Volume 638 Week 41 - Wednesday 4 April 2007 
Volume 638 Week 41 - Wednesday 4 April 2007 
[Volume:638;Page:8605] 
Wednesday 4 April 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Parliamentary Press Gallery—Parliamentary Complex 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am raising a point of order on a matter that Peter Dunne and I raised with you last week and that is the police barring of an accredited press gallery journalist Nick Wang from a parliamentary function last week. I understand that you met Police Commissioner Broad this morning and I wonder whether he had a useful response that could be communicated to the House particularly in the light of the fact that Mr Broad is in the mood this week to give apologies for police wrongdoing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I was going to report to the House tomorrow when I had had time to prepare a statement but I shall do it now. Yes I met with the commissioner today. The commissioner and I have agreed that we will discuss and prepare a protocol on security matters as they relate to the complex. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In approaching that matter I trust you will not treat a misunderstanding over the treatment of one journalist as equivalent in nature to the abuse of women in sexual matters by police officers in the past. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree with that. I must also emphasise that I had a very good meeting with the commissioner who does respect the privileges and the position of Parliament. I have no doubt at all that we will reach agreement on a protocol. I will of course be discussing this matter also with the press gallery and hopefully my office has already contacted it for a meeting. 
Questions to Ministers 
District Health Boards Auckland—Confidence in Chairs 
1. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: When will he express confidence or not in the chairs of the Auckland district health boards Wayne Brown Pat Snedden and Kay McKelvie? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 All chairs and board members retain their full roles and responsibilities for now. The member’s constant refrain on confidence is of limited value at present for two reasons. One is that the judgment may be appealed. Another reason is that there is legal debate as to whether the judgment is new law. That said the judgment of serious procedural error has been made and is the current legal position. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When was the Minister first told that Dr Bierre had stood down as an active member of the Auckland District Health Board in late December 2005 so that Dr Bierre could bid for the half-billion-dollar Auckland lab contract and what action did he take at that time? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have no recollection of being told that Dr Bierre had been stood down but I may have been. Dr Bierre of course did not resign from the Auckland District Health Board I think until about August 2006 and that of course was made available to me at the time of resignation. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What advice does the Minister have on the extent to which Wayne Brown as chair of the Auckland District Health Board may have been misled by the advocacy in favour of Dr Bierre by Dr Paul Hutchison who signed a letter as National’s spokesperson on health—curious indeed—and by the support of board member Dr Jackie Blue who was also Dr Bierre’s running mate? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I heard the first section of that question. I could not hear the rest of it. It is a very important issue and I would ask that members at least in this quarter of the House be allowed to hear. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would ask the Minister to repeat his question. If he could do so in a summary form I would appreciate that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What advice does the Minister have on the extent to which Wayne Brown as chief executive of the Auckland District Health Board may have been misled by the advocacy in favour of Dr Bierre by Paul Hutchison who signed a letter on his behalf as the National spokesperson on health? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am pleased to report to the member that Mr Brown at that point was misled to no extent whatever. He did receive a letter from National’s spokesperson Dr Hutchison who certainly did write to suggest that Dr Bierre should be given some money for his laboratory. Mr Brown would have been aware that another member of his board Dr Jacqui Blue was on the same side because her membership of the National Party was public knowledge. Despite that Mr Brown’s response was not to cave in to the pressure but to do the opposite: to challenge Dr Bierre directly on his conflict of interest. Three Tories versus Mr Brown—no contest. On the other hand Mr Brown did make a mistake—that is he believed Dr Bierre’s response that he had mothballed his practice. Clearly he had not. 
Barbara Stewart 
: If the Minister cannot express his full confidence in the three chairs of the Auckland district health boards does that mean they will be replaced at the next opportunity with others whom the Minister can have full confidence in? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I say to the member again that the brightline of confidence and no confidence is of limited value to me for two reasons. The first is that there may be an appeal to the judgment. We will know that in another 2 or 3 weeks. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s irrelevant to people who want tests. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well it is not irrelevant if district health board personnel are to be joined to the appeal. The second reason is that there is legal debate as to whether the judgment is new law. 
Ann Hartley 
: Was the Minister’s decision yesterday to order a focused performance audit on conflict of interest issues based on any known problems that currently exist in this regard at the three district health boards? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not aware of any major issues in the way that district health boards manage their registers but I need to be sure. There are some unexplained anomalies but I do not understand their importance. For example one copy of the Auckland District Health Board interests register in my possession contains a signed declaration from the chair a signed declaration from the deputy chair and even a signed declaration from Dr Bierre. But there is no signature curiously in respect of Dr Jackie Blue. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that throughout this period he had a Ministry of Health watchdog attending district health board meetings in Auckland namely board adviser Graham Aitken; and did Mr Aitken ever advise the Ministry of Health or the Minister that Dr Bierre had stood down as an active board member because he was bidding for the half-billion-dollar Auckland District Health Board lab contract? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I recollect no such advice from Mr Aitken. Mr Aitken was involved very substantially in the service reconfiguration at the Auckland District Health Board and of course he played no part in the evaluation of the contract. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Which is correct—because one of two things is happening here—did Wayne Brown fail under the no-surprises policy to tell the Minister that one of his board members was standing down so he could bid for the Auckland District Health Board’s half-billion-dollar laboratory contract or is the Minister misleading the House because he was told this 6 months before he admitted it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will stand by my statement that when I read the court judgment I was surprised indeed. I did not know that Dr Bierre had been stood down. I did not know when he had been stood down and I did not know why he had been stood down. I do not recall being advised. I do recall being advised in July 2006—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member asked his question in silence. Would the Minister please be given an opportunity to address the question. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I stand by my remarks made many times in this House that I first became aware of the issue on receipt of a question from Dr Paul Hutchison I believe in July 2006. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: So how big does a district health board contract have to be before a district health board chairman is obliged to tell the Minister that one of his own board members is standing down from active duty so that he or she can bid for a contract being offered by that district health board—is it a billion dollars? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are quite a few things Mr Wayne Brown has not told me. He has not told me—and I did not find out myself until very recently—that Dr Jackie Blue in December 2004 failed to sign her conflict of interest declaration. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister be surprised to learn that one of the senior Auckland District Health Board executives involved throughout the tendering process was Dr Dennis Jury who was also project sponsor for Dr Bierre’s 2004 MBA thesis on contracting out laboratory services; and was the Auckland District Health Board advised of this close association by one of its senior executives? 
Hon Member 
: That’s awful. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Oh that is bad is it? Well let me tell the member something else. When Dr Bierre approached Dr Dennis Jury in March 2005 asking: “Can I have some public money for my laboratory?” this same apparently close friend of Dr Bierre said: “No.” He said: “No. Go away and run your own laboratory without bothering the taxpayer.”—and that is a very clear part of the judgment. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will he table all the advice he has received from the Ministry of Health and Wayne Brown on this matter; if not what has he got to hide? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There is not much left to hide in this at all. This issue has had the light shone on it about as hard as it can be. The judge made his remarks early in the judgment that he had been presented with 12000 pages of things to look at—12000 pages means that there is not much left to hide that I am aware of. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he understand the concern of Aucklanders who have no choice but to rely on the three district health boards and the chairs thereof for their lives and health when the Minister who is responsible for the funding of these district health boards cannot express confidence in the leadership in Auckland district health boards; and if the Minister cannot express confidence in the leadership of Auckland district health boards what possible chance have Aucklanders to have any confidence? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If I can make it clear in words of one syllable for the member I would assert that this story has not yet finished being told. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. While I understand of course that the Government has the right to transfer questions of this nature this particular transfer from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Finance gives me a particular difficulty in pursuing the question. I was particularly interested in the Prime Minister’s views on whether rail electrification in Auckland would serve her stated objectives. I am rather less interested with all due respect to the Minister of Finance in his view of whether it will serve the Prime Minister’s objectives given that I have not heard him articulate those objectives and given his statement about Auckland— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think I understand the point of order and as the member said herself it is for the Government to decide who addresses the question. Would you please ask the question. 
Auckland—Electric Rail System 
2.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he believe that a fast clean reliable electric rail system in Auckland would be a step towards achieving the Prime Minister’s two goals of carbon neutrality and making Auckland a world-class city? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 There would clearly be some positive impacts which is why the issue is under my active consideration. However it is important not to exaggerate the potential impacts of what is not and probably never will be a full urban rail system like those in many major cities elsewhere. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that it is not a matter of if Auckland rail is electrified but rather when; if so why is he delaying the decision when Auckland needs to be able to order electric units as soon as possible which take some years to deliver to avoid having to buy even more dirty old second-hand diesels to fill the lengthening gap? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Some diesels will have to be bought in any case. Electrification probably could not be completed until the year 2013. Of course I am not just going to roll over and say “Charge us whatever you like.” The member has been quoting figures based on electrification costs of $170 million in the Auckland Regional Council document. The latest estimate is $500 million. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he recall telling the House in May 2006: “So far the proponents of electrification in Auckland … have not demonstrated that it actually bears any sensible cost-benefit ratio in terms of the outcomes. If it does then the Government will be prepared to support it.”; if so now that he has seen the Auckland Regional Transport Authority business plan showing that with sensible assumptions the project achieves a benefit cost better than two when will he provide Auckland with a timetable to electrify rail? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I have said the issue is under active consideration. A number of issues need to be considered: the appropriate governance structure; the completion of a number of other infrastructure projects; and of course the issue around exactly who will pay for this project. For those who do not have to find the money this may be a minor matter but for me this is a major matter. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that the Minister of Transport has said that the electrification of the region’s rail network was “firmly on the Government’s agenda” will he tell the House categorically whether it is on the Government’s agenda to impose an additional regional fuel tax; if so what level of taxation is being considered and when will it be implemented? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is clear that if Auckland and indeed other centres such as Wellington that wish to have further local transport projects under way are going to be able to contribute some means of making that contribution has to be found. The tolls have disappeared the closer one gets to them. They have turned out to be a kind of funding mirage in the desert of funding for local transport projects. The Auckland Regional Council has specifically backed a regional petrol tax to assist in the cost of providing local projects. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can he confirm that Auckland has already put in funding that roughly matches the $600 million the Government has put into the rail plan and that the additional funding required to do all the signalling upgrade and the electrification is something like $32 million a year for 10 years and does he not see that as a worthwhile national investment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think this is why the member keeps quoting a cost-benefit ratio that is too high. The cost of the track and associated works—in other words the lines work and associated work on tracks bridges station approaches etc. which is required by electrification because one cannot just string wire straight over the existing track—is now estimated to be $500 million. That is exclusive of course of any other costs in relation to the rolling stock as well. This is quite an expensive project. In the longer term it probably realises its full value only if the loop tunnel is also built which at the moment has what one might loosely describe as a “tail on the donkey” cost of $1 billion. 
Keith Locke 
: How will the Minister respond beyond what he has said so far in Parliament today to the sense of urgency demonstrated at a packed public meeting in Auckland last Monday where local body leaders and community leaders all expressed that they saw an urgent need for a timetable for electrification and appropriate financing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said this is under active consideration by myself at the present time; we will be responding. I have to note as a politician that the term “packed public meeting” can have two meanings of course. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister accept that a decent transport system is crucial for Auckland to be a world-class city and that a good step on the way towards that would be the completion of State Highway 20—which runs through the Prime Minister’s electorate; and why cannot we see that as it would ease congestion right around the isthmus? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is a current project in Auckland that is due to be completed. The Government has committed to completion of the Auckland roading network. I do not see the improvement of public transport on which we will be spending in the current 5-year period 12 times what was spent in the late 1990s as an alternative to roading—on which we are spending almost four times as much as we were spending in the late 1990s. We need both as I have said many times—I am sorry to sound like a cracked record; one cannot transport goods and services and many other things on an electric rail system; one actually has to transport those things by road. 
Economy—Fiscal Policy 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank that “the Government is a net contributor to resource pressures at the minute through the fiscal story.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes in relation to the relative change in the fiscal impulse measure. No in relation to the overall operating balance position because it is clear we will be running a cash surplus in the current year. That is hardly a loose fiscal policy. Indeed I have been under attack for the last 4 years from the member opposite and his colleagues for running far too tight a fiscal policy in that respect. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister in his last Budget planning a significant boost to Government spending when 2-year interest rates have reached almost 9 percent this week the dollar is at 72c against the US dollar today the current account deficit is at near-record levels and a significant boost in spending could make all of these worse? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The boost this Government will be engaging in this year’s Budget—which will certainly not be my last—is significantly less than what that member was planning by means of very large tax cuts. He would have had $2.5 billion of personal tax cuts in place at last year’s Budget more this year and another $1.5 billion next year. I note he has described the business tax changes as something that should not be proceeded with. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister seen any alternative assessments of the impact on monetary policy of the business tax review? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At this the mid-point of my career as Minister of Finance I have seen a report by Mr English that characterises it as part of a “wasteful spending binge”. On the other hand the Governor of the Reserve Bank said that although the short-term effects might be mildly expansionary the long-term effects will be to lift economic growth. 
Hon Bill English 
: Do the Minister’s answers mean that after years of describing tax cuts as irresponsible and inflationary he has now decided that when he is being forced to make a billion-dollar tax cut tax cuts are no longer inflationary nor irresponsible? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have never described a business tax cut as a “wasteful spending binge” as that member has done. It is those kinds of comments that once again will put him back into trouble with the business sector as he was when he was last finance spokesperson for the National Party. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister advise the House as to whether he has received any reports as to whether there are Governments anywhere in the world of whatever political ilk that have created fiscal pressure because of their expenditure; and has he received any reports as to whether the National Party has now decided to stop its myopic obsession with support for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act as suggested by the questioner? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports from Mr English that attack the Governor of the Reserve Bank for his failure in Mr English’s view to manage monetary policy. Actually the member said that the Governor of the Reserve Bank had not used the monetary policy tools available to him by which it seems he meant that the Governor should have lifted interest rates earlier faster and higher than he did. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree or disagree with the bank’s assessment that his spending plans are putting pressure on monetary policy and that therefore interest rates for New Zealand householders will be higher for longer as he tries to bid for their votes with taxpayers’ money? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That question comes from the finance spokesman of a party that has called for example for Herceptin to be funded for 12 months not 9 weeks and for the 20 hours’ free childhood education policy to be funded at a level whereby no early childhood centre would receive any less money for an hour’s provision than it does at the present time. There have been calls from that party for increased spending on Treaty of Waitangi issues. Mr English himself has called for large increases in operating grants to schools. Then he says that National will cut spending. Well he should let us know which teachers nurses fire officers Department of Corrections staff police and social workers will be cut by the National Party if it ever gets back on this side of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is the Minister keen to misrepresent our policy but seemingly consistently unable to explain his own policies when asked in Parliament about for instance whether he agrees with the Reserve Bank that the effect of his spending binge in the next two Budgets will be to keep interest rates up higher for longer for New Zealand families? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not misrepresenting the Opposition at all. I actually take its spokespeople at their word and do not assume that they are being hypocritical when they call for increased spending in their various portfolio areas. What I can assure the member is that over this 3-year term of Parliament this Government will be running a much tighter fiscal policy than the member was planning at the last election—except of course that he did not plan it. Mr Key planned it and Mr English did not agree with that policy. 
