the House. 
 The major controversy that has arisen from commentary by the press gallery is in relation to the rules that have been adapted from Australian experiences in relation to satire ridicule denigration and other matters. The point the media has missed in this regard is that the most restrictive of those rules actually is one on members themselves and their political parties and that is that coverage of proceedings may not be used in any medium for political advertising or election campaigning except with the permission of all members shown. That of course is an actual restraint on the ability of Parliament to use what may be misrepresentative pictures to misrepresent the experience of other members in the House. I am reminded of those United States advertising campaigns where a congressman is first of all criticised for not being in his constituency but instead being in Washington and then is subsequently criticised for being in the constituency instead of being in Washington to vote on various important measures in front of Congress. It is very easy to misrepresent what happens within this Parliament through partial editing or through misrepresentation of those proceedings and I believe that Parliament does deserve some degree of protection from that behaviour. 
The matters around satire ridicule and denigration I think will need to be watched carefully and interpreted carefully and not interpreted in a foolish or unnecessarily restrictive fashion. But I think one can sum up the seriousness of much of the objections by what happened on Wednesday morning in the  
Dominion Post 
. The media got me up against a wall—not an unusual experience—essentially parading their defence of Western democracy liberties the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the Magna Carta and goodness knows what else in terms of the need to be able to show satirical representations of Parliament. At a time when journalists from major news organisations are held captive by Palestinian terrorists and some journalists are losing their lives in the pursuit of the truth and news around the world I am not convinced that one should take entirely seriously some of these protestations. 
When we saw the evidence that what people really wanted to show was simply pictures of members of Parliament yawning it seemed to me that we are actually dealing with trivial matters not serious matters at all. The fact that members of Parliament occasionally yawn in a House that sits until 10 p.m. at night does not seem to me worthy of a great deal of media coverage at all. I have heard rumours that even members of the press gallery have been known to yawn in a variety of forms. I think that all that the public will discover from the fact that we yawn is that we are vaguely human which probably will help us rather than hinder us in terms of their perception of members of this place. I might say that when I first came here loud yawning was one of the more frequent forms of interjection one that has now fallen into disuse by and large thank goodness within the House. I do not encourage its resumption as a major form of interjection within the House particularly if it is in order to gather some kind of attention in the next morning’s  
Dominion Post 
. If pictures of members yawning is all we are really talking about then I really think we are talking about matters that are trivial and that demean not Parliament but the journalists who think such matters are important matters to be covered within Parliament. 
Nevertheless I do believe that these rules will need to be carefully interpreted and carefully monitored. They introduce a provision where some matters could be considered a contempt. That is to say they may be considered a contempt; they are not of themselves necessarily a contempt. I am quite sure that if charges were ever brought the Privileges Committee would want to consider such matters very carefully before arriving at the conclusion that a contempt had been committed. 
But I think that when we see pictures that for example show members reacting to something that in fact was not what they were reacting to—in other words when editing has occurred—or when members are shown laughing at something they did not laugh about but were laughing at something completely different in the House when members are captured in what one might call a human moment which anybody experiences when they are working long hours in a place such as this then the public gets a false impression of what is happening. That is not a true impression of Parliament; it is a false impression of Parliament. I was asked whether it would be possible for people to cover members being satirical about each other. I can assure members of the press gallery that they are perfectly able to cover any satirical speech within the House. That will not be a problem. 
Let us see how these rules work. Let us take a deep breath. Let us interpret the rules liberally and let us then proceed on from there. I have extraordinary confidence that democracy will continue to flourish in New Zealand that there will continue to be robust debate within this Parliament and that no member of the media outside will feel constrained in the kinds of comments he or she can make. 
On that point I just remind the House of one thing that most of the people here have probably forgotten. There was an occasion in this House—as I recollect it was at the end of the 1983 session—when the incumbent Prime Minister was so drunk that when he stood to move the adjournment motion he stood for slightly over 2 minutes unable to utter any words other than “Mr Speaker”. Not a single member of the press gallery reported what happened in that case. I rest my case in that regard. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The National Party will support these rules being enacted as a sessional order in the Parliament this afternoon. One of the things that has perplexed us over the last couple of days is that when members sat on the Standing Orders Committee and made the decision to go ahead with the cameras here in the Parliament it was largely with the thought that we were opening the place up and that there would be more coverage more access and more opportunities for the public to see what goes on in Parliament which has such a big effect on their lives. So it has been slightly perplexing that as the week has unfolded we appear to have narrowed down on two relatively simple matters as far as I can see. 
The first is the issue of whether still cameras should have the same flexibility as television cameras. I hasten to point out that the television cameras do not actually have all that much flexibility. The only advantage they have is that because there are multiples of them a statement and a reaction can be seen from various sides of the House. I do not discount though that at some point in the very near future we will need to have a further discussion about the role and the access of still cameras. After all if we want to have the place more open then I do not think that should be too much of an issue for us to deal with. I certainly indicate that the National Party is saying—and I believe the Speaker has said this to the gallery and to other interested parties—that we can have more discussion on this matter. 