Schools—Information and Communications Technology 
4.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to assist schools with the costs of software for information and communications technology? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I announced today that the Government will be spending $33 million over the next 4 years on contracts with Microsoft Apple IBM and Novell to ensure the continued delivery to New Zealand schools of crucial software for administration and learning. This is part of the overall investment of $377 million that we have spent on information and communications technology since 2001. That investment supports our school administrators our teachers our principals and our students so as to transform the learning environment into the modern one that we all want to see. 
Moana Mackey 
: What else is the Government doing to ensure that New Zealand teachers and students can make use of information and communications technology to aid learning? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The $33 million announced today builds on the substantial investment over the past 4 years that I mentioned. That has helped clusters of schools to develop new ways of teaching with information and communications technology. It has supplied laptops to teachers and principals provided videoconferencing facilities provided fellowships to fund teachers’ research into e-learning and provided information and practical assistance to schools about the Internet and cellphone safety issues. I suggest that Mr Key visit Tahatai Coast School which is just one leading example of what our schools are doing in this area. By visiting the school he could perhaps prepare for his next aspirational attack on our education system. 
Crime—Victim Statistics 
5.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Why has the proportion of New Zealanders who have been the victims of crime increased to 39 percent in 2005 compared to 29.5 percent in 2000 and 31 percent in 1995? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 If the member had bothered to read past the second paragraph of the executive summary of the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006 he would know that the best-practice changes made in the survey’s methodology make comparisons of the kind that he is attempting to make between this survey and the two earlier surveys factually incorrect and certainly misleading. When adjustments are made for the methodological changes which the researchers themselves have done—for instance around the incidence of violent crime—the report actually shows as opposed to the assertion the member makes no evidence of an increase in the level of violent crime since the last survey. That point was well made on Television New Zealand this morning by the principal researcher Pat Mayhew OBE. 
Simon Power 
: How can the Minister dispute the fact that four out of 10 people are victims of crime under Labour compared with three out of 10 before that when the police crime statistics issued on Monday also show that although violent crime was stable from 1996 to 1999 since then it has increased by 22 percent to almost a thousand violent crime offences a week? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I will try it again for the member’s benefit. I think importantly— 
Simon Power 
: No—just change your methodology. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Well the member is asking the House to take his methodology as opposed to that of the principal researcher Pat Mayhew OBE the director of the crime and justice research centre at Victoria University a woman who is an internationally accepted expert in the field. She said on television this morning that those figures cannot be directly compared. The methodology of this research has been improved to the level of international best practice and as she predicted that has increased the quantum of reported crime. I would have thought that the member would welcome more factually accurate information. It is on the basis of that that we are able to fight crime and develop appropriate programmes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the very page of the report from which Mr Power has drawn his figures state explicitly in the footnote that the increase he alleges “was due to methodological changes rather than an increase in the actual victimisation rate”; and would it not have been more honest for the member who asked that question to explicitly acknowledge that? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Given that the author of that report is an internationally respected and revered researcher—Pat Mayhew OBE—frankly yes I would agree with that. I am sure that commentators and certainly members of the House would prefer to rely on her methodology rather than on Mr Power’s. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How can the Minister give assurances to New Zealand families of their security and safety in their own communities when sexual crime has risen by 9.7 percent and damage to property by 7.8 percent and when other signs of antisocial behaviours like violent crime and drug and alcohol abuse have also risen markedly since 2005? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: To take the example of violent and sexual crime that the member refers to I tell the House that researchers have specifically run the methodologies in order to make fair comparison with previous research and have concluded that in fact the numbers are relatively stable. 
Simon Power 
: No they’re not! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think the knowledge of that fact is critically important and I am seriously concerned that a member who purports to have any interest in such a matter would intentionally mislead this House—which that member appears to have done by not bothering to read the very page he quoted from. 
Simon Power 
: Why was the latest crime and safety survey which contained this bad news for the Government released yesterday—hardly a slow news day—when last February the Minister announced that it would be released in December? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Later in the year I said that the report would be released in the first quarter of this year. If the member is suggesting that a report that was subject to a media conference and immediately put on a website was somehow secretly leaked out then I shudder to think what his idea of a genuine leak would be. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What has the Government done to improve services for the victims of crime? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: A number of significant and long-term crime prevention and reduction initiatives have been put in place since the 2005 survey. Those include in particular significant support for Victim Support and community support initiatives and a focus on the long-term support of community-based agencies. I can tell the member that the Government will certainly be making full use of the findings of this research and using them as the basis of further work on effective policy development. 
Simon Power 
: Why did he announce an inter-agency task force on sexual violence last month when the Safer Communities Action Plan to Reduce Community Violence and Sexual Violence of March 2004 recommended that a sexual violence inter-agency steering group be established by the end of the year 2004? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Because it was a positive initiative and I am surprised that the member does not seem to support it. 
Simon Power 
: Why has he as Minister of Justice previously failed to secure funding for the sexual violence task force as revealed by a 2005 briefing from his officials—or was the Hon Lianne Dalziel right when she said last year that the Government might have taken its “eye off the ball” when it came to putting the action into the action plan with all of that occurring while sexual offences as we found out on Monday have increased by 16 percent since 1999? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member continues to play with serious issues. The statistics the member is talking about reflect an increase in the reporting of sexual offences. I would have thought that that member would support the increase in the throwing of light on to that dire crime. I simply ask the member whether he supports the initiative. 
Economic Transformation—Regions 
6.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What is being done to ensure that regional New Zealand benefits from economic transformation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Government announced today the establishment of two new regional funds to support the growth of more internationally competitive firms. First there is the Enterprising Partnerships Fund. This will focus on substantial regional projects that are commercially driven and generate substantial economic benefits for the region in line with national economic transformation goals. Funding under this programme will be approximately $9 million in 2007-08 $10.5 million in each of the following 2 years and $11.5 million after that. Secondly there is a new Regional Strategy Fund. That will give 14 regions access to a maximum of three-quarters of a million dollars each over 3 years to develop and implement regional economic development strategies. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is he aware of any alternative reports on regional economic development in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes at least two. One supported Government initiatives that provide assistance to regional development. The other considered that the Government was overspending. The first was from John Key. The second was from Bill English. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Television Commercial 
7.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What were the total production and broadcasting costs of the 20 free hours television commercial which has been screening to promote the Government’s 20 free hours policy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As I have outlined in answers to written parliamentary questions to Mrs Bennett questions 2285 and 2831 the production and broadcasting costs are $267771. 
Katherine Rich 
: When academic research confirms that mums are the key influencers in decisions about children’s participation in early childhood education why have 20 free hours commercials been shown during hard-core wrestling shows like  
RAW SmackDown! 
 and 
 Extreme Championship Wrestling 
 which are shows that are largely watched by young men? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As my World Wrestling Federation fan friend over here the Minister of Finance points out shows like that have a very broad audience. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Could the Minister explain whether a centre that has decided to opt in to the 20 free hours scheme on the basis that all its current parents have agreed to pay say $60 per week for optional extras can refuse to enrol a child whose parents want to enrol him or her at a later date but refuse to pay the $60? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The rules are clear that centres need to talk with the parents and show them what is being paid for by the 20 free hours and then by the optional charges. The question that is raised here is pretty much a hypothetical one. As the member knows centres have always had the right to say whom they will enrol. A lot of them have waiting lists for example and make choices about whom to enrol. The essence of the policy however is that they must make clear those charges so that a parent has a free and informed choice. 
Katherine Rich 
: When academic research shows that mothers play the key part in researching early childhood education provision does the Minister think shows like  
SmackDown 
! 
  
RAW 
  
Extreme Championship Wrestling 
 the All Whites versus Costa Rica the Salford versus Wigan replay beach volleyball and David Lynch’s 
Blue Velvet 
 are good vehicles to deliver an early childhood message? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I imagine David Lynch is someone whose films all intelligent women around the country would like to watch. He is one of the leading film makers in the world. I repeat to the member that I know she may live a sheltered life but people do watch programmes right across the schedule. She might like to have a go. 
Paula Bennett 
: Would it not have been beneficial when spending over $200000 of taxpayers’ money on a scheme that cannot be delivered to at least mention basic facts such as that it is available only to 3 and 4-year-olds? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It may be worth mentioning to the House in order to remind folks that this is a $324 million policy. Promotion costs of the kind we are talking about here are relatively small given those costs. I say to members on the other side of the House that their leader has been at pains to say he wants to see every 3 and 4-year-old child get into this policy. This kind of advertising will help his dream come true. 
Paula Bennett 
: How does the Minister respond to reports that the TV adverts for the 20 hours free myth give the distinct impression that there will be no problem with the scheme when the reality is that it cannot and will not be delivered as this Government promised leading up to the last election? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I just hope people are enjoying the ads and getting the opportunity to see the wide variety of programmes that they are inserted into. I have learnt today that at least one member of the House would like to extend her viewing. Maybe this will entice her to do so. 
Katherine Rich 
: I seek leave to table the media schedule for the 20 free hours campaign which contains the wackiest collection of shows that could ever be put together. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave to table the editorial comment that states that the TV advertising is “a complete sham”— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Pharmac—Herceptin International Clinical Trial 
8.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why with respect to Herceptin is the New Zealand taxpayer being asked to fund an international multi-centre trial when it is possible that not one New Zealand woman may take part and on what basis did Pharmac administration get its recruitment rates of 600 patients? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In answer to the member’s first question—because if it were not an international multi-centre trial it would not have enough horsepower to get a good result. In answer to the second question—that is the basis of early estimates only. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If it is argued by Pharmac that this trial is to establish whether a 9-week trial is cost-effective and the best regimen then how come the results of such a trial will not be known for another 5 years; and where is the efficacy or the ethics in this programme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will be aware that the 9-week treatment has already been trialled and has already offered a statistically significant result. But the confidence intervals in such a result will be large because the trial was somewhat underpowered. In order to get a finer grade of the effectiveness of the 9-week treatment a larger trial is being proposed. It is not yet clear whether it will proceed. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: If the 9-week multi-centre Herceptin trial fails to attract support from other countries and does not proceed can the Minister confirm just what will be on offer to New Zealand women; if it is just the 9-week regime does he agree with New Zealand biostatistician Associate Professor Chris Frampton in last week’s  
New Zealand Doctor 
 magazine that the 9-week Herceptin regime is unproven and that Pharmac has been misrepresenting scientific evidence and claims about it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I saw Dr Frampton’s remarks in the  
New Zealand Doctor 
 and saw also a range of activities that Dr Frampton has had in the area. I simply say to the member that Pharmac has yet to make a decision on whether to proceed with offering women 9 weeks’ treatment—though I understand it is due to make such a decision later this month; I am not sure what that decision will be. In respect of the trial if the trial does not proceed it will not be through lack of effort from Pharmac and other interests in New Zealand to get it running. It might be due— 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Other countries won’t have a bar of it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member says other countries will not have a bar of it. She fails to acknowledge that in Finland for example where both 9-week and 12-month treatment is available oncologists usually go for 9 weeks as a matter of choice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I say to the Minister with respect to his last answer— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: You’ve got to ask the question word. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I beg your pardon? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please just ask the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I am trying to. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member was prefacing the question. Under the Standing Orders we tend to just want to ask the question without previous comment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: “If I can ask the Minister” is hardly a preface. Let me start again. I ask the Minister if that is true why is it that in every other country this trial has been conducted Herceptin was funded for 12 months’ treatment giving women entering the trial the choice of a standard treatment of 12 months or the trial whereas New Zealand will be a country where women who enter the trial will not have an option of 12 months so to get the proven treatment they will therefore be coerced into the 9-week trial; what sort of ethics is Pharmac now persisting with and when will the Minister step in given this thoroughly unethical choice that is being offered to women? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Minister raises two good points. To the best of my knowledge there is no decision that should there be a trial New Zealand women would be offered only 9 weeks’ treatment. I am not aware of any such decision. On the other hand the member raises the question as to why 12 months’ treatment was the treatment of choice across many trials. I think that is a very good question. I do not myself see any logic for 12 months’ treatment other than it being the time taken for the earth to move around the sun once. On the other hand there is some logic for a 9-week treatment because it is given with other forms of treatment namely taxanes and they are used for 9 weeks. It is thought that there may be synergy between the two. 
Sue Moroney 
: How is the breast-screening programme progressing and in particular how many lives are being saved each year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The breast-screening programme is progressing very well and I am very grateful to those who are providing this good and growing service. The number of women covered has increased by 43 percent in the 2 years to June 2006 and I am advised that this service is now saving up to an additional 32 lives each year. 