The reality is that a sessional order lasts from the time it is passed today until the end of this Parliament. So there will be discussion in the Standing Orders Committee about what arrangements will endure from the start of the post - 2008 - election Parliament. In that I think there might be—in fact I would say there will be—some opportunity to overcome and get past some of the concerns that the media have. I want to state very firmly that in supporting these sessional orders as I believe would be the case for everyone else here there is no attempt to restrict the media in any undue way whatsoever. 
I want to speak about the issue of the ban supposedly on satire ridicule and denigration. It is an interesting prospect that serious gallery reporters say they want the absolute right to satirise ridicule and denigrate the proceedings of Parliament. I do not think that that upholds their entire argument about wanting to have greater access to a more open democracy. 
Satire will always have a place in the political arena; it does just about every day in the cartoons and it does in the weekly wrap-ups that we see in our news media particularly on television. To some extent if the right journalist is doing it it can be exercised on radio and it is frequently the case in the  
Dominion Post  
that a particular reporter writes her almost daily column or commentary the day after the House has had proceedings. 
Ridicule is an issue that the public should decide on. I would have thought that reporters would report the facts of any particular case or incident and the public would make their decision about how that was to be treated and if ridicule was the result then so be it. But to have the right to actively ridicule at large people who are elected here is not right. Denigration is much the same. It is interesting to note that the appendices that are attached are quite specific in saying that these matters all relate to what are already broadcasting standards rules. If they are read in that regard I do not think there is a total ban on satire. I would find it exceptional if the Broadcasting Standards Authority were to uphold a complaint of satire in many of the cases that we could all outline where one or two of us may have felt somewhat aggrieved because we were the centre of attention on any particular day. 
It is also worth noting that any censure or other condemnation that might come from breaching these rules arises as a result of the Privileges Committee making a decision. The step prior to that is that the Speaker determines whether a matter of privilege is involved and the step prior to that is that the member or members who feel aggrieved take the step of writing to the Speaker. 
I want to give an absolute assurance that if I am caught sleeping in Parliament and my photo appears in the paper on the television or otherwise I will not write to the Speaker complaining. I know that if I did the Speaker would find it very hard to suggest that publishing that photo was a contempt of Parliament. The proof of that is that although it is annoying and irritating in the last few days when various photos like that have been publicised there has been no such action taken. 
It is very hard and unreasonable at times though that those photos appear. I know that journalists particularly in the gallery work extremely long hours and extremely hard for the particular media outlets that they represent. But members of Parliament do also and I think it only reasonable to accept that from time to time there will be contributions made in this House that will be so difficult to listen to that if bottled they would be a fine remedy for the worst insomnia anyone could ever possibly suffer. As a consequence people do occasionally have their eyes shut but that should be no impediment to the thought process continuing. 
In short the National Party will support these rules because we have to have some rules in place from 17 July. Media outlets once the televising goes free to air can take still photographs or a range of still photographs off that feed and they are not going to miss out in the way they might currently be protesting about. The only difference will be that they will not have to send a photographer along here to wait the many hours that might be needed in order to get that particular gem in the lens. But if that is what they want to do then we give our commitment to talk further about that with the Speaker. We support these television coverage rules today because we need them. 
This is as I said before a sessional order that will be in place until the 2008 election. As a sessional order of course it can be altered and changed at any particular point so it is hardly a shutting off or a total denial of any particular rights. Beyond 2008 there will be Standing Orders that we hope will reflect the best interests of the people of this country because ultimately that is what this should be all about. 
I conclude by simply saying it was our intention and I believe the intention of everybody who sat on that Standing Orders Committee to open Parliament up to greater scrutiny and view so we remain a little perplexed by some of the extraordinary reactions in the last couple of days. We accept that they are genuine we will take them on board and we will discuss them further. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Debate interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Tabled Documents—Printing and Release 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise with you at the first available opportunity something that has occurred overnight. It relates to documents that I had tabled here yesterday afternoon following the general debate in the House. I am reading from an article that states: “Mr Peters tabled legal submissions on the BNZ deal but these were not released to the Herald because they are considered legally sensitive by the Clerk of the House David McGee.” 
This is the second time I think in this Parliament’s history that an attempt has been made not to print documents that have been tabled in this House. We had all these arguments the last time you will recall when I tabled the wine-box documents in the House and the very same parties sought to preclude the printing of them by the Office of the Clerk and the release of them to the media for the very same reasons that they have no doubt put up now. 
 This is a deadly serious matter and I have raised it at the first opportunity. The public has been denied information that was submitted at a commission of inquiry so it gets worse in that context. I do not know what has gone on behind closed doors or who has made submissions to the Clerk’s Office but I would be astonished if those submissions were made on any basis other than that which was raised last time in respect of a much wider set of documents that at that time had not been published anywhere at all. The matters I put to Parliament yesterday were all matters that have been published in one form or another—and in the case of the newspaper article obviously published. But in the case of the submissions I point out that they were made before a commission of inquiry. 