Heather Roy 
: Why will the Minister not listen to his fellow Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters on this issue and would he give Mr Peters’ views more consideration if he was sitting at the Cabinet table and fully involved in the decision? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The views that I am expressing are the views of 23 First World countries; they are not my views. The second point is that the question is obviated by ACT’s failure to perform at the last election. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order. It was a response to a comment that the Minister will now address. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I pay careful attention to certain colleagues in this House and one of them is the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: I seek leave to table a document in which Associate Professor Chris Frampton describes the 9-week course that Pharmac is proposing as “unproven”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Radio New Zealand—Ministerial Process 
9.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What is the process by which he raises issues of concern with Radio New Zealand and what issues has he raised recently? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 As Minister of Broadcasting and shareholding Minister for Radio New Zealand my role is to ensure the board understands and accounts for the interests of the shareholder in terms that are financial and in terms of policy. The general process for engagement with Radio New Zealand is through the quarterly meetings with the chair and with the chief executive. I am currently in discussion for example with Radio New Zealand about the business planning process for the 2008 financial year. This interaction is mainly through correspondence between myself and the chair. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did he or any of his staff demand that Sean Plunket— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please just ask his question. There was no interjection and no interruption so please ask the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. If there was no interruption I would not have stopped asking the question and looked at the back of the Chamber to see who was making all the noise. Rules are rules. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker you have given clear rulings in recent weeks that the issue is whether the member asking the question or the Minister answering it can be heard. The member certainly would not claim to have a light voice. He could be heard extremely clearly. Mr Peters as the leader of a party was consulting a colleague. It is quite normal in this Parliament for a leader or a whip to be quietly consulting a colleague. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We learn something every day! I am deeply appreciative of the interest Dr Cullen takes in my education. Did the Minister or any of his staff demand that Sean Plunket apologise and withdraw his on-air comments about the Minister on 23 March and was a threat also made that this matter would be raised with the board of Radio New Zealand if no withdrawal and apology were forthcoming? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is referring to the reference made by a host of the  
Morning Report 
 show Mr Sean Plunket when he labelled me a racist. I immediately rang the programme to say that I would like that comment withdrawn which is the right of anybody to do. I did it in my capacity as Minister of Education which is what the reference was made to. I also said that yes if I did not get this retraction I wanted to take it up formally. I remind people in the House that all of us—Murray McCully for example yells down the phone regularly at journalists—as individuals have the right to take exception. We also have the right to make a formal complaint. We also have the right to go to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. I decided after I had phoned the programme and it was obvious that they were not going to respond to it that I would not bother taking it any further. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Does the Minister think it is appropriate for the Minister responsible for Radio New Zealand to abuse that position by complaining about operational matters to the board that he himself appointed; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think it is entirely reasonable for the Minister of Education to take exception to being called a racist and I would do it again now. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister aware that his decision to threaten Radio New Zealand with a direct appeal to the board of directors that he appoints sits outside the provisions of section 13(1)(a) of the Radio New Zealand Act; and can he tell us why he thinks it is acceptable in any circumstances for Ministers to use their authority in this manner when there are other channels to be used? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think it is entirely acceptable for any member of this House including the Minister of Education when he or she is labelled a racist by a morning radio show host to ring that programme and ask for the remark to be withdrawn and if it is not withdrawn to have open to him or her the option of then formally complaining and going to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. I bet that if any members on the other side of the House who feel deeply about any concerns they have are labelled anything like that as someone in my position has been—I am the Minister of Education; I take these issues seriously—they would phone the programme just as I did. I would do it again tomorrow. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister agree that a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority would be acceptable but that his decision to threaten Radio New Zealand with a direct complaint to the board that he appoints was inappropriate? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I repeat for the member that I rang the studio in the capacity of a Minister of Education who had been told that comments that he had made as the Minister of Education were racist. I have every right just as that member does to do that and to indicate that I would undertake a formal complaint within the 20-day period. I did not go on to say the rest of the things on the chain that could be done like going to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. But that is exactly what that member sitting across from me can do—he can do it just as I can do it—and I would do it again tomorrow. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that Radio New Zealand frequently runs advertisements advising people that if they have a complaint about any matter it should first be taken to Radio New Zealand before proceeding any further? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Not only does Radio New Zealand say that; for members of the House who may feel aggrieved at being labelled in the ways that I was on that morning I say that the first step in the complaints procedure is to complain to the broadcaster concerned. Frankly that is best done immediately because then there is some hope that there may be a retraction. Within 20 days a formal complaint should be made to that broadcaster. If after that the person is not happy with what is happening he or she has the right to go to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. I say to the member Gerry Brownlee that if he is ever in the position of being the Minister of Education and if he has a history like I do of standing against racism—literally since I was a child—he would no doubt take great offence at being labelled that and he would complain too. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister given the severity of the situation like to join me in my suit against Radio New Zealand whose defence is that it did not mean what it said? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I just reiterate to members of the House that all media of course have to be held accountable by people in this House. We all face day after day people commenting on and editorialising our actions and we have the right to comment back. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Once the Minister had made his complaint to Radio New Zealand did he threaten to take the matter directly to the board if a withdrawal was not made? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I indicated to it that that was what I would do. That is what one does by making a formal complaint: one complains right to the board of Radio New Zealand. I have explained and explained that. That is what I would do and I would say the same again tomorrow; if Mr Plunket was to editorialise in that way I would complain again. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has he compared notes about ministerial behaviour with his colleague the Minister for State Owned Enterprises the Hon Trevor Mallard who just last week was loudly and rather publicly heard accusing journalists working for State-owned Television New Zealand of political bias against the Labour Party? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: All I can say is that my understanding is that my colleague Mr Trevor Mallard has a wonderful relationship with the media both here and around the country. In fact as far as I can see he is a man known for the warmth and compassion that he conveys to people all over the country. 
Identity Fraud—Prevention 
10.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: What progress is he making to reduce the occurrence of identity fraud in New Zealand? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 A good deal. I have introduced a number of measures to reduce the ease with which fraudsters can falsify identity. Those measures include e-passports which by the use of a microchip that contains matching bio-data in the front of the passports make it near to impossible to falsify travel documentation. As well as that I have recently introduced the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill to the House which if enacted will mean that the introduction of new access provisions will reflect more realistically the privacy and security needs of the 21st century and by doing so will make it more difficult for fraudsters to commit crimes of identity. 
Darien Fenton 
: Do the measures in the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill make the job of competent historians who are writing about 20th century New Zealand difficult if not impossible? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No not at all. The bill ensures that people will still have access to records provided they have a legitimate purpose and permission to access those records and to use that information. The primary concern in introducing the bill is about the protection of personal and private information. A recent survey showed that 52 percent of New Zealanders were concerned about identity theft. As an example of the type of problem that the bill will address I inform members that 4.3 percent of all adult Americans—over 9 million people—are the victims of identity fraud each year. We know the cost of identity fraud in the UK was £1.9 billion last year and in Australia identity fraud cost $1.1 billion. In New Zealand the cost of identity fraud is estimated at around $400 million a year and to our economy this is a very fast-growing type of crime. I am sure that New Zealanders expect the Government to guard information it has on them and to do everything it can to prevent identity theft. This bill is an important safeguard in addressing those concerns. 
Carbon Credits—Foresters 
11.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement on 28 March in regard to the devolution of carbon credits to foresters that “It would be a fairly silly forester who took that as a signal to plant trees when it was a scenario in a discussion document that followed an ‘in principle’ decision which had yet to be confirmed and of course was not in the event confirmed.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Prime Minister say that the decision in principle “had yet to be confirmed and … was not … confirmed.” when the Cabinet record specifically states that the July 2000 decision to allocate carbon credits to foresters was confirmed by her Cabinet in January 2001? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have the minute from January 2001 in front of me. The minute is perfectly clear that it is quoting the “in principle” decision which it noted and it further noted that the Government is yet to finally determine its position on allocating additional assigned amount units from specified forest sink activities. It goes on to say what it could take into account if it did. The member has consistently misrepresented this. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the Government document 
 Forest Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol 
 an information document that says that in July 2000 Cabinet agreed and then confirmed that in January 2001. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? I am sorry members know they identify the document. They do not actually go on to describe all the content—please be seated I am on my feet. I have noticed several members today have also done that. I just remind them that that is the process and the procedure—identify the document. The member was kind enough to do that. I ask members whether there is objection. There is objection. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that if the carbon credits were to be in the ownership of foresters surely the carbon debits and a fair percentage of Kyoto Protocol costs would be the responsibility of foresters also which could in fact put the foresters in a position of financial hardship? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: One is assuming that if the National Party wants to devolve credits it would also want to devolve liabilities and it is not quite clear where the balance of that would pan out at this time. 
Eric Roy 
: How credible is it for her to be talking up carbon neutrality in agencies such as Treasury which have a negligible greenhouse gas emission when the Government’s own State-owned enterprise Landcorp is clearing hundreds of hectares of regenerating native bush at Hikuraki Station in Southland—Landcorp’s operation there—without consent and also clearing vast areas of forest in the central North Island? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: With regard to the central North Island it is my understanding that Landcorp is actually managing those contracts rather than being the owner of the land. I would have to take further advice on the Southland property. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports recommending devolving liability for carbon emissions to the agricultural sector? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That appears to be being advocated in a number of quarters at the moment including by Guy Salmon who advised the National Party on its current environmental policy statement. He wants Fonterra to “carry the can” in his words for the agricultural sector’s emissions. The question of course is whether this will become National Party policy. I notice in the 30-page report they put out last year they curiously failed to mention carbon credits at all despite the fact that Guy Salmon advised them on the document. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Prime Minister maintain that deforestation has absolutely nothing to do with the Government’s policies when records show that since 1951 in every single year New Zealand’s forest estate increased; that in 2003 the Government backtracked on its policy to provide carbon credits to foresters; and that in every year since there has been significant deforestation; or are we to believe that somehow this is just a coincidence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There are a number of errors in that question. In the first place even Mr Dickie has now conceded that there was never a promise to devolve. In the second place the “in principle” decision of July 2000 was reversed in 2002 not 2003. In the third instance the fact is that forestry planting and deforestation tend to track forestry prices. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any report that indicates that the only guarantee of carbon credit returns to investors was given by Roger Dickie of Kyoto Forestry Association in a prospectus issued in 1995 before Kyoto was ever heard of let alone ratified by this Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I strongly suspect that the Minister is right and that Mr Dickie has egg on his face because of the way in which he enticed people to invest. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Government be adopting a timetable and interim targets to achieve its goal of carbon neutrality; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have been very clear when answering a number of questions on this subject that I have set it out as an aspirational goal. 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the end of the answer by the Minister of Broadcasting to my supplementary question on question No. 9 the Minister of Broadcasting made a highly insulting and unparliamentary remark across the Chamber. I invite him either to repeat it now or to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is long past the time for that point of order to be raised. It should have been raised at the immediate time. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 The remark was somewhat surprising. It would have been inappropriate to make an accusation without checking. Staff who are watching this question time have reported that the words were audible. I think it would be rather odd if the Minister were not prepared to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 If I have caused offence I withdraw and apologise obviously. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I thought that when members withdrew and apologise there was no prefacing—that members just get up and withdraw and apologise. The Minister knows that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. 
Fisheries Ministry—Confidence 
12.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: Does he have confidence in his ministry; if so why? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Yes I have confidence in the Ministry of Fisheries. I have no information to indicate any reason why I should not. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why does he have confidence when the ministry withdrew its fisheries officer staff from patrolling the coastline on 25 December 26 December 27 December 28 December and on 1 and 2 January a holiday period when most of the fishing public are out doing just that—fishing and collecting shellfish? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If the member wants such a definitive and precise answer he should put it to me in writing and I will give it to him. But let me just say to him that I would like to know whether he was in Parliament on 25 December doing his work here. 
Phil Heatley 
: Will the Minister give an assurance that full patrols will be on the ground over Easter—another public holiday period when recreational fishers are out on the water in large numbers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As far as I am aware the Ministry of Fisheries takes its responsibility seriously in terms of both full-time fisheries officers and honorary fisheries officers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the minutes of a meeting with recreational fishers held at Onerahi during the 2005 election where the member asking the question promised to be the next Minister of Fisheries— 
Document not tabled. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is it this type of staffing decision that contributed to a massive drop of recreational fishing inspections from 45525 in the 2005 year to only 14873 inspections last year; if not what did lead to the slashing of 45000 annual inspections down to 14000 annual inspections? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have no advice that that is the situation except to say that under the educative and informative processes that the Ministry of Fisheries is engaging in with the recreational fishing sector there is clearly much more and better compliance than ever before. 
Phil Heatley 
: Is it still the case that of the popular recreational species 20 percent of the crayfish catch and half of all the paua collected are taken illegally; if so how will a lack of patrols over critical holiday periods address that problem? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It is true that there is an illegal harvest of some recreational fish and some commercial fish; we know that. That is why the ministry is engaged in a significant programme to catch those people who procure fish illegally. They are brought before the courts regularly and prosecuted and they have much of their equipment and their money confiscated. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What response does the Minister have to the submission from Te OhuKaimoana and Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd to the Ministry of Fisheries that the shared fisheries proposals have “profound implications for the integrity of the deed of settlement” and that as a consequence he is urged to immediately withdraw the proposals in order to find a way forward that has integrity? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have heard and seen reports of Te OhuKaimoana’s position on the deed of settlement. They are quite simply wrong. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a memo withdrawing fisheries officer staff for 6 days over the Christmas period—not just Christmas Day. 
Document not tabled. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the annual report of 2004-05 which states that there were 45000 fisheries inspections. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the following year’s annual report which stated that there were only 14000 inspections. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. Yes there is objection. 
General Debate 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. In the aftermath of the release of the  
Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct 
 yesterday a couple of positive developments need to be acknowledged. The first has been the immediate acceptance by the Government of all 60 recommendations of the report and its promise that those will be implemented. The second has been the unreserved apology issued by the Commissioner of Police for the disgraceful behaviour that was revealed by the report and his commitment to take all steps to ensure the culture that gave rise to that type of behaviour is not continued within the New Zealand police force. 
Two immediate measures arise from the broader surroundings of the report that are still to be dealt with. They were in the broad milieu of issues raised by the report but are critical to the restoration of credibility in the New Zealand Police and they need to be dealt with as a priority. The first of those concerns the position in Auckland of former assistant commissioner of police Mr Clint Rickards. Mr Rickards may well say in the wake of his recent acquittals that he is entitled to be reinstated to his old position. But any move to have Mr Rickards anywhere near being a serving officer within the New Zealand Police simply contaminates the whole process and undercuts the positive work that the Bazley report has initiated. 
So the pressure now has to go on Mr Rickards the police and the Government to ensure that his relationship with the New Zealand Police is terminated as swiftly as possible. While that taint of suspicion remains—albeit allowing for the acquittals—and while the need to build a new culture is held back by the shadow of the past there can be no progress. For many New Zealanders the real test of commitment to resolving the situation within the police force will rest on the fate of Mr Rickards. It is absolutely vital that there now be a concerted move to remove him as soon as possible. 
The second issue that we need to address in the wake of the report arises out of the trials. There are many many New Zealanders who scratch their heads today and ask how it can be when a rape case occurs that the complainant’s sexual history is laid bare before the court the complainant’s reputation is picked over and virtually destroyed by the defence counsel but the defendant’s prior history where it is relevant is shielded from the court. I think many New Zealanders will be saying that although the trials of Messrs Rickards Schollum and Shipton were conducted according to our rules and the juries did their best they will be asking why it is that those juries were not made aware that two of the defendants were already serving terms in prison for similar types of offence. 
The principles of trying to keep a separation may well be appropriate in some quarters but for many New Zealanders today they go to the heart of the credibility of this issue. I welcome the fact that the Law Commission has already indicated it wants to do some work in this area. I think it is vitally important that the New Zealand public be offered some assurance on this point and that we do not have the double standard whereby a complainant risks being figuratively laid bare in a court while a defendant can sit there and have previous facts which are utterly relevant to the case suppressed in the interests of allowing that person a fair trial. What price fairness for the complainant in those situations? 
The events of the last few months have brought that reality home very starkly to the people of New Zealand. Although it is good to see that the recommendations of the report have been adopted and that the appropriate apologies have been made—and I believe Commissioner Broad; I believe that there is genuine remorse within New Zealand Police—it is important that these matters of outstanding business be dealt with before there can be a proper end to this matter. We should never forget that those brave women who came forward are but the tip of the iceberg. There are many other women—if we look at the number of offences—who must have been attacked in this way. There are their families friends and supporters who have borne those women’s scars and burdens with them and they deserve some justice too. That is what has to happen now. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 It is the sign of a Government that is under pressure and that cannot hack the pace when the Minister of Education has to resort in question time to using a four-letter word to defend a failing position. It is the sign of a Government under huge pressure. Members of the New Zealand public will remember the way that Government members showed disdain for Ron Mark when he gave the visual equivalent of what Steve Maharey said in the House today. It is a sign of what is permeating through this Government when the Minister for State Owned Enterprises Trevor Mallard was heard using the same kind of language when talking to Television New Zealand— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
]  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Relax and when members are feeling relaxed relax even more. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member knows that what he is saying is untrue. I require that he withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has taken personal exception under Standing Order 116. I ask the member to withdraw. 
JOHN KEY 
: I withdraw. 
Plenty of people heard Trevor Mallard speaking to the staff of Television New Zealand. They will draw their own conclusions as to what Mr Trevor Mallard was trying to tell Television New Zealand and the way the Government is trying to influence journalists in New Zealand. Mr Mallard knows that I am correct. He knows exactly what he said to those journalists. He knows exactly that we have a rich vein in this Government that will cross anyone and anything to get to where it wants to go. Mr Maharey should have the good grace now to get up and apologise to my colleague Mr Jonathan Coleman for using the f word in question time. He should get up and apologise to the people of New Zealand because he knows what he said. 
On Monday National made a very significant policy in relation to education. We said we wanted to do a couple of things. We care about improving educational standards in New Zealand and we will do three things. One is that we will have a national benchmark. We will be able to manage and measure whether children in New Zealand have reached a benchmark for reading writing and maths. The second thing we will do is assess those children against that benchmark each year. The third thing we will do is report to the parents of New Zealand. 
I was not surprised that the Minister of Education did not think that that was a great idea because he does not like reports. On Saturday the  
New Zealand Herald  
ran a report on Cabinet and it makes pretty grim reading. There is a lot more detail in this report than the amount of detail parents get about their children in New Zealand. So what did it say about Steve Maharey whom it rated pretty lowly? The entire Cabinet barely got a five out of 10. It said: “His supreme self-confidence should have taken a battering over the 20-hour ‘free’ childcare fiasco and the implementation of NCEA.” 
What is quite interesting today is the pecuniary interest register that has just come out. Out of interest I looked at the pecuniary interest register. I looked at the entry on Mr Maharey actually. What does it say? It says lots of things actually. It says that the Minister of Education went to Botswana to overview educational standards—that is what he did. The man who is trying to tell the National Party how to run education went to Botswana— 
Hon Member 
: Did he tell them what he thought of them? 
JOHN KEY 
: I think he might have told them what he thought of them when he was there. On top of all that the trip was paid for by the country of Botswana. It actually paid for him to go. So my advice to Steve is to keep his educational advice for the good people of Botswana—or maybe he should pass it on to Sean Plunket. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned we are not really that interested. 
There are some other quite interesting comments in this  
New Zealand Herald 
 report in which some Ministers really did not get a five out of 10. Mark Burton with his normal confidence and will rated a two out of 10. That was no improvement on last year; he got the deuce last year as well. The report states: “Clark must be pointing him in the direction of the exit sign …”. What it did not say is that Helen Clark—as she said in the  
New Zealand Herald  
a few weeks earlier actually—has eight members minimum on her exit list and word from inside is that there are 14. What happened the day after she said there were eight? Mr Hawkins was in the paper saying: “I’m going nowhere.” She did not have to name and shame him like she did Dover Samuels Jill Pettis Paul Swain Russell Fairbrother or Mark Burton—there are many on the list. George Hawkins came out in the paper and said to the Prime Minister: “I’m going nowhere.” Well that is where this Government is going—nowhere in a hurry because it is in one awful rut. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 There will be people at home who are unfamiliar with the voice of John Key because he has been here for only 4 years. There are members on the other side of the Chamber who have been here almost all their lives—they have been here so long—but they have had to watch somebody who has been here for only 4 years rise above them and be made the leader of the once-great National Party. He is their great hope to lead them back into the ring at the next election. Since John Key has been elevated to his position people have asked in boxing terms whether he has the legs. Does he have a punch? Can he go the distance? Does he have a glass jaw? These are all the kinds of things one might ask about a boxer. 
Let us have a look at what has happened to John Key the inexperienced lightweight as he has tried to move up to the heavyweight division and entered the ring each time. Firstly let us take the example of foreign affairs. The Prime Minister went to the US and appeared on television. Virtually every commentator in the country and around the world said: “What a fantastic leader!”. She was overseas representing the nation and saying that we needed to build the relationship with the US and on this side of the world what did we have? We had a man described as a prat because he broke the convention of not criticising someone who is offshore representing this country by undermining our Prime Minister while she was away doing the best for the country. I think that is a knockout; I think that is a knockout. 
Let us go to the second one. Let us say that here is a man—brand new. He knows nothing but wants to do something about the “poo-ar” of the country—I am sure that those on the other side refer to them that way; that is how Don Brash used to refer to them—so he takes a few muesli bars and rips around to a local school he has never been to before. He asks them whether they would like the muesli bars but they tell him they do not need them and they do not want them. He says that well he will run an entire food programme for schools on the basis of his failure there—and a little bit later we see in the paper that the entire programme has been withdrawn. I think that is a knockout—that is a knockout as well. 
Let us consider national testing. On the day that 1600 principals were gathered together in Auckland praising this education system—1400 from overseas and Sir Ken Robinson the world-renowned educationalist praising our system—the Leader of the Opposition was bagging our primary schools saying that he wanted national standards league tables and national testing that was age-related for 5-year-olds. He was told unequivocally that no one—no one—agreed. I think that is a knockout; I think that is a knockout. 
This is the same member who changes his mind on the most fundamental national issues—no State housing: “We are not going to have income-related rents; we believe that market rents are the only way to allocate housing.” And: “We believe that people should buy their own house.” says John Key as the spiritual leader of the National Party informed by the Exclusive Brethren to lead that way. What would they say? They would say that the market has to be allowed to rule and now John Key says that National will try market rents. 
This man changes his mind too easily. It tells us that the three knockout punches so far have made him punch-drunk and that he will agree now with anything. He will agree with anything—with any policy put in front of him. If he thinks he will get elected he will agree with it. That is why Mr Key is now seen as a total lightweight who has tried to step up to the heavyweight division. He has tried to foot it but fundamentally he might float like a butterfly but he has the sting of a wet bus ticket. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I welcome the attacks by Labour members on John Key because the more they do that the higher are his ratings in the preferred Prime Minister stakes. Every time people like Steve Maharey attack John Key or every time the obsessive Michael Cullen attacks John Key it makes the public realise that it is time those Ministers went— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s a recycled speech. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and that one in particular. When you are Minister for State Owned Enterprises march into the gallery and abuse and shout at reporters from the company that you are in charge of that is overstepping the limit. When the Minister in charge— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very important that the truth in this area is told Mr Assistant Speaker. You do not own the company and I am not in charge of it. The member who has been a member of Parliament for quite a long time—and occasionally not a very good one—should know that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes the member cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. More important than that the member indicated that I was the Minister responsible for Television New Zealand. I am not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order; that is a debatable issue. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: So apparently it is OK to use four-letter words? Just because technically Steve Maharey— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition made an allegation; he withdrew that allegation. I ask that this member’s allegation be withdrawn; I did not use four-letter words to Mr Espiner. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has taken offence under Standing Orders 115 and 116. I would ask the member to desist— 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member never said that he took offence; he just said that he did not like the allegation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I most certainly do take offence when members lie in this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you—and that is out of order too Mr Mallard. So can I have an apology from Mr English and an apology from Mr Mallard. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Then the Minister— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I asked for an apology from the member. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you—and Mr Mallard? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So do I. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We hear these rumours around the corridor that front-benchers of the Labour Party are considering retiring. Well they should; they should consider it. Trevor Mallard wanted to be Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance told us today that he is staying. 
I do not know why the  
New Zealand Herald  
is so biased in favour of Steve Maharey. It rated him six out of 10. This is the man who wrecked Television New Zealand wrecked the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and wrecked early childhood education. He came back and used Botswana as a pejorative term in talking about education. I wonder whether he said that to the Botswanan Government which paid for him to go there and look at the country’s educational standards. We know what every one else knows—that he is a very slippery character. 
Dr Cullen should look at retiring too. He has done what he came to do. I agree that he has been able to put some semblance of order on this socialist rabble but he has done it they have got to him he has finished his job and it is time for him to move on so the New Zealand economy can take the next step. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Socialist rabble! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister of Maori Affairs should move over for the man who has queued up for his seat; he is right ready to take over. That Minister should retire as well. 
Corrections health education police—those areas show no accountability no responsibility. This is a Government that is washed up finished up and worst of all now just does not care. These Government Ministers actually do not care whether the Department of Corrections gets sorted out because they will not be there. They do not care whether 20 hours’ free education will wreck the early childhood sector because they will not be there. They do not care whether kids who are not getting proper professional teaching in schools can read or write because they will not be there to fix the problem. 
The  
New Zealand Herald  
overrated this Cabinet. Usually I would rate its journalists seven out of 10 but on their Cabinet ratings I would give them five. I think that all the journalists should put up their list of retirements. Should worn-out abusive Ministers retire? 
Hon Members 
: Yes! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes of course they should. Should a bad-tempered Minister of Finance retire after his last Budget? 
Hon Members 
: Yes! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes he should. Should a failed Minister of Maori Affairs retire? 
Hon Members 
: Yes! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes he should. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I thought he had! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Oh we thought he had—that is right. No it is the Minister of Justice who has already retired. 
Why is Phil Goff rated so highly when he does nothing—except sit in his caravan waiting— 
Hon Members 
: Waiting waiting. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and I think that now he is counting— 
Hon Members 
: Counting counting. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He is a man who has not had a serious domestic policy job in 10 years. The only one he did have was in justice—and what a mess he left that in! The peak of his justice career was to try to make it legal for people to have sex with 10-year-olds. I invite the  
New Zealand Herald  
to look at what Phil Goff has actually done apart from sitting in his caravan waiting waiting waiting— 
Simon Power 
: Getting his sausages ready. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and getting sausages ready. He has taken the gas bottle down to the garage to get it filled up ready for the barbecue. He knows that the reason Helen Clark keeps up a fantastically busy international programme is that she is waiting for her next star.  
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Is it not fascinating that we hear this prattle from the co-leader of that party over there in relation to our performance? We hear the leader over there wanting to microchip 5-year-olds so that National can put in standards that are a whole lot of rubbish. We can talk about our record in relation to educational performance. Is it not fascinating that the Prime Minister the leader of Labour made a decision to investigate the police and the rubbish in that organisation? Why did that party opposite not do it? The reason is that its members did not have the guts to do it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot refer to lack of courage. That is a personal reflection. He will withdraw that comment. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It was surprising that they had no fortitude in the sense of— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will withdraw the comment. “I withdraw” is all the member has to say. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’s the last member to be talking about having guts. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is dead right—and the member can dig as deep as he likes. The thing with some of us Maoris who have been to Waitangi for 35 years and who have been attached to political policies for a long long time is that we do it outside in the air and when we leave whenever that may be. 
I want to talk about leadership. Members opposite have been involved with five different leaders and we know that Gerry and Simon Power are already putting up their team. Let us talk about who has gone who has been and who those members struck in the back. Who did that? Let us recount what happened that great evening when the present leader told the co-leader he would support him. Then what did he do? He went and supported Brash. Those members sing in unison; they are like a whole lot of people practising what the Brethren say. That is where they got their rhyming from. They got it by following the Brethren. The Brethren are leading the hollow people to the promised land with no strategy no vision and no account of how they need to perform. 
Let us talk about education. My colleague Shane Jones will—a long time before those members opposite—help to manage the finance benches in this country. He will do that. There are a whole lot of Maori who can do that. This is a man who can do a whole lot of things that those members cannot do. He and I can both do this job. After he came back from Dargaville—and I notice that none of National’s Maori members were there; they have abandoned you because you treat them like you know what and that is a fact—he told me that he had been driving around up there as Maori members do talking to the people and an old kuia and kaumatua said to him: “You know what John Key told me? He said that when he got back he was going to go to the wananga to learn the Maori language.” That is what he said. And it was Bill that joker from the deep south where my ancestor— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will use the member’s full name. And please stop referring to the presiding officer. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: It was the member from Southland—where my ancestors the Rutherfords come from—who said to get rid of the wananga. Then the co-leader came along and said: “We’ll do this.” 
I will talk about what this Government has done in its time. We have lifted the minimum wage seven times. It went up another dollar on 1 April. That lot on the benches opposite in the 9 years their Government was in office did not put it up even by a dollar. [ 
Interruption 
] The member at the back who is screeching out was a great rugby player but nothing else. His father was the great businessperson. What worries us is when Mr English talks of—how dare he—“the social rabble”. That is an extension of Orewa. “Social rabble” he said. 
Well families under this Government have done well. In education over the last 15 years only six to seven Maori on average per year did PhDs. This year we will have 61 completed and 500 are in progress. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Maurice that there are a lot of things going on. That member came back to the front bench only because he helped stick another person in the back. That is what happened there. Members know the saying: “Those who wield the knife will lose the knife.” This Government has done outstanding things for Maori and for families who have put us continually into Government. Those members opposite should remember that after the election when we will come back in led by a capable leader Helen Clark. At the end of the day when I listen to those members singing in unison I am more than of the belief that they believe in the Brethren. What a lot of rubbish! 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to indicate to the Hon Parekura Horomia that we on this side of the House so enjoyed his speech that I am sure that if he wanted to speak for another 5 minutes and sought leave to do so— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order Mr Hide. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 For those members who were not quite sure what the previous speaker Parekura Horomia was talking about I tell them not to worry. I understand that that speech was delivered in Latin. 
Today we saw a Government caught out. We saw a Government caught out when Steve Maharey lost his cool and decided to use a profanity to admonish a member on the opposite side of the House. We have known since this Government took office that its members have bullied the media. We have known that they have had what they call a formidable spin machine. We have known that they go on long trawls around the gallery putting their particular view on things and bullying journalists into writing their particular slant on stories. We know that the Prime Minister has had a speed dial; if journalists wrote what she wanted their numbers would stay on it and if they wrote what she did not want they would go. Today the public of New Zealand have seen the Labour Government caught out on that particular tactic. 
Tonight on Television One and probably TV3 Mr Maharey will be there and he may as well be telling the nation to do what he told Dr Jonathan Coleman to do because that is the attitude of the current Government. Mr Mallard indicated that this was coming when he went around the gallery last week and took to the journalists in the Television One news studio. They had not done what he wanted so he went around and made all sorts of threats against them. He said he never used a four-letter word in that office. Well I do not believe him. I do not believe him because I am confident that he accused GuyonEspiner of showing undue bias—and “bias” in politics is probably the worst four-letter word one can use. 
This is a Government that goes out and makes claims about how wonderful it is for putting up the minimum wage for lifting family support and for raising superannuation. What on earth do we have a Government for if it does not make sure that people have rising incomes? The question that has to be asked is whether those incomes should rise because Helen Clark decrees they should or whether they should rise because New Zealanders who are contributing to the productive base of this country should get the rewards directly for the work they do. That is a fundamental difference between us and them. 
You know it is amazing that for 7 years now we have had very good commodity prices. We are still a country that relies heavily on the farm gate. We are still a country that is over 70 percent dependent on the farm gate for the basis of our economy. And there have been good prices available for our farmers. If we track the history of New Zealand we will see that every time the prices have been good incomes have risen quite substantially. But if we track the income rise for average New Zealanders over the last 7 years we see that it has been appalling. The only big rise in income has been for the Government—a Government that has had its hand deep in the pockets of New Zealanders and has heavily heavily taxed those who work very hard for the money they get. 
This is a Government that is going. It is a Government that is about to be booted. We can tell that it is a Government that wants to go when we look at the Order Paper. Has there ever been such a thin Order Paper put in front of Parliament? This is the Order Paper that tells the nation what the Government wants to do. Well I cannot see a single thread of future thinking on this Order Paper—unless of course the Oaths Modernisation Bill will transform the economy; unless of course the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill will transform the economy; unless an amendment to allow justices of the peace to retire will transform the economy; and unless having immigration licences for those offering immigration services which is a new bureaucracy will save the economy. Perhaps if those things are right then I am wrong. But there is not a single thing here that indicates growth in our economy at all. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The proposal by the fishing industry to establish benthic protection areas has just been released. I recognise that the Minister is attempting to do his best to provide protection for the marine environment and has struggled with competition and issues from the industry but frankly this proposal fails to deliver any real benefit to the ecology of the bottom-trawled marine area. 