This matter is so urgent Mr Deputy Speaker that I demand the Speaker of the House come back here so that the Clerk of the House through her can tell us what is going on. It is simply not something we can abide and I think it is a denial of public access to knowledge. I do not believe there is any constitutional meritorious or legal reason for this to have happened that was not traversed or overcome the last time such challenges were made. That may have been the first time in my memory that any parties outside this House having seen documents tabled sought to use the Clerk’s Office to stop wider publication beyond this House. It is an outrage that the commission could know what is in those submissions that those who are party to the submissions could know what is in them and that parliamentarians may know what is in them yet the public and the media cannot. I think that calls for the Speaker’s return to the House and I seek leave for that to happen now to tell us why on earth that decision has been made. I so move. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that issue. You have correctly raised it at the first available opportunity. I shall seek a way forward for you not necessarily as you require but I shall seek a way forward. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification as to how soon you expect me to have an answer. If it will be the case that we will not have any chance to dispute this matter over the next 2 weeks of the adjournment then I think that is a grave travesty of the simple rules and protocols of this Parliament and indeed of Western democracy itself. I think therefore that this matter requires the urgent consideration of this House now. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will make two points. The first is that as the House is not in Committee one cannot actually move to recall the Speaker because the Speaker is in the Chair. It is a different procedure from when we are in Committee and indeed I do not think Madam Speaker will be available later on today if I can put it in that way. Secondly I think the member has raised a very important matter that I think the Clerk’s Office needs to take a little time to think through before you respond Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder perhaps whether we could resume the debate on the motion with an understanding that you will come back to the House before it rises at 6 o’clock to give a considered response to the member. This is a very important matter and it is one that probably should not have an immediate response. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I agree that this is a very important matter. I refer whoever is looking into it to Speakers’ ruling 134/1 in order to see whether perhaps there is a way through it that would result in a further request for leave relating to publication. In essence the ruling states: “… the mere tabling of a document in the House does not mean that the House has ordered or authorised the publication of that document. Where the House does order or authorise the publication of a document the House makes the document its own and any subsequent publication of it is absolutely privileged … Where as in this case”—and I am not sure which case it was—“the document is merely tabled no legal protection in respect of any subsequent publication outside the House arises by virtue of that tabling.” It could be that there is quite a significant issue here for the member who wants to table the documents. It may be worth considering whether a leave application around their publication is a way through that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I thank the member for his comments. This situation is extraordinary on two counts. The first thing is that I would have thought a courtesy was owed to the member of this Parliament who had tabled the document if such a ruling or finding were being pursued by the Clerk of the House. That is number one—a simple courtesy to that member would surely have been required in any sense of fair play. The second thing is that members here table document after document every darned day all of which are printed. But all of a sudden someone comes along with documents—in this case the subject of a commission of inquiry hearing—and they have some sort of legal sanctity against publication on the pretence that they do not carry any legal protection. Well that is with the greatest of respect to the Clerk David McGee absolute bunkum. Members will recall that I went through those arguments last time and I will not face 2½ weeks of not having an answer now. That is the least I could expect from my colleagues many of whom have already heard these arguments when legal efforts were last made by certain parties outside this Parliament to stop publication. I seek leave for the documents tabled yesterday in my name to be printed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed and you are quite entitled to do that of course. I just mention that documents are tabled for the purpose of informing the House; they are not automatically published. But you have sought leave for that to happen. Is there any objection? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think the leave is simply for the documents to be published not printed because of the nature of the documents. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes leave has been— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Just to get it correct I am seeking leave for the documents to be printed published and distributed to all who request them. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is the subject of the leave that is being sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I just want to apologise to the House for the interruption. I do thank my colleagues for seeing the wisdom of that procedure. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is all right. When I mentioned a way forward that is exactly what I was about to seek and we have found a way forward as you can see. Thank you. 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Debate resumed. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Tony Blair is on record as saying that Parliament is a place for noble causes and that is what this place should be. That is why New Zealand First will support this sessional order and the television coverage rules as provided in this motion. We can see no good reason why MPs should be satirised whilst doing their job in this House. We certainly can see no good reason why MPs should be ridiculed whilst doing their job in this House. Equally so we can see no good reason why they should be denigrated whilst doing their job in this House. We agree with Dr Cullen that the situation should be monitored and monitored carefully and probably reviewed if flaws are found or the system does not appear to be working. 
We have little or no sympathy for the media and the media’s case because principally some in the media—I will not say all but some in the media—when it comes to relaying the activities of Parliament operate under questionable ethics. I use the example that has been hinted at this afternoon. My former colleague Dail Jones was laughing at a joke or something that happened here in the House and he was shown on television with the musical theme “We’re in the Money” underlying it all. That was totally and utterly unfair and dare I say outrageous. Equally so a few weeks back my colleague Ron Mark questioned the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections I think and the debate got quite heated. But when the television showed it they showed the heated response from the department and then Ron Mark’s questions giving a totally wrong impression of what happened. 
I do not need to remind the House that some time ago my colleague Ron Mark was baited by the Hon Tau Henare—“baited” is the only word I can use. The statement the Hon Tau Henare made was a gross distortion of the truth and Ron responded. He did not respond in the manner that is appropriate to an MP I must say. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Yes he did for dissing him. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am getting a debate from behind the scenes here. Mr Mark has apologised to this House I think on at least three occasions. He was sitting behind me and I was acting party leader at the time. He has apologised personally to me. He has apologised to the Rt Hon Winston Peters our leader who was absent at the time. He has apologised to the caucus. He has apologised to the party members I do not know how many times several in writing and to many a local New Zealand First meeting. I do not know what else he has to do. That was a year or so ago and yet he still appears on television with that gesture advertising a programme. That is absolutely outrageous. 
If we are to televise Parliament then we must have some rules in place. We must have some rules that reflect what we are meant to be doing here. I saw the  
Dominion Post 
 the other day with photographs of MPs yawning. If that is the response of the media to these sorts of rules they invite MPs to make tough rules. But having said that I would suggest to anybody who feels a bit tired and wants to yawn to do what my mother told me to do when I was a young boy: put one’s hand over one’s mouth. Then it looks as if one cares about other people. Nevertheless this place is not here so that MPs can be made fools or idiots of. I think most of us will agree that we can do that pretty well on our own without being filmed or televised. 
 I recall when I went to London to a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference that we met three senior MPs—senior in terms of time spent in the House of Parliament—and we were talking about the televising of Parliament. The UK has been televising the Westminster Parliament for quite some years. Those MPs’ advice to all of us at the conference was to avoid it if we could because they said in essence the media cannot be trusted. They said that the media will use the televising of Parliament to undermine the very institution they will use it to undermine the Church and they will use it to undermine the Sovereign—the Queen. That last probably is not as important to us as perhaps it is to the UK but nevertheless those senior MPs in the UK Parliament were of the opinion that the media did very little to promote the issues as they were being discussed in Parliament; instead they made fools of the people who came to Parliament to do their best for the country. 
I have no doubt that just about everybody in this House comes here for a genuine cause. They come here with the feeling that their political view can make a better country. We all from time to time disagree—sometimes very very strongly. But the commitment to do our best I think goes through everybody’s attitude. I have had some fairly strong arguments with colleagues from all sides of the House but I would not for one minute suggest that they were not taking their issues seeing them and promoting them in the way they were doing without the best intentions to achieve the best outcome for New Zealand. 
To be made a fool of by the media is really the pits. I can recall in my own case going on television outside this House on a documentary programme—one might say that I was set up for it—to talk about the censorship of movies. The interviewer said to me: “Have you seen the movie?”. Well the truth is I had not seen the movie but I had read extensively the censor’s report. The censor has to write a detailed report of every movie that goes through his office. The report on this particular movie was sickening so my answer to the interviewer was: “No I haven’t seen the movie but I’ve read the censor’s report and it was absolutely sickening. He goes into details.” I said pretty much exactly that. What came out over the air was: “Have you seen the movie?”; “No I haven’t seen the movie.” And then they moved on to another clip. 
I have to say that my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters had a word with me the very next day. He said that one cannot go on television and criticise a movie if one has not seen it. I explained: “Well here’s the censor’s report. Read that and see if you want to see the movie and see whether you think it should be censored.” Indeed my brother-in-law who lives down the road from me came and knocked on my door and said he had seen me on television and again I explained. I had the censor’s report and let him read it. He shared my concern. 
The point I am making is that television has the ability to clip cut and change things to suit the audience. What it should be doing is reflecting accurately what goes on in this place. Until we can get a cast-iron assurance that that is what will happen then we have to have rules in place that protect the people doing this job. I cannot think of terribly many other jobs—there might be some—that will be open to public glare and are put on TV at night to have people ridicule. When I worked on the waterfront and we invited a team of dignitaries down we had the courtesy to tell our men that people unrelated to their loading operation or discharge operation would be coming to view the operation. We did not expect anybody to later go out and castigate the guys who were working hard in the holds of the ship. 
If the media think they can come into this place with their TV cameras and show the world whatever they think the world should see with little thought of accuracy then I have to say they are barking up the wrong tree. New Zealand First supports this sessional order. We support the assertion that Dr Cullen made: it should be monitored and reviewed and possibly changed from time to time. Meanwhile we think these controls are a good place to start. Thank you. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. The popular question that tamariki ask me when I spend time in a kura is what I really do each day. I suppose I could focus on some of the negative aspects of the House but I do not because that is not what the majority of the day is about. The list of work is enormous as any member of this House knows. 