There are a couple of good things in the proposal. It is good to see good controls on trawling in the benthic protection areas—two observers satellite tracking and electronically monitored nets. That is good. The 100-metre buffer zone is very good. Nets have to be at least 100 metres above the seabed and there are severe fines and enforcement if those nets go below 50 metres. That is all good too. 
But the purpose of this proposal was to provide real conservation gains for the bottom-trawled marine environment—and it has failed to do so. Seventy-seven percent of the trawling that has occurred in these protected areas has occurred in only three of them. Hardly any trawling occurs in most of the areas that are being protected. 
The Minister has agreed to cap the revenue from the industry for research until 2013 which means that research revenue will drop for marine conservation research by about $300000 to $400000 per year. So not only will the Government be putting in its own money which is not necessarily a bad thing but the industry itself will save money on research. That is absolutely crucial because we need as many research dollars as possible going into this area. 
Conservationists have been extremely critical of this industry proposal. In its original form it was subject to severe criticism including criticism from one of the Government’s own agencies the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. A report produced in about September of last year stated: “With respect of the BPAs [Benthic Protection Areas] proposed by the fishing industry our results indicate that implementation of these would produce low returns in terms of demersal fish conservation.” It went on to state: “On the basis of our results we conclude that despite their large geographic area the focus of this proposal on existing areas that have both very low fishing value and low fish diversity makes it a poor option for the long-term protection of dermersal fish diversity in New Zealand’s EEZ.” The proposal simply fails to do the job. 
That report was based on the original proposal so where does this new proposal sit? Let us have a look. First of all I should mention that the other key question here is around the management of fish stocks and what that means for fishing. Eighteen thousand tonnes of fish have been taken out of these areas—that is the proposed protected areas—since 1989. This is less than 3 percent of the total quantity of fish taken from New Zealand waters in any one year and ends up over the period of time since 1989 being about less than 0.2 percent of the fish taken out of these waters. So from a fishing point of view these protected areas do not provide high value to the industry. 
What exactly then is the industry giving up? The answer is nothing; they are not giving up anything. I have two maps here. The first shows an area indicating both the intended protection areas and the areas where the bottom trawling actually occurs. Members can see there is very little overlap. That was the original proposal. The new proposal adds about 2 percent extra area and none of that is within the predominant bottom trawling areas. Again what is the industry giving up here? What are industry members proposing? They are proposing nothing that will cost them anything because they do not trawl in these areas they are wanting to protect. This is a form of “greenwashing” by the industry; it is not a form of marine conservation. 
The critique then of the original proposal by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd remains because the areas that the institute was critiquing are the same areas that are now included in this proposal which therefore has very low value in terms of fishing and very low value in terms of biodiversity and protection. Other methods could be used that would provide a much greater level of protection of the marine environment. The net result of this proposal is that there is very limited value in closing off these areas to bottom trawling. Despite the fact that the areas sound large they do not provide the kind of value that was expected. 
This makes for great public relations for the fishing industry and the Seafood Industry Council has put out its press release saying that it has won a victory here. But it is not a victory for conservation or for the New Zealand public. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to contribute to the general debate this afternoon. I want to compliment Gerry Brownlee first of all on his contribution. He said that the fact that this week family support is going up by $10 a week is a very good thing. That was well said by Mr Brownlee. He said that putting up the minimum wage—as the Labour-Progressive Government has done this week by $1 an hour for adults—is a good thing. Mr Brownlee is right; it is a good thing and I am pleased we have done it. We have increased minimum holidays to 4 weeks a year—and I know that Mr Brownlee thinks that is a very good thing because he would like to treat workers fairly. On 1 April we also put up New Zealand superannuation to 66 percent in line with our agreement with New Zealand First. For a married couple on the average ordinary-time weekly wage that means an increase of $20 a week in superannuation. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: How much? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is $20 a week for a married couple. For a single superannuitant it is over $10 a week—over $10 a week. Gerry Brownlee said that was good. He went on to say that it was good but of course that is what Governments should do. I say to Mr Brownlee that he has a very short memory because when Mr Brownlee’s party was in Government it did not do that. It cut benefits and increased the minimum wage over the whole 9 years by $1 which is exactly the same amount we have increased it by in just 1 year. And we know what the National Government did to the superannuitants of New Zealand. We know what it did to the superannuitants; it betrayed them. That Government said it was going to remove the surcharge from superannuation. I remember Jim Bolger said: “Read my lips. There will be no surtax.” What happened? The surtax stayed. The National Government deceived every single superannuitant in the country by saying one thing promising something before the election then doing something else. 
National does not seem like it has learnt many lessons. I heard an interjection from Jackie Blue during the previous contribution. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: She is the woman who was previously involved with the Auckland health scene I recall and with laboratory testing. She made a contribution during Parekura Horomia’s speech. Mr Horomia was explaining to the House how John Key had promised Bill English that in the most recent leadership coup before the last one he would back him. He said John Key promised he would back Bill English. Then what did he do? He deceived his current deputy by backing Don Brash. 
Jackie Blue said: “So what?”. I tell Miss Blue that on this side of the House we think members should say one thing before the election then deliver it afterwards. One should certainly not deceive the public of New Zealand or deceive one’s colleagues which is exactly what Bill English and John Key did. It is no wonder that Bill English always says with that little grin on his face that he will be backing John Key to the hilt. I am not surprised at all that he said that. 
Over the weekend one other thing happened that I would just like to make comment on. As well as the increase to superannuation the $10 a week increase to family support the increase in minimum holidays to 4 weeks a year and of course the increase to the minimum wage I was very privileged to represent our country at the signing in New York at the United Nations of the first-ever United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It was a very proud moment for me representing our country. I am sure that it may be an issue on which we can have bipartisan support and pride in our country for the way we have led the development of the convention—led with the make-up of our delegation during the negotiations in the ad hoc committee and led by having a New Zealander as the chair of the ad hoc committee. 
Every other country that went to sign—82 countries signed the convention on signing day which is the largest-ever number to have signed a human rights convention on its opening day—got the proper appropriate applause. But when New Zealand was called to the signing stand we got a huge cheer from those gathered in recognition of the leadership role we have played. 
I know that John Key has found it very difficult to back the Prime Minister when she is representing New Zealand on very important negotiations. That is petty politics and demonstrates his lack of understanding on occasions when the whole country should back our elected leader in order to ensure the best for New Zealand. But I hope National members may have learnt from his big gaffe and back our stand on the convention on disability issues. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I am grateful that I was placed three spots after the Hon Parekura Horomia because it has taken me that long to work out exactly what he was saying in his contribution to the general debate. I say to Ruth Berry that she should go back to the  
New Zealand Herald 
; I hope she did not draft that speech that the Hon Parekura Horomia presented to this Parliament this afternoon. 
There are some people on the Labour side of the House who are smiling though. It is worth acknowledging one or two of those. Paul Swain is grinning from ear to ear. He knows he has made the right decision and will not be coming back to be trapped in Opposition after the next election. He is thoroughly enjoying his coast to freedom. I am sure he is looking forward to getting out while the going is good. 
We know David Cunliffe is smiling. He has bought a new suit and he has done that clearly on the basis that he will be standing at the barbecue and turning the sausages and chops for Phil Goff over the next week or two and looking for a bit of recognition—finally. Clayton Cosgrove—the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—could not resist at a time when the Government desperately needed good news sneaking out the real estate announcement 8 weeks before anything was ready to go in order to get his photo in the paper and in order to make it look as if he is a go-ahead guy who is going to be part of the new broom coming through. He is home at the moment making container loads of coleslaw for Phil Goff’s next barbecue because we all know what side of the fence he sits on when it comes to the big vote. 
Maryan Street has a new hairstyle. She is getting ready for the big move up—and many of the front-benchers currently sitting on the Labour side know their time is up. We can see Trevor Mallard sitting there wondering how he will get out of this without going back into Opposition because Audrey Young wrote on the weekend in the  
New Zealand Herald  
about the landslide victory of the National Party in 2008. 
She made what are actually pretty insightful comments about many of the Ministers of the Crown. My personal favourites are these. She gives my friend and Opposition member Damien O’Connor a score of two out of 10. Her paragraph about him simply starts with “Dear oh dear.” “Dear oh dear.” is how Damien O’Connor’s paragraph starts. The leader has dealt with Mark Burton’s plight by saying he has really nowhere to go. Rick Barker’s paragraph starts with: “Not a difficult job to get right but has still made errors.” Poor old Rick Barker! The three Ministers in the justice sector averaged three out of 10 between them. I never thought I would say this but Mark Burton and Damien O’Connor must be thanking Rick Barker for dragging the average up because it was looking pretty sad until then. 
I have to say that I cannot to this day work out how it is that David Benson-Pope’s score went up from three to four. His paragraph starts with “Wrong man for the job … At least [Steve Maharey] was passionate about it.” We do not hear a lot from the Minister for Social Development and Employment these days; he has just disappeared off the face of the earth. 
We know that this Government is in big trouble on several fronts: corrections health education—and courts in relation to backlogs. I think Colin Espiner summed it up best in the Christchurch  
Press  
this week when he said the Government could no longer enjoy the credibility of being able to say it was somebody else’s fault. The crime stats the debacles in corrections the problems with the Auckland District Health Board the problems with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement and the falling over of the 20 hours free’ policy all land firmly on the laps of the Labour Party and its lacklustre front bench. No more can Labour Ministers blame others who went before them; they have to take responsibility for what is turning into an absolute shambles. 
Dave Hereora is starting—just starting—to look promising. And we know something is up when Paul Swain is loitering in the Beehive car park at 10 to 6 on a Thursday night waiting for the bells to ring so he can get out of here. He has had enough. He is smiling because that former Minister knows three things. Firstly—and creditably—he is putting his family first. Secondly he got out of the corrections portfolio in the nick of time—and he knows it. He smiles every time question time comes around. Thirdly he knows he has made the decision that all his colleagues wish they had made. He knows he is not going to be trapped in Opposition come November 2008. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a contribution. I would like to begin by thanking that member Simon Power for his contribution to the annals of fantasy. I promise him I will try to deliver this speech with at least some passion. 
I would like to begin by talking about some facts; facts that are pretty widely disseminated in the community right now. They are facts about the changes and advantages that New Zealanders have seen over the last few days. Everyone knows about the substantial increase in the Working for Families package. Everyone knows by now—and many people are absolutely delighted—about the increase in annual leave. People are only too aware of the increase in the minimum wage. Nearly a million superannuitants I understand are only too delighted at the very substantial increase they have had in their national superannuation. That is an entitlement we have reinstated re-indexed and guaranteed thanks to the so-called Cullen fund which is part-funded into the future. 
I do not want to talk today about just those changes made on 1 April. I also want to spend a little bit of time reminding the community and the Opposition members of the reality of change since they were last in power in 1999. We often hear a bit of disputation about some of these figures in terms of who is receiving unemployment support or whatever sort of benefit support. I would like to put the current facts into the public domain yet again. In December 1999 at the end of the last reign—probably the last reign ever—of the National Party there were 401400-odd people receiving benefits of some kind. That figure of over 401000 is for all benefits. The figure in February this year after 7 years of Labour on the Treasury benches is around 268000. That is a complete turn-round; it is a reduction of over 33 percent in the total benefit roll. 
The high point of that has of course been the reduction in those receiving the unemployment benefit. In December 1999 when National was last in Government there were 161128 people on the unemployment benefit. There is more good news coming. At the end of February this year that figure was down to 32380. That is a most extraordinary reduction of over 80 percent—80 percent—in the number of unemployed in this country. What better can we provide as a Government than the sort of support that has assisted so many tens of thousands of New Zealanders into work. Numbers on the domestic purposes benefit are trending down and the numbers on sickness and invalids benefits while they are increasing at a very small level are under control and plateauing. I hope to have some good news for Parliament in the next few weeks about that. 
What does this mean for New Zealanders? Let us not just talk about the core raw numbers. What do this actually mean for the 360000 families—three out of every four families in this country—who are accessing this sort of support? Members will have heard me talk in the Chamber the other day about Josephine and William from Kaitaia and about Aveael. Those members who read the  
Sunday News 
 will have seen a delightful photo of Aveael Webb and her daughter. I know everyone in this Chamber—and certainly every member on the benches opposite—reads the  
Sunday News 
. 
But I have not talked to members about Raewyn and Bruce Haycock yet. Raewyn and Bruce have three children aged 9 6 and 3. Raewyn works as an early childhood teacher and Bruce is a youth pastor in the Papatoetoe Baptist church. Altogether that family is receiving $156 as a result of the various components of the Working for Families package. It is just a tad more than the $10—let us be generous and say it was $15—that the National Party promised in its flat tax cut. 
I have not talked about Natasha Fuller from the Waikato. Natasha has two children aged 8 and 6. She started her own business called Versatile Home Services in November 2006. She is cleaning homes as a business and she started that business with an enterprise allowance. She is currently receiving an accommodation supplement of $91 and a family tax credit of $69.50 and with her two children she is now getting another $20 a week from the Working for Families package. She now gets thanks to the Working for Families components $180.50 a week. That is just a tad more than the $10 or $15 she would have received as part of the National Party’s across the board tax cut. Then of course there is BayleaHanscombe in Taranaki or Thomas and Lorraine on the East Coast and so it goes on. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 That member stands in the House and gloats about three out of every four families getting something out of Working for Families. He says that three out of four families now have to have a relationship with Work and Income in order to be able to survive and he thinks that that is a good thing. On the Opposition side of the House we think that more families should be independent. We do not want families to have an ongoing relationship with Work and Income. We do not think it is a good thing to inflict a case manager upon the nation’s people. He is talking about dependants. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She doesn’t want families to have tax credits. Oh dear that’s shocking. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: “Stadium Boy” over there makes his comments but I would like to turn to a serious issue—the utterance of the Minister of Education Steve Maharey in this House. 
It is clear that the Minister Steve Maharey is under immense pressure when he resorts to using four-letter profanities in this House. That is deeply concerning and I know that some family members have phoned Television New Zealand (TVNZ) to complain already. One guy was sitting there today watching question time with his children. He was utterly disturbed to hear those kinds of things uttered on television. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s not on TVNZ. What a foolish member. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I should have said Sky but who cares these days? Steve Maharey has absolutely whittled down TVNZ to almost a mere shadow of its former self. Most people are watching question time off their Sky remote in any case. 
When the Minister of Education uses that kind of language what kind of standard does it represent from that side of the House? We do not tolerate that kind of language in our schools. Some students have been stood down or given detentions for using that kind of language and in some cases they have been kicked out of their schools. Here we have the Minister of Education using that kind of language in this House. It is the kind of language that makes some parents worry about their kids watching Parliament. What does it say about Parliament when some people worry about the kind of language they will hear? It is deeply concerning when someone who is usually so suave and articulate—and smarmy as John Tamihere would say—is caught out like that. 
The Minister is under huge pressure and we saw that today. But let us look at his track record as he has slithered from portfolio to portfolio. He still has the broadcasting portfolio. TVNZ used to be a company worth about a billion dollars. Who knows what it is worth now as it goes through its selection of redundancies? He used to be the Minister for Tertiary Education and under his watch the wananga went out of control. We saw a huge proliferation of courses like twilight golf homeopathy for pets and there was the “Singalong with Steve” radio show. That was also extremely popular. We saw a tidal wave of community courses that were of no value or little value to Kiwis. That took place under his watch. 