I talk about the role of Parliament as the supreme legislative power and as a consequence our mahi in passing the laws by which Aotearoa is governed; examining amending processing bills; and approving the supply of public funds to run the country. I share the experiences that we have in promoting representation and the mutual obligations that we have both to advocate the views of the people and to represent the work of Parliament back to the constituency. I talk also about the very important role of scrutinising the work of the Government and the ever-thrilling challenge of question time. But I do not talk about the exhaustion that comes with the workload that extends into late evenings and weekends the responsibility of keeping up with mountains of paperwork and all the other core business that comes with the two letters—MP. I totally accept that all of this is part of the role of a member of Parliament. 
But if people were to pick up the  
Dominion Post  
yesterday they would be hard-pressed to see any other role for Parliament than one of pure entertainment a forum of fun and frivolity—all yawning aside—and a place unfortunately to fall asleep in if one is really tired. The fact that my colleague Dr Pita Sharples was last Thursday denied the opportunity to table his signed code of ethics as he attempted to have it added to those of the other 13 members of the MMP parties who had tabled theirs was not seen as news. I suppose good behaviour does not sell newspapers. 
That is why we in the Maori Party have supported the new television coverage rules in our commitment to restore the respect authority and legitimacy of Parliament. The Maori Party debated at great length the importance of focusing on the respective members who were on their feet and on ensuring shots unrelated to the proceedings were not permitted. We were pleased to see that the authority of the Speaker is preserved with the default position always reverting either to the Speaker or to the presiding officer in the Chair. 
There is one particular part of the new rules that has excited the imagination of the fourth estate—that is the direction that coverage of proceedings must not be used in any medium for ridicule or denigration. The Maori Party is particularly supportive of such a ruling in light of the report from the United Nations special rapporteur who highlighted “the systematic negative description of Maori in media coverage”. As a particularly vivid example we need only to cast our memory back to 1975 when television cameras gave extensive coverage to a billboard campaign by property investor Bob Jones attacking the Rowling Labour Government. The billboard that achieved national prominence however was one about the Minister of Maori Affairs Matiu Rata which said: “Matt Rata reads comics”. That a man of such mana a leader of his people was put up as a figure of fun and tormented by the popular press of his day reflects badly on all those involved in such a shameful incident. 
These incidents of so-called ridicule or denigration could also be described as institutional racism. “Nigger” jokes were seen as normal fun and funny—excused I suppose by that childhood chant: “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”. Well really is that so right? It is little wonder that Mohammad Ali in 1966 in refusing to fight for the United States in Viet Nam said: “I ain’t got no quarrel with the Vietcong … no Vietcong ever called me a nigger.” 
Those are the sorts of episodes that a study on Maori in the media undertaken in 2004 reported as being unbalanced in their treatment of Maori—denigrating and insulting. When I picked up the  
Dominion Post 
 yesterday and found that four of the eight unflattering photos of MPs were of Maori MPs—Shane Jones Dover Samuels Ron Mark and myself—I asked what has changed since 1975. I did not bother to complain because I did not feel that it was worth it. But the United Nations special rapporteur was so concerned about the treatment of Maori in the media that he recommended that “Public media should be encouraged to provide a balanced unbiased and non-racist picture of Maori in New Zealand society”—not a number of Maori MPs in a very unflattering way as they were yesterday. 
In light of this it was refreshing yesterday to see the Broadcasting Standards Authority come out with a statement supporting better training in inter-cultural understanding for journalists. The statement from the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s chief executive Dominic Sheehan said it all: “All cultures have a right to be treated fairly by the media. Better journalistic training in other cultures would be a solution to inadvertently offending people’s customs and protocols as a result of a lack of knowledge.” The authority also supported the concept of media campaigns to combat discrimination with Sheehan confirming that such a campaign reflects the important part the media plays in improving communication between cultures. 
I am not generally one to say that I get excited by statements like that but in the midst of an environment of bad news and unflattering photos the leadership shown by the Broadcasting Standards Authority is exciting. I quote from Mr Sheehan again: “While our media is underpinned by the right of free expression we want people from all communities to know that broadcasters have a responsibility to maintain programme standards like the observance of good taste and decency balance fairness accuracy and the privacy of an individual. Included in the standards are safeguards against denigration and discrimination against a group in society.” 
If I were in a courtroom I would tempted to say: “Your honour I rest my case.” but instead in this esteemed “House of Law” I say that nothing more really needs to be said. In the interests of broadcasting standards in respect of our Standing Orders and in compliance with the MMP parties’ own code of conduct for MPs tabled in this House I say that the direction to avoid ridicule or denigration is the right direction for this House to take. Tena koutou. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That 
the motion be amended by omitting the words “satire ridicule or denigration” 
. I intend to seek leave of the House at the conclusion of my speech to allow full debate on the motion my amendment and any other amendments that may arise to ensure that the debate is not constrained in any way because I think it is an important debate. 
Let me explain why I am moving my amendment to the motion. I will start by talking about the context of the motion. First of all by and large it is a positive change. I think the points that Mr Brownlee made are quite correct in that this motion represents an opening up of Parliament in a number of ways. It is unfortunate that this debate has overshadowed that broader opening-up. 
The first thing is that we are seeing access to a live feed through these cameras a feed that will be free and a feed that will mean that all of the proceedings of this Parliament are broadcast through the Internet and through any media channel that chooses to use it. There is an intention that select committee proceedings will also be ultimately televised or at least the public parts of them. That is something we must all applaud and I think it is important to remember that what is driving the move as a whole is an attempt to open up Parliament and make it more accessible to the people of New Zealand. That is extremely important. 
In the context of that the motion includes a relaxation of the rules regarding television coverage. Rather than coverage being restricted to the member who has the call the new rules will allow reaction shots and some broad shots of the House to be used. That is an improvement; that is an opening-up of what can be shown. I think it is important that we acknowledge those positive elements. 
I also want to thank Dr Cullen for explaining quite clearly the import of this matter being a sessional order and what that means in terms of the procedures of the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Mr Tanczos I do not want to interrupt you but there is a slight dilemma here. You indicated that you would be seeking leave to broaden the debate for subsequent speakers but you are now going very broad indeed—strictly speaking outside of your amendment. I do not mind but I just mention that so that you do not think it has slipped past me. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Would it be appropriate to seek leave at this time? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Right. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for your guidance. I seek leave of the House for the debate to include discussion of the main question my amendment and any further amendments that members may see fit to move and for the questions on the amendments and the main question to be part of the conclusion of the debate. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for your guidance and I also thank the members of the House. 
I thank Mr Cullen for explaining clearly the import of this matter being a sessional order and the possibilities that the House will have at a later time to re-examine the matters in this report and in the sessional order. 
 As I was saying by and large this matter is being driven by a desire for a positive move which is the opening up of Parliament but it is fair to say that since the publication of the report major concerns have been raised in public not only by media and media representatives but also by other people—lest we think this matter is driven purely by media self-interest. I would characterise the concerns—at least as I have observed them—as being centred on three key issues. 
The first one is the process. I acknowledge the letter that Vernon Small wrote to the Speaker indicating that although the media have been consulted on the broad changes specific elements within them had not been made apparent to them. I think that is an issue and I note that the  
Dominion Post  
reported today that the Speaker had acknowledged that and had apologised to Mr Small for it. I am simply going by media reports; obviously I was not there myself. 
The second issue is the rule that coverage must not be used for “satire ridicule or denigration”. That presents members with problems. The first thing is how we are to define what is denigration or ridicule or even satire for that matter. I think we open ourselves up to the potential for a very restrictive regime. Although I accept Dr Cullen’s assurance that this rule would be interpreted liberally in this Parliament we always have to acknowledge that when we do these things we do them for the future and for Governments of a different nature from the sorts of Governments we currently enjoy. I certainly would not like to see members put in place rules that a more authoritative regime could use to suppress criticism of itself. 
Again as Mr Small has said members should ask themselves whether programmes like  
Eating Media Lunch 
 will not be able to use the proceedings of the House for satirical material. I think it would be inappropriate for members to try to stop them from doing that. Not only is such a rule unenforceable but also I think members would not want to stop satire. Political satire is an important part of the culture of New Zealand and of other countries. I certainly remember when I was growing up seeing David McPhail and Jon Gadsby on television. Political satire and the ability to poke fun at and prick the pomposity of politicians had a significant impact on my political development. It was an extremely important element and I think it would be unfortunate if members were seen to be trying to stop political satire. 
Like Mr Rodney Hide my personal view is that people should be able to film what they like. If as Dr Cullen said the concern is about misrepresentation of the proceedings of the House or if the concerns are those that Tariana Turia raised about racism and targeting then it may be possible to find better phrasing that actually goes to the heart of what we are trying to avoid rather than our having these fairly blanket statements. That is why I moved a motion to refer this matter back to the Standing Orders Committee. I think it would be quite useful to have another look at these issues. 
Dr Cullen referred to the photos in the  
Dominion Post  
as being a case in point; that if that is the objective of the exercise well members do not want to allow that. But I think that comment misses the point. It seems patently obvious to me that what the  
Dominion Post  
was doing was playing up and giving members a bit of a shot across the bow because it does not normally engage in that kind of thing. It was quite a pointed protest. Although I think the choice of photos may have been unfortunate as Tariana Turia has pointed out it would be wrong of us to take that as an indication of what the media’s concern is about this issue. The only time in the past that I remember the media showing a photo of members of Parliament yawning it was a photo of Annabel Young. The media were slapped over the wrist for it but the context was—[ 
Interruption 
] No it was Annabel Young. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Yes I know but David Benson-Pope was sleeping. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I offer my apologies to Mr Donnelly. The thing about the Annabel Young photo was that it taken when the House was sitting under extraordinary urgency to debate a tax law. Members were sitting until 4 or 5 in the morning or something; we were certainly sitting into the early hours of the next morning. The photo was really portraying the kinds of hours that we were sitting and I do not think that was an unreasonable thing for the media to do. I do not think the photo was intended to be derogatory at all; if anything perhaps it was intended to be sympathetic. 