He is currently overseeing the fraudulent 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy. Before the last election the Ministers involved said that all 3 and 4-year-old children would get this service. Then the language kind of slithered again and they said that up to 92000 or they hoped up to 92000 or around 92000 kids would receive this service. However the figure will be in the tens of thousands and certainly not up to 92000 as only a small percentage of services have opted in. A tiny percentage of services in Auckland have opted in. It is just a disgrace. 
Then we have the continuing saga of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. Steve Maharey has continued to say there are no problems with that but then after pressure from this side of the House he is suddenly looking at options for change. He is looking at recording failure on a Record of Learning. The Prime Minister told the country that she thought this had been done 2 years ago. What we saw in the House was the Minister failing to answer basic questions. If the Prime Minister thought this had happened why had he not done it? If it had been agreed to by Cabinet and by the Government why had he not put it in place? He had no answer to that. 
For all the weasel words that the Minister continues to use—and some of the super - weasel words we heard in the House today—it is very clear that Steve Maharey’s portfolio is in disarray. His answers to John Key’s ideas for policy were wet. He came out and argued for national testing and league tables when quite clearly we said they were not on the agenda. The Minister is in crisis. He is under pressure. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 That was an appalling speech made by the previous speaker who has just resumed her seat. She used any old smokescreen to get over the embarrassment of the dead duck of John Key’s major education policy announcement. Did members notice that there was no question today from the National Party to expose National’s very exciting education policy announcement and that very little was said about it in the general debate? Even John Key in his speech in the general debate did not really want to talk too much about his education policy. 
However the Labour Government is delivering real progress for New Zealand families. They are things that really matter and practical things that make a big difference to real families in New Zealand. The evidence has been with us as from 1 April as many of the Labour Government’s initiatives came into place on that day. On 1 April Sunday of this week a family tax credit of $10 for every child came in for New Zealand families and also a fourth week of paid annual leave for people so that they can spend more time with their families and have more rest and recreation. These are policies of substance. These are things that make a real difference to real New Zealanders. Also on 1 April the minimum wage was increased to $11.25 an hour. That is a very large increase from $10.25 as it was previously and it is the eighth rise in 8 years under a Labour Government. 
At the last election there was a lot of heat—and not too much light I must say—around the issue of low wages in this country. But who is it who has the track record of doing something quite pragmatic and very practical about it? [ 
Interruption 
] It is the Labour Government I say to Mr Power. It is the Labour Government that increases the minimum wage and does something real and positive about low pay. There are no slogans just real substance. On top of that if that was not enough on 1 April single superannuitants received an increase of $13.42 a week and $20 a week for married couples. I thank New Zealand First for the support it put behind that particular policy. But again it has been delivered by a Labour-led Government. So this is when we go for substance over style. This is the type of thing we can deliver to real New Zealanders. 
I was out at the Frankton market in Hamilton during the weekend talking to real people about the family-friendly policies of this Labour Government and what was about to be enacted on 1 April. They were very pleased indeed to see some good practical steps and not just hear platitudes—the platitudes of muesli bars and the odd trip to Waitangi for one lucky person. These policies go right across the board to make a good practical difference every day to people’s working lives and their family life. Of course it is very obvious to those people that it is the Labour Government that is family friendly. We are not just about slogans we are not just about style; we actually deliver on our promises. 
On top of this and at the same time business confidence is also up. Even though a lot of these policies are directed towards making lives more comfortable for families and for superannuitants—for people in that field—at the same time business confidence is up. In fact just today a business confidence survey was released in the Waikato that shows that business confidence has increased and 39 percent of Waikato businesses expect the general situation to improve in the next 6 months. That is up from 34 percent in December. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: You wouldn’t hear that from the National Party. 
SUE MORONEY 
: That is right. We would not hear that from the National Party. The same Waikato survey also found that 67 percent of businesses expect that their individual situation will improve over the next 6 months. Why would they not expect that because that is what they have come to expect under a Labour Government? 
This Government is clearly good for families and good for business and it does all of those things in conjunction. That is what happens when one has real policies that are well-thought-out and canvassed among the community—not policy on the hoof like John Key’s education policy. It seems that John Key had a chat with someone and thought that he had a good idea. But did he put that idea to his caucus? What about his party? Has it had a vote on this policy? Well it seems that there is no need to because he has just revived a tired old piece of National policy anyway. He has repackaged it and resold it just like any second-hand car dealer would do. Jane Clifton actually had a better description of John Key when she talked about him being “the cheerful barrow boy”. He has proven himself to be exactly that this week with his poor performance on his major announcement in education. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill is designed to modernise the legislation governing a community voluntary institution for the first time in more than 50 years. The Government introduced the bill to reform three main areas: training discipline and retirement. I believe that the quality and consistency of the work carried out by justices of the peace or JPs will be improved through the introduction of compulsory training prior to appointment specialised training for all justices who wish to exercise a judicial function and the robust disciplinary provisions introduced by the bill. The bill’s measures also indicate the high standard of behaviour that is expected of JPs as respected members of our community. 
The disciplinary provisions in the current Justices of the Peace Act allow for a JP to be removed from office in only the most serious of cases. The bill enhances the disciplinary regime by specifying the grounds for removal or suspension of a JP and the process that must be followed to secure a removal or suspension. The lower-level disciplinary measures in the bill also ensure that JPs who are not performing to an acceptable level can receive an official written rebuke and can be required to attend suitable training or receive counselling. I believe that specifying the disciplinary regime in the legislation provides for a consistent fair and transparent basis for decision making. 
Justices of the peace have a proud tradition in our country of voluntary service in the community. This Government and I believe all members of this House commend JPs throughout New Zealand for their work and their commitment. As a way of recognising the significant amount of time and effort of long-serving justices the bill allows former JPs who have served for at least 10 years to apply to use the title “JP (retired)”. The professional body representing around two-thirds of New Zealand’s justices of the peace the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has a keen interest in the progression of this bill and has been consulted throughout the bill’s development. 
At this point I want to pay some special tributes. In respect of the history I want to thank the former justice sector Ministers and the current Minister for Courts but firstly I thank the Hon Paul Swain—who I am advised is in great demand internationally for his thoughts on this bill and other things—who kicked the ball off in terms of getting this legislation off the shelf into shape and progressing through by means of consultation with the stakeholders and the public. I also thank the Minister for Courts and the previous Associate Minister of Justice Rick Barker who began much of the work on this legislation. As Associate Minister of Justice I have had the privilege to bring the bill into the House and conclude it. That is my small contribution to that process. 
I also thank other members of the House including Simon Power and his team from the Opposition benches who raised some interesting questions as the Law and Order Committee proceedings went through. To be fair I think that the select committee headed by my colleague Martin Gallagher— 
Simon Power 
: Formidable! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: My colleague Simon Power calls Martin Gallagher formidable and I agree. As a justice of the peace himself and chair of the Law and Order Committee Martin Gallagher pushed this bill through and I believe the committee has given a product to this House that is superb. 
This bill has been supported by the royal federation which represents all associations. I specifically thank the immediate past president of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations Gavin Kerr who was the president throughout last year. He really provided some momentum and assistance to me as the then new Associate Minister of Justice to get this legislation off the ground. He is an innovator. He was recently honoured by our Queen and it was a well-deserved honour. He has made a huge contribution to his community and in taking on the role of president he has demonstrated that he is an innovator a moderniser and a person who wants to further professionalise the office of justice of the peace. He is out there promoting it every day trying to recruit younger people trying to encourage senior JP members to continue in their mentoring role and trying to get more diverse members of our community to take up the office of JP so that they can assist communities. 
I also want to acknowledge the work alongside that of Gavin of the current president of the royal federation John Falconer who took office recently and thank him for his commitment. I also acknowledge the long-serving royal federation registrar Alan Hart who provides all the administrative support. He has been superb in working with the Ministry of Justice and assisting them as we have gone through. 
Running alongside this as I said at the Committee stage is a stocktake document that we are mailing out literally today. Members of the select committee will know that the document which has been agreed to and promoted by the royal federation and contributed to by the ministry seeks to line up a lot of the so-called customs and practices that do vary—some very positively and some very negatively—from association to association. I acknowledge the Hon Paul Swain again who very recently with interactions with his own local association as a good committed member trying to assist it has provided some great input into that stocktake document. The objective of that document is quite simple: to get some best-practice functions and ideas and to standardise them right across the country to take the best ones and institutionalise them and to remove the worst ones—and there are one or two. 
It is noteworthy to reiterate what I said last night though. This bill is about professionalising JPs but in doing so the reforms in this legislation do not confer a power of veto or a vetting capability on JPs’ associations. It is right and proper that members of Parliament continue to nominate justices of the peace. It is right and proper that the Minister of the day of whatever political shade continues to have the ultimate right through the Governor-General obviously to appoint. That is how it should be and that is how it will remain. 
It just remains for me to again thank all members for their support. This is one of the few times in this Parliament where we can genuinely stand up and say we all agree that we are humbled by the contribution made by voluntary members of the community like justices of the peace. They are part of our judiciary they fulfil a huge role and also bluntly they save us a heck of a lot of money. If we did not have 10500 JPs out there signing search warrants or witnessing documents for students travel documents for people passports or whatever somebody would have to do that and it would probably be incumbent on the taxpayer to stump up and pay for that facility to be provided. 
We now move on. I went to the office of the royal federation last week and Alan Hart who was present presented me with a cake. On the cake was the number 50. I said to Alan that I knew I looked past my years but I had not reached that milestone—like you have Mr Assistant Speaker. The cake was to mark the 50 years that the royal federation has been asking for a reform bill to come into the House. So it has been a long time coming. 
Simon Power 
: I must have mislaid my invitation. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I saved a bit of cake for you. This is a great day for JPs. I am especially indebted to the ones in my electorate of Waimakariri for the huge job they do and I know all members of Parliament are also indebted. I commend the bill to the House and I look forward to its passage and enactment. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to thank the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for his kind and bipartisan-like words on the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. On behalf of the National Party I too take this opportunity simply to say a few quick words regarding the third reading of this bill. 
 Firstly like the Labour Party National would like to take this opportunity publicly to thank JPs for the voluntary work they do in our community. Often it is difficult to quantify exactly the level of depth and breadth of work done and the only time we will truly know the commitment and the effort made by JPs on a voluntary capacity I suspect is if one day they are not there. On that basis I want to take this opportunity formally to thank JPs across New Zealand for their work. 
I too add to the Minister’s thanks to the royal federation because as I said during the second reading this is in many ways its bill its legislation although there were some important debates in the Law and Order Committee. In the first instance the legislation looked simple but it actually was not because other issues have remained unanswered as this legislation is being passed—which I will return to shortly. I too would like to thank Alan Hart for the work he does on behalf of the federation and I apologise for not attending the cake ceremony recently. 
I also take this opportunity to thank Gavin Kerr the immediate past president for the work that he has done. This legislation was largely an initiative driven by him in a way that saw him exercise frankly quite some political skill because the Minister had bold ideas about how quickly this legislation would travel through the select committee—and so he should have had. But the select committee of course is not a creature of the Minister’s wishes and wanted to take some time to discuss the bill in some detail. 
I am interested to find out that Martin Gallagher is a JP. He did not declare that at the point the legislation went through the committee. So that was quite interesting. I was thinking back about it and he did not make too much of a contribution when we started talking about remuneration. So maybe we will forgive him in relation to that potential conflict of interest. 
I think that the appointment and training processes that have been initially suggested by the Ministers—two or three of them who are present in the House—and also by the select committee are appropriate. Members of Parliament at the time they make a recommendation for an appointment of a JP worry that those people may not front and do the job that they I guess in front of the member when being interviewed have committed to do. So I think that swapping the presumptive nature of the order in which the training and the warrant are bequeathed is the right way to go—training first then receipt of the warrant and not the other way around. I think that is sensible and I think that is to be encouraged. 
The disciplinary clauses are important but largely thematic actually. I suspect that they will be used in a very minor way if at all by the federation. There are some unanswered questions as I indicated earlier. The committee during its deliberation considered carefully and seriously the issues of limited tenure practising certificates and registration and licensing—or their equivalent. The idea of renewal after a certain period of time in the job—maybe 5 maybe 10 or maybe 15 years—was attractive to the committee at those stages. But in the end it was after two or three different discussions with the federation—we asked the federation back to discuss those issues I think on two occasions after the initial submission was made—that we decided to leave the issue of tenure and that of remuneration for that matter for another time. 
I do share however the Minister’s concerns although he did not express them as concerns to see more diverse JPs appointed. This is not a club and it is not up to the federation to invite people to become JPs to the exclusion of those whom others in the community may think might make good JPs. On that basis I endorse the Minister’s view that ultimately the decision to have the warrant placed on a JP should be at the recommendation of the Minister or Associate Minister of Justice of whatever political stripe that individual may be. I think that is important. That is not to take away from the fact that most members of Parliament as I understand it work closely with their JP associations to make sure that appointments are acceptable both to the association and to the member. But let us not forget that ultimately any high office bestowed by the likes of the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Government of the day must reflect the make-up of New Zealand society at any one point. That does mean having more women JPs. That does mean having more Maori JPs. That does mean having more Asian and Pasifika JPs and frankly it does mean having younger people in the job as well. I would like to take this opportunity to put those thoughts on record. After having sat through what I thought was going to be a straightforward piece of legislation it struck me that it was not—and that we had to get it right. 
I want to thank the officials who sat through the select committee’s deliberations. They were patient and we thank them for that. They steered us in the right direction and although the Minister was chomping at the bit I think he will agree that the legislation that came out of the select committee and has been through the House was worth waiting for. It is going pretty much to the timetable he envisaged and I think all members of the House are to be congratulated on that. 
Lastly I am going to finish where I started and say thank you to the JPs of New Zealand for the work they do. Its value is immeasurable. Their contribution will continue to be valued long after this legislation makes it through its third reading today. I wish them well and I look forward to a continuing association with them as I am sure do all members of the House. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove is an interesting piece of legislation for a number of reasons. Firstly I had some association with it when I was Associate Minister of Justice as did my immediate predecessor Paul Swain. Paul Swain said to me a short time ago that the wisest words he heard from Peter Tapsell were: “It doesn’t matter what portfolio you’ve got they’re all interesting.” 
The Associate Minister of Justice portfolio dealing with JPs might on the surface not seem particularly important to some. But I expand on the words of Peter Tapsell that all portfolios are interesting; I found this area of work very interesting indeed. I enjoyed my relationship with the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations while I held the responsibility for JPs. I enjoyed meeting justices of the peace from around the country and attending their conferences and I found them all to be very genuine well motivated good and decent New Zealanders who were interested in the welfare of their communities. 
I picked up from my predecessor Paul Swain the requirement for people nominated as justices of the peace to have recommendations and references from community groups. This was in the belief that if those people could not garner community support for their nomination then they would not have the support of the community. Paul Swain’s innovation has carried on until today and I believe that it ensures that we have justices of the peace who are well supported by the community—as they must be. 