The other issue is the inconsistency around the use of stills photos. When we think about it we realise it is difficult to see why there should be inconsistent rules for stills photography compared with the rules for television feeds. Again the concern could be that photos can be taken out of context much more easily than film footage because a photo of someone blinking can be portrayed as a photo of someone asleep. I have certainly been subjected to more than my fair share of photographic misrepresentation in my time—not by the press gallery I must say but by media outside the House. But I think it must be possible for us to say that what we are concerned about is unfair misrepresentation if that is what we are trying to get at. I cannot see that a very clear case can be argued to support a blanket rule that makes the rules for stills photography different from those for television feeds. 
So huge concerns have been expressed since the publication of the proposed rules and I think it is worth re-examining these matters. 
Lastly I would say that yes I was on the Standing Orders Committee as Dr Cullen said. The committee does work by consensus but I think the committee got it wrong in this instance. We all get it wrong sometimes. The Government has backtracked on policy the National Party has backtracked on policy and we have all made mistakes in our time. Getting it wrong is nothing to be ashamed of. What members should be ashamed of is if we refuse to rectify it. That is really the issue. Issues were raised in the select committee around these matters in any case. The weight of opinion was against it; that is fair enough. But the public concern is a good reason for us to go back and review these rules. As Gerry Brownlee said of the  
Dominion Post 
 if the media have concerns they can talk to MPs and Parliament will look into the matter. Well let us do that. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to say at the outset that I am not persuaded that the Standing Orders Committee got it wrong in its consideration of these matters. It spent some considerable time doing so. It drew on comparable international experience and it sought to develop a regime that would be more liberal than the one we have presently particularly given the changes in television coverage. The rules around satire and denigration I will return to separately but they I think have taken away much of the positive substance of these changes and I think it would be foolish for this Parliament to now overreact by going back the other way. 
We were confident in the select committee that we had the rules crafted properly and that we had provided for better coverage and more flexibility and I think we should let them have a run. These are sessional orders and as others speakers have said they can be changed at some stage over the next year or so. But I think it would be foolish to change them before we have even started them so for that reason I do not support the amendment that has just been moved. 
As this debate has unfolded over the last few days it has struck me that the media and the Parliament have one point in common. We both crave credibility. Parliamentarians are acutely conscious that their standing in the public is somewhat lower than the lowest. I point out that the media often does not rate a great deal more highly. So although we see as parliamentarians a need to protect and respect this institution through the way in which it is presented which might lead some people to view us as being overly cautious and concerned with our reputation and image—no bad thing I say—the media for its part also wants to be viewed in an equally responsible and credible light. 
That common ground then becomes the point at which we start to separate. We as parliamentarians say—and I go right back to 1936 when the Labour Government of the day first instituted the broadcasting of this Parliament—that broadcasting telecasting or some other form of transmission of what goes on here is the best way of ensuring that the public of New Zealand gets a true and an accurate picture of what is happening. The media say that their critical role is to inform to analyse and I guess to enable the readers and the viewers to make critical decisions based on the judgments they are putting before them. That is all very well in theory but the practice of the last few days as this debate has unfolded has been somewhat different from that. 
I have spoken to a number of journalists none of whom have expressed concern about their ability as a result of these changes to seriously report what goes on in this House. That is not an issue. The issue for them seems to be the restriction on their ability to satirise and to denigrate and that to me says something about the core of the problem. This is not about whether Parliament can be properly presented to the people of New Zealand and whether the voters who collectively decide our individual and ultimate fates can be better informed about what goes on here. That seems to have become a secondary issue to the view that the media has a right not just to inform but to satirise and to denigrate. 
I think what has got out of balance here is the issue of what the fundamental responsibility is. I have no objection to satire and denigration. It is part of our stock-in-trade most of the time. But I think that to say that that becomes the primary purpose which is the way that the debate seems to have unfolded in the last few days somewhat to be colloquial puts the cart before the horse. I think it is important that Parliament puts a stake in the ground and says that we are about being open and we are about being as transparent as possible—hence these new rules for the telecasting of Parliament. We are not contrary to much of the commentary changing the rules at all with regard to still photography. They remain as they have been. But at the same time we are about enhancing the credibility of this place. 
I think that to get hijacked as we are in danger of doing by the side issue of how satire is portrayed and what the rights of the media are to satirise is to miss the point. Satire will continue to occur. One simply does not need to take this feed. A tape can be taken off any broadcast anyway and used for those purposes. I see that the Minister of Health is here and I hope he does not mind if I draw attention to his abilities in this regard. Some of the examples that have been portrayed this week of outlandish behaviour by members of Parliament that would not be permitted under these new rules actually relate to the Minister and one of his colleagues dancing not in Parliament but somewhere else altogether. So presumably those broadcasts could continue and we could continue to see his skills— 
Darren Hughes 
: No we won’t. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The whip says that we will not and I think that is probably correct. 
The point I am making is simply this. I think this debate has lost a lot of its perspective. This is about the rules for the telecasting of Parliament. Parliament is the highest court in the land. It is entirely proper that there are some boundaries around how its presentation occurs. The media will always continue to satirise and to lampoon—that is a legitimate and strong historical tradition. But it is not a principle of democracy to start from the presumption that the first thing to be preserved is the right to satirise and to lampoon. That is a consequence; it is not a substantive principal argument. 
I want to see these rules be given a run. They may not be perfect. We can always review and change them. We do that constantly as it is anyway. I want to see New Zealanders have the chance to observe their Parliament in action in a full and an accurate way. When people talk about Parliament they are amazed when I tell them that what they see on television at night is probably 10 percent of the worst 10 percent—the excerpts from question time the unruly behaviour and so on—and that 80 to 90 percent of what goes on here would occur whichever party was in Government without contention and debate as members constructively get on about their work. People are stunned when they hear that because that is not the impression they have been given by the way that this place is portrayed. I think we do ourselves and our country a disservice if we continue to be lulled into a sense of saying: “Well let’s actually accept that the portrayal of this place is as it should be.” Then we have debates about why we do not have civics courses in schools to educate young people about the political process and how Parliament works. Part of the reason why that call is as strong as it is is that people feel disillusioned by what they see—which gets back to the way that this place is presented and reported. 
So this is really a chance for us to put in place some rules that are sustainable fair and reasonable and balanced. I think it would be wise for us to let ourselves have a run at them then in the wake of experience to decide where changes are to be made. On that score although I respect the amendment that Mr Tanczos has moved I think that it is a little premature. I think it would be prudent for the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee to be adopted and for these new rules to be put in place and reviewed as to how they work out at a more leisurely pace. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support the amendment of my colleague. I think that we MPs are taking ourselves too seriously over this issue. I think we are being too precious. Ridicule cannot be banned; that is absolutely ridiculous. I think we ridicule ourselves by trying to ban it. Satire cannot be banned; that is ridiculous. I think we will attract the very ridicule we are fearing by seeking to ban it—to prohibit it. I think we need only to read the letters in the  
Dominion Post  
today to see the sort of ridicule that this unfortunate decision has already attracted on to this House. 
As my colleague said the members of the Standing Orders Committee probably were not thinking too deeply about these issues. They did not hear from the media as they ought to have done and frankly in my view they got it wrong. You know this happens. It happened with the microchipping. We had to admit that Parliament had got it wrong and we could seek to rectify it. So I think we need to acknowledge that the committee has got it wrong and that we need to give it a bit more thought. We need to re-examine the issue and we need in particular to realise that we should stop taking ourselves so seriously and being so precious. 
We should just think for a moment about how ridiculous it is that we in this House are trying to ban ridicule. It is a bit like prohibition. You know people try to prohibit the use of marijuana and so that encourages its use. This is the same sort of thing: by trying to prohibit the ridicule and satire of this House I am absolutely certain that we will encourage it. We will have media people all over the place up and down the land—not just those from  
Eating Media Lunch  
but others—inevitably having the temptation to ridicule us to satirise us and indeed to denigrate us. 
Frankly much of the behaviour in this House is behaviour that should be ridiculed and probably is ridiculous. It may be that by allowing more open coverage I hope we will encourage better behaviour in this House. We need to remember that it was not very long ago that Onslow College students came and did a survey of behaviour in this House and they said that they would have been expelled from their school for the bullying and appalling behaviour that takes place in this House—they would have been expelled. Some think that the behaviour in this House is very clever and funny but a lot of the time it degenerates into bullying and abuse. That sort of behaviour frankly deserves to be exposed deserves to be ridiculed and deserves to be satirised. 
I think the one other issue concerns the question of why we are having one rule for still photography and another for TV and film. I have asked what the underlying principle is—what is the reason what is the thinking behind this? But I have not had a satisfactory explanation. There is not one as far as I can see. It seems to me that that is another instance where the people on that committee have got it wrong. What is the point of passing what effectively is a rule that has no justification—that does not stand up to scrutiny? I think that that is another rule that needs to be rethought. 
 In summary I seek to support my colleague’s amendment. I implore members to support it to acknowledge that we have made a mistake and to acknowledge that it is ridiculous to seek to ban ridicule. In so doing we will hold ourselves up to ridicule satire and abuse as has already happened. In making this ban we will encourage exactly what we fear. Let us stop being so precious and taking ourselves so seriously. Let us drop this ridiculous prohibition and support my colleague’s amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Motion agreed to. 
Criminal Justice Reform Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 26 June. 
Part 2 Amendments to Acts relating to Criminal Justice 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: When the bill was previously before the Committee Dr Richard Worth had the call. He has 1 minute remaining if he wishes to speak. If not honourable members it is time for me to leave the chair. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5. 56 p.m.