Justices of the peace have been with us for hundreds of years. It is an old institution that we inherited from Britain. It has stood England in good stead and it stands New Zealand in good stead as well. JPs do an enormous amount of good work in their communities. They not only exercise judicial powers sitting in the court from time to time hearing warrants and doing other things that are very important to our criminal justice process but also do a lot of other smaller things that are very important to individual members of the community such as signing student application forms to say that the documents submitted are a correct copy and that the student has shown proper identification and authorisation. To do this the JP puts his or her stamp and signature on the document and the person receiving the application knows that that information is reliable it is gold standard it can be accepted and it is bankable. That is the quality of the JPs we have in New Zealand. 
I think this bill is good. It represents significant progress for justices of the peace and I know that the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has been lobbying for this for some time. Like Clayton Cosgrove I have enjoyed the good services of Gavin Kerr and Alan Hart who have worked with me and other members of the federation to get this legislation through. 
On occasions it is difficult to get smallish bills like this through the House because very often the legislative programme is dominated by larger sometimes more contentious pieces of legislation. It is to the credit of this Government that it has gone through all of the outstanding matters and picked up issues such as the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill and put them through the House. 
It is a credit to Clayton Cosgrove that he got the bill on the Order Paper so quickly. The previous Minister responsible had 3 years on the job and very little progress could be seen! Yes there was a lot of talk a lot of policy a lot of papers a lot of everything but members never actually saw the bill. It was only when Mr Cosgrove appeared on the job as the Associate Minister of Justice that the bill appeared instantly. This typifies the work of Clayton Cosgrove. He is good and effective but he does not say that the hard work has all been done beforehand. However he has done a marvellous job. 
I also want to sing the praises of Martin Gallagher. As the Associate Minister of Justice responsible for JPs I attended a number of JP conferences and meetings and Martin Gallagher was always there. Martin turned up and spoke to the justices of the peace. He did so because he was the chair of the Law and Order Committee— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: And a JP. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: —and a JP as well. He took his responsibilities as a member of Parliament very seriously and made sure that he was in contact with JPs because that was part of his responsibility as the chair of the Law and Order Committee. I think that Martin deserves a particular pat on the back for his unstinting efforts in this area. I am sure that my comments will be reflected by the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations. 
This bill brings in a number of innovations. It updates the legislation. We now have a new position called JP (retired). This is an important innovation as often people want to continue to be JPs and do not retire because they would lose the recognition of the years and years of unstinting work they had done. So we are recognising that work which is what this Government does consistently. 
I also echo the words of Simon Power because I have said them myself before—we need to have greater diversity in our justices of the peace community. The search is always on to make sure that we have younger people. As the Minister associated with justices of the peace it never ceased to amaze me how often people would turn up who were 85 or 86 years of age—about the mid-point of their working career—and who wanted to have a career change. They wanted to become involved as a justice of the peace and to do things they had not done in the previous 86 years of their life. I admired them for their tenacity and their forward-looking approach but obviously we also want to have people whose working-age mid-point is a bit lower than that. 
Also we need more JPs from the diverse ethnic backgrounds that make up New Zealand’s community today. I have spoken with a number of these people and they see it as a particular privilege as new migrants to this country to be recognised in the community and by the State as a justice of the peace. They are very proud people who take their responsibilities seriously. It sends a powerful message to the community that they are part of the broader fabric of New Zealand society and that is an important point that we need to keep in our mind. 
This is very good legislation. I commend the select committee for its hard work in considering all the issues. I note that it has had quite a number of changes. The bill has been significantly improved and I commend the Minister who is now responsible for it Mr Cosgrove. It has been a rather interesting little relay team. Paul Swain handed the ideas and thoughts on to me I did quite a lot of the drafting then the third hand on the baton in the relay Mr Cosgrove saw the job finished. I congratulate him on that; it was a good job well done. 
I think that members of Parliament have worked very well together to bring about such a fine bill. It is a significant improvement that will mean a lot to justices of the peace throughout New Zealand. It is a sign that Parliament recognises what a wonderful job they are doing. Thank you. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The third reading is an interesting point as far as justices of the peace go and I acknowledge the registrar who is in the gallery. The Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations has been very proactive over the last few years in updating the Justices of the Peace Act which dates back to 1957—it is 50 years old. The role of the justice has changed considerably in recent times. We have more Acts that are more specific and more accountability is required. 
Although I was not a member of the Law and Order Committee and did not hear the submissions I have been involved in my local branch of the association as the president and I have been on the Waikato executive of the justices’ association. So I have an understanding of the challenges facing justices throughout New Zealand. 
It is interesting to note Madam Assistant Speaker that you are a JP as is Martin Gallagher which was mentioned before and the Hon George Hawkins— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Not me. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member’s name is in the directory. It states that Mr Hawkins is a JP. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: When he was mayor. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: When he was mayor. I know that my colleague Anne Tolley is a JP. So a number of people within Parliament have the role of JP. 
It is an honourable tradition that dates back to the 14th century when the post was set up as wardens conservators and keepers of the peace. This bill acknowledges the changes that JPs need to be kept up to speed with. The provision relating to training before a person is finally gazetted to become a JP is important. We heard during the Committee stage that there have been some problems when people have not understood the role or have not been able to commit to the job. Training will be an integral part of solving that problem. 
The provision in relation to JPs moving to retired status is important. Those who have given honourable service may have met an age that means they do not want to be involved further but feel obligated to be. There is a role for them to be respected and honoured for their commitment over the years. I think that being able to say “JP (retired)” is a noble cause and it is a provision that we have supported. 
The role of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations in relation to disciplinary matters is an important measure in order to maintain the integrity that the community looks to justices for. Being able to have those rules in place and being able to have discipline and guidelines that are clearly set out allows for that integrity. 
During the Committee stage I commented that many seek the role of justice of the peace as a self-promotion. Although there was some nodding and agreement about that in the Committee stage I want to make it clear that I was not saying that all people who aspire to become justices of the peace fall into that category. I just want to clear up that matter because it might be construed that there is a lot of self-promotion. Although that does happen we look for people in the community as has been identified today who can act in the role and fulfil the obligations that communities look for. 
The role of justice of the peace is an admirable one that is steeped in history. Over 26000 hours of voluntary time is put in by justices of the peace and our communities are well served. We are indebted to their commitment to our communities. I wish all justices of the peace and the royal federation all the best with the passing of this bill. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I rise to support the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. Like other members I want to begin by thanking JPs for the excellent work that many of them do and for the very real and valuable contribution they make to New Zealand in that role. They perform judicial functions and some more mundane tasks which members have referred to. In the past I myself have had recourse to the services of JPs for certification of documents and various things like that. I have found the access to JPs in the community and the dispersion of individuals to be enormously valuable in terms of getting access to those services. I thank them for the work they do. Having said that I recognise the need to acknowledge that there have been some problems in the past. That is why this bill is before the House. 
Simon Power has mentioned the issue of homogeneity among JPs and the need to ensure greater diversity in terms of gender ethnicity and the like. I think that that is true. In that regard I am not sure that I entirely agree with that member and the Associate Minister of Justice Clayton Cosgrove who both said that the current appointment process is the best possible way to ensure diversity. If there is an issue of homogeneity the current process is what has led us to that position. So I think there is a debate to be had but that it is a debate for another occasion. So we take that as a given in terms of the current bill. 
The other issue which I have raised in the past is around the use by police of tame JPs to get speedy search warrants on the basis of what is not always full information. That is why I particularly welcome the provisions around the training of JPs before they can perform any judicial function. I think it is important where JPs are signing off on search warrants and the like—and these are serious infringements on the rights of New Zealand people—that there is a clear understanding that those JPs have been through judicial training that they understand the rights and responsibilities associated with those issues and that they exercise those powers carefully and judiciously. So we wholly commend the new provision new section 3B(1) to be inserted by clause 4 which states that a JP “must not exercise or perform any judicial power or function unless he or she has completed training in the exercise and performance of judicial powers and functions to the satisfaction of the Chief District Court Judge.” 
The other issue is around the disciplinary action that is now available for a variety of reasons. This again is something we fully support because in recognising that most JPs do excellent work we believe that there has to be some procedure for dealing with individuals whose performances are falling down. So in proposed new section 5(1)(b) to be inserted by clause 5 the bill provides for the ability to remove or suspend a JP from office on the basis that he or she has neglected or refused to perform his or her functions has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment while being a JP has been adjudged bankrupt or has failed or refused to comply with the requirement. So it is a useful thing that that provision has been introduced. 
There is a safeguard in the bill in the form of proposed section 5A to be inserted by clause 5 which provides that the Minister must consult the Chief District Court Judge before recommending the removal or suspension of a JP. There are some provisions around constraining that and those are welcome as well. New section 5D to be inserted by clause 5 lists a range of actions that can be taken at a lower level than suspension or removal. Justices of the Peace can be given an official written rebuke; they can be required by written notice to apologise to a person or people; they can be required by written notice to undertake training or further training; and they can be required by written notice to receive counselling or further counselling. So those are examples of lower-level sanction that can be used. 
New section 5D(2) states that the Minister must not recommend the giving of such a direction unless he or she is satisfied that the JP concerned has behaved in a way that is “inappropriate or undesirable for a Justice (otherwise than in relation to the exercise or performance of judicial powers or functions); or (b) has performed a function of Justice while suspended from office; or (c) has neglected his or her … functions as a Justice. Again there are some constraints around that in terms of the requirement that proper notice and an opportunity to reply be given and so forth. 
So some disciplinary actions have now become available with some safeguards around them. These provisions are thoroughly welcome—along with the other provisions that I have mentioned around training—in order to clarify issues around JPs and to professionalise and standardise the service that is being offered. We think that those provisions are wholly welcome and that they in no way reflect on the majority of JPs who already do an excellent job. We thank the JPs for the services they provide and the Minister for bringing this bill through the House. We will vote for the bill at this reading. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I think back to the early days of the first MMP coalition Government in 1997 after the dust had settled somewhat from the quite prolonged negotiations held with both National and Labour and I say to Minister Clayton Cosgrove who is presenting this bill to the House that I do not think that members of his party were extremely happy just before that Christmas. But that was in 1997 when the dust had settled somewhat and we were getting back into our work. One of the very first questions that came to our caucuses—and a few members here in the House may remember this—concerned how we would deal with recommendations to the position of JP under MMP because for the first time we had two different sorts of MPs. We had electorate MPs and list MPs. So it seemed—certainly to myself at that time—that the process would be made a mockery of if every list MP were to charge forth and make a whole list of recommendations. It was decided I think by all the caucuses at that time that we would put all JP recommendations through electorate MPs. That seemed to me to be a very sensible process. 
It is certainly one that I continue in my electorate. If there are brought to my attention any potential nominations or areas where there are shortfalls in terms of numbers then I put them through Phil Heatley for his processing. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Who? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Phil Heatley. If the member has not heard there is somebody who is actually the MP for Whangarei by the name of Phil Heatley. I know him because I happen to live in the same area. I put those nominations through him largely because he is in receipt of the bigger picture. I do not know whether that is still the norm but I think it is the right thing to do. 
JPs are a critical part of our judicial system and have been for a long long time. I think the critical role that JPs play is not always recognised by members of the public. It is certainly good this evening for example that that role is being acknowledged by all parties—acknowledged recognised and appreciated. I think 10500 JPs is the number that has been mentioned. It has to be recognised that the service is carried out by volunteers who willingly give up their time to make sure that this critical role within our system actually works. 
It would be interesting to see the real cost to New Zealand of having this voluntary service. Maybe some research money could be taken away from looking at the lifestyle of bogans and put towards finding the real cost of JPs and what it would mean for example if it had to be a charged service. Nevertheless the voluntary system I think should maintain itself because of the provisions and safeguards it provides. 
We are talking about the requirements of training and I think that it is obvious that our society has become much more complex and the law particularly for those who go into the judicial field has become far far broader and far far more complex. But I know that training has been available for JPs. My father became a JP in Mangakino way back in the 1980s. As someone who did not have any school qualifications—his only qualifications I think had been in becoming a machine-gunner and a shirt cutter—he was very proud of the training he undertook there and of the assignments he did. He used to tell us about the sort of training he was being given etc. and that was very important to him. So it is not as if training has not been available. But this legislation—and it has been mentioned that this is the first updating of the Act for 50 years—actually strengthens the provision for the requirement of training before people can undertake certain roles as JPs and in particular their roles as JPs in the judicial area. 
 We have seen a fairly large example of the need for accountability and credibility in all parts and all sectors of our justice system in the last week or so—it is something that has been ongoing—and I refer to the police. So it is important to the public that we can ensure that systems are in place that safeguard the credibility of the JP system. Of course I am talking now about having the potential to take disciplinary action and to take intermediary disciplinary action when somebody is possibly operating at a shortfall but certainly has not brought himself or herself into total disrepute. Once again we believe that the proposed required training for some JPs who may not be fulfilling their functions to the fullest as expected is a very positive step. It will strengthen the provisions of the JP system and ensure that it is able to professionalise and will continue to professionalise into the future. 
We think that the recognition of long-serving JPs or people who have worked as JPs for over 10 years by allowing them to use the term “JP (retired)” is a very worthy recommendation and addition to the statute. I will come to the point that Simon Power made as it is true and a very important point. The reality is that a number of people come into the JP role when they have a bit more time on their hands such as possibly when their families are out of their way. There will also come a time when they get to the stage they want to move out of the role. Maybe they do not have the energy to keep on going. Putting the “JP (retired)” term in place so that their service over the years is recognised is very meritorious. 
I refer to the point that I think was most strongly made by Simon Power and that is the need for diversity within the JP system. There is a need for example for electorate MPs in making their recommendations to ensure that the diversity of the population of New Zealand is reflected in the make-up of the body of JPs. One group referred to by Simon Power which I must admit would not readily have sprung to mind is younger people. It is worthwhile taking note of the point that Simon made and keeping it in mind in terms of making sure that the diversity of JPs parallels the diversity within our population. There are younger people within our population. In fact the judicial system impacts upon quite a number of younger people; therefore their perceptions of the world etc. should be taken into consideration. 
I finish with one other point. Rick Barker congratulated Clayton Cosgrove on getting this legislation on the Order Paper. But given the amount of legislation on the Order Paper I think the process went somewhat like this: I think that Michael Cullen said: “Look we’ve got nothing to go on the Order Paper. Has anyone got anything to put there?”. Clayton put up his hand and said he had something and Michael thanked him and said he could have it. Nevertheless the legislation is here and I think that everybody in this House is pleased to see its passage. Hopefully it will come to its fruition this evening. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e koreroneiinga take iteneirangitonunei. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker and to us involved in this present debate today 
]. 
Yesterday this Parliament was shell-shocked by the release of a report which members variously described as recording a blot on the law and order landscape the undermining of one of our key pillars of society and a red flag day that signalled the urgent need to restore and rehabilitate the nature of the justice system in Aotearoa. We learnt about disgraceful sexual conduct and we learnt about a wall of silence that protected police officers from complaints laid against them. At the end of the day the Government promised a major overhaul of the policing system. But of course the operation of an effective justice system is not just the responsibility of NgaPirihimana o Aotearoa. The attainment of due access to justice is a worthy goal that we can all play a part in achieving. 
So we come to this Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill which targets as Mr Donnelly has said the training discipline and retirement of justices of the peace. We ask the question of how the appointments and ongoing professional development of JPs serve to restore community vitality. I remind the House that justices of the peace have particular and unique skills that lead them well into taking up leadership positions at a community and national level. I was thinking about some of the outstanding leaders in for example my area who have taken up the role of JP. I talk of Karauria and HanahiraAnaru of Ohinemutu in Rotorua both appointed as JPs in the 1940s; MonitaDelamere Ringatu leader from Kawerau; Henry Taiporutu Te Mapu-o-te-Rangi Mitchell NgatiPikiao leader; PirimiTahiwi of Ngati Whakaue and Ngati Raukawa and Rachel Ngeungeu Te Irirangi Zister a Ngai Tai and NgatiPaoa woman. 
There is also an amazingly rich range of tangata whenua talent who have served as JPs across the nation including some distinguished former members of Parliament including ErueraTirikatene Ben Couch and the local politician Sir Ralph Love. MauiPomare was the first Maori president of the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices Associations in 1989. A former Maori language commissioner Sir KingiIhaka Ngati Hine leader Te RiriKawiti and Ngapuhi leader Hone Heke Rankin were JPs just to name a few. 
So there is no denying that the position of justice of the peace attracts some of our finest individuals—people who are well able to carry out the legal obligations and responsibilities appropriate to public office. These are outstanding members of our community—persons respected for their common sense good sense character and integrity. 
So the question is how this extremely able pool of people can be used to restore peace enhance justice and improve well-being across our communities. Well the Maori Party is always looking for new ideas that can be useful for the nation to adopt and we have found just a couple of concepts that we want to share in the context of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. Although this bill is specifically focused on training discipline and retirement some aspects come within the framework of professional development. We must make explicit the close connection between professionalism and cultural competency and I will draw on a couple of international examples to show how this can be done. 
We make these suggestions with some trepidation I might say as we are aware that new ideas and the application of those ideas are a bit of a danger to this Government of the superficial. Its fear of moving from a narrow ethnocentric view of the nation was demonstrated last night when the rarely used mechanism of financial veto was called on to ensure that any serious attempts to give substance to Treaty education and immigration would not occur. Where was the Maori Labour caucus while the Treaty was being voted on or at least vetoed? Unfortunately it was not here. But we remain eternally optimistic and today is a new day. We hope that the ideas we put forward may be useful in enhancing the service provided by justices of the peace. 
I say to the Minister Clayton Cosgrove that in Canada the criminal justice system has since 2000 implemented a range of aboriginal justice strategies across the country. These include an increased number of appointments of aboriginal justices of the peace the establishment of aboriginal justice of the peace courts under the Indian Act the cross-cultural education of non-aboriginal workers and the incorporation of aboriginal processes such as elder panels and sentencing circles. 
What would these native justices of the peace do? Before I talk about this I apologise to the tribal nations mentioned for any mispronunciation. I will have a go. The Nunavut Court of Justice recognises that the majority of Nunavut are Inuit and speak Inuktitut as their mother tongue in an initiative called the circuit court. The circuit court travels to 85 percent of the communities across the territory holding court in community halls school gyms and local venues. In these courts elders and justices of the peace sit with the judge in the courtroom and are given the opportunity to speak with the accused prior to the passing of sentence. In Ontario aboriginal judicial decision makers have been recruited trained appointed and supported by the Attorney-General. There are currently 21 active native justices of the peace who take part in local legal education and mock trials and in bearing the first face of the judicial system to the public. 
Across the Tasman indigenous sentencing in circle courts is a key component of justice system procedures including the Nunga and Aboriginal courts of South Australia the Koori Courts in Victoria the Murri and Rockhampton courts in Queensland and circle sentencing in New South Wales. Across these developments Aboriginal justice officers may take an active role in assisting the prosecutor offender and defence counsel to devise an appropriate sentence plan or they may not speak at all during the hearing but remain active behind the scenes. 
Indigenous courts circles and other justice practices are all examples of initiatives that have been developed by and alongside indigenous communities for the benefit of the whole community. In particular the indigenous community itself becomes influential in helping to make the new justice practices meaningful and effective in their communities. So although we here in Aotearoa are way ahead of some other countries in indigenous issues we fall behind so often for some reason or other. We seem to be scared to give Maori tangata whenua a shot at using their own systems to achieve positive outcomes. It would be awesome I think if we could follow the lead of our indigenous brothers and sisters from overseas. 
In particular a key competency across all of these practices is that of improved communication between the offender the justice of the peace and other relevant people. The skills required are about learning about the offender learning about the offence and then developing an appropriate response. The duties we expect our justices of the peace in Aotearoa to take up include witnessing documents taking declarations certifying copies issuing search warrants hearing summary offences hearing bail applications and hearing requests for remand. Duties also include presiding over preliminary hearings and conducting traffic courts. These are all duties and responsibilities where excellent communication skills sensitivity and understanding of indigenous knowledge and cultural protocols and creativity could help to make a major difference in the movement toward a more peaceful community. 
I have referred to individual Maori leaders and to international indigenous initiatives in order to assist the Minister in considering new approaches to supporting JPs in performing their key functions. I am sure that Dr Sharples along with his other JP peers in this House Mark Blumsky yourself Madam Assistant Speaker possibly Mr Hawkins— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Martin Gallagher. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
:—no not any more—and Lindsay Tisch at least would also greatly appreciate an opportunity to assist the Minister with their feedback about the current role standing and requirements of justices of the peace. 
The important thing is that we do not simply sit still and automatically assume that the fact that JPs are in a position of trust would suggest that such confidence is warranted. We know better than that following the evidence from yesterday’s damning police report. We believe that this nation is at a critical point in the crossroads—in the interface between the criminal justice sector and the community. We can either ignore the community at our peril or we can work together in restoring a new sense of public confidence in the key justice agencies. The Maori Party has suggested throughout the course of this bill that training for justices of the peace might also include understanding of cultural safety education around Te Tiriti o Waitangi and some basic information on tikanga te reo Maori and particularly the pronunciation of people’s names. 
We have concluded our comments on this third reading by also drawing on our indigenous counterparts as a way of providing us with other models that could be used to improve the JP service—to uphold accountability and cultural safety—and to move the nation forward towards achieving a new standard of justice. Kia ora tatou. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to call some of the over 10000 JPs in New Zealand good friends of mine. I say thank you to all of them for the diverse work they do from the core tasks of witnessing documents and issuing search warrants to the work done by some JPs in hearing summary offences and presiding over preliminary hearings. 
Our JP system is an institution built on a history of service to communities throughout New Zealand—and on volunteerism. Let us not forget that the first-ever JP in New Zealand was appointed in 1814 and it is good to report that last year equal numbers of men and women were appointed as JPs. Overall our current 10700 JPs are increasingly reflecting the diversity of New Zealand society in terms of gender age and ethnicity. I note that we have our first-ever Nepalese JP. I am also pleased that Clayton Cosgrove—a good Minister—has thought to recognise the significant amount of time and effort of long-serving JPs by writing into the bill a provision that allows former JPs who have served for at least 10 years to apply to use the title “JP (retired)”. They deserve to have that privilege. 
It is significant that the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations was consulted throughout the bill’s development and has had a very keen interest in its passage. This is a good bill that modernises the legislation for the first time in more than 50 years. The Labour-led Government is very pleased to introduce improvements that will greatly support the vital role that JPs have in New Zealand communities and it is good to record that the bill has had support from all sides of the House. 
I have already mentioned the new retirement provisions. The other key features of the bill are around training and discipline matters. There is a new requirement that all newly appointed JPs undertake training prior to being appointed by the Minister of Justice and taking their oath. That is designed to standardise the initial training support JPs in their role and also assist them in understanding the responsibilities and significance of the JP role. It will greatly enhance the professional approach from JPs and I believe lead many to take on further training as well. 
Part 2 of the bill introduces a new disciplinary regime that includes a range of sanctions where the conduct of JPs is considered to be inappropriate. That will assist in preserving the good name of the office of Justice of the Peace in this country and very important in maintaining public respect and confidence in that office. It is not that there are many complaints against JPs but it is important to have robust processes there if and when we need them to be used. The current Act provides for the removal of a JP only by the Governor-General and lacks any statement of express grounds for removal. The new Act will empower the Governor-General on ministerial advice to remove or suspend a JP on any one of a number of serious grounds such as neglect of duty misconduct and conviction of an offence punishable by imprisonment. Having those sorts of provisions definitely gives the public extra reason to have confidence in our good JP service. The new provision also provides for the possibility of further training or counselling where appropriate and those are good additions that have not been there in the over-50-year-old current Act. 
This is a very good bill to reform the 1957 Justices of the Peace Act in key areas and the reforms are all improvements for a valuable and much-respected group of hard and I would say selfless workers. I am pleased to be speaking in the passage of the bill. I congratulate the Law and Order Committee the Minister and the JPs association on a very good bill that deserves the wide support it has. Thank you. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is a privilege to rise in the House this afternoon and speak on behalf of the National Party in support of the third reading of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill and also to pay my respects and those of the party I represent to the JPs throughout New Zealand. To be a justice of the peace is to be a servant of one’s community. It is to hold a position of respect and of trust. It is also to hold an office that has a long tradition of service and commitment. 
I listened with interest while Mr Barker went to some lengths to congratulate himself the Minister and the chairman of the Law and Order Committee on getting this bill to its third reading stage. I certainly offer Minister Cosgrove my compliments on the fine work that he has done and that Mr Gallagher as chairman of the committee has done. I also acknowledge the work of my colleagues on this side of the House for the positive and thoughtful approach they have taken in getting this legislation to its third reading stage. 
As the member of Parliament for Tamaki I know of the good work that the justices of the peace do in that electorate. In fact in my own electorate office one of the people I employ as an electorate agent is a justice of the peace. Not a day goes past without citizens coming in to seek his assistance and I have observed the need for tact for patience and for good judgment in carrying out that responsibility. That is what 10000 New Zealanders are doing day after day in serving their community. There is a view out there that the notion of serving one’s community is maybe not as strong as it used to be but I believe this House can take great confidence in the knowledge that there are still good New Zealanders both men and women who are only too willing to take on this sort of responsibility and to take it on for the right reason: to be of service to their fellow citizens and to the community around them. 
When I was a secondary school principal the law changed and where youngsters lived and what their residential address was suddenly became very very important in determining where they could go to school and what their relationship was to other students who had been at the school or were at the school. I was very conscious that around July and August of each year I found myself unleashing on the JP population of the community 700 to 800 youngsters who desperately needed to get their documents their address and that sort of thing attested as being correct information. It really brought home to me just how hard our JPs work and often at the most inconvenient of times as well. I well remember year after year parents desperately contacting me—because applications for enrolment closed at 4 o’clock and at 3 o’clock they still did not have their enrolment papers in—asking me to please tell them who could attest to the accuracy of their information. I remember the willingness of JPs in the community to step up and do that job. 
One of the most interesting jobs electorate MPs have is to nominate potential JPs and I like all members of this House take that responsibility very very seriously. Like all members I have had people approach me or nominated to me as potential JPs who I have felt would not be suitable. I like other members do not shrink from that responsibility. We have to do it right; it is important that we do it right. I take a lot of comfort now from the provision in this bill for training for new JPs because that gives us a backstop and gives us the confidence that we are getting it right that we are making good nominations and—probably most important of all—that we are not putting people in situations they are not fully prepared for. 
The other aspect of the bill I will comment upon is the designation of “JP (retired)”. I think it is appropriate that after 10 years of good service to the community—unpaid and often unrecognised—JPs should be able to step back from that position if they choose to in the knowledge that the title of “JP (retired)” will follow them and that they will get the acknowledgment of the community they have served long after they have been active as a JP. 
I also want to say a word to those JPs who have approached me about the very demanding and time-consuming situation they find themselves in when they do court work. Some of those people have suggested to me that maybe this House should give consideration to whether that sort of work should be paid work. This bill does not address that; it is not its place to address it. Maybe at some future time the House might like to consider that. 
Having said that I would not like to lose sight of the importance of the voluntary and unpaid nature of this work and of the motivation that good New Zealanders bring not only to doing it but also to doing it well. In conclusion I am pleased to support the bill. I am honoured to be able to pay tribute to our JPs and to thank them for the great work they do for New Zealand. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I join in making a contribution to the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill that is similar to that of my Government colleagues which is to support it. I also support the good work of the Minister Clayton Cosgrove in his stewardship of the bill through the House. Certainly it is important to recognise the broad range of support across the House for the intent of modernising legislation governing JPs. 
I speak on the bill for another reason. Earlier in March about eight hui were held within my district where people had the opportunity to raise the most pressing political issues. Along with those issues two others were raised. One related to the Coroners Act and the other to the Justices of the Peace Act and the role of JPs. Those two issues some might think are connected because the reflection of many of our kaumatua at those hui was that we needed more JPs as a result of many of our JPs passing on. So I too acknowledge the valuable role and contribution that former JPs have played within our communities and importantly the need to increase their number in communities like mine. 
I will pick up on a couple of points that were raised previously around the issue of diversity. We need to ensure that we are able to nominate JPs who represent more diverse communities—whether by age gender or ethnicity. It is all part of the picture. In doing so some of the changes geared within this bill bode well for the changing face of our communities and essentially for the JPs who come through. One might expect that in the training implicit in respect of those changes there will be mechanisms to be able to deal with more diverse communities and peoples—whether in terms of responding of the language or of relating to people from diverse communities. The other point around the issue of diversity that I think is important is accessibility. As has been said JPs are contacted at all hours of the day and night and they must be accessible. If we are able to increase the diverse look of our JP community then we will be providing greater access to people at necessary points in time. I certainly support that. 
A comment was made by my colleague Brian Donnelly about the need to increase the number of young JPs. I certainly support that. I have actively tried to encourage young people to become JPs but it has been my experience with young people—under the age of 35 maybe—that although on the one hand they might be interested in looking at what the role of a JP entails on the other hand things might be so serious that they feel they are not the best people to represent their community. I am not sure what other members’ experiences are but I get a lot of hesitation around the aspect of added responsibility. 
One of the things I appreciate about the existing process is the way the nomination form sits. When I first came into Parliament—and this was probably an innovation made in 1996—one had the ability as a list member to make a nomination but ultimately it went forward to the electorate MP for final sign-off. That gives a level of comfort to list MPs because the electorate MP has the responsibility to meet with the person to try not only to identify all the support and networks he or she is part of but also to attest to his or her suitability for this role. One comment I make as a Maorimember of Parliament in terms of us all looking to increase the levels of diversity of our JP community is to ask whether we as Maori MPs are able to nominate people from ethnic communities—migrant communities. I put that on the table. 
 I certainly agree with the intentions of the three key areas of the bill which are around improving the training prior to confirmation of a JP; having disciplinary mechanisms that provide if you like a grade 1 and 2 disciplinary procedure; and also the issue of retirement. The status “JP (retired)” will be very significant for a number of people within our own communities who have given long service to the community who have held the role of JP and who are now retired but still have a standing within the community. I think that that will be great recognition for them. 
Probably the last part of my contribution is about intent. One of the things we know at this point in time is that in terms of Maori representation we are averaging only about 10 percent but we have peaks and troughs in terms of nominations. So I encourage all electorate members of Parliament to increase their nominations coming through so that we can increase the number of Maori JPs in our communities and provide greater accessibility to our people. That is really important. 
Without saying too much more—as much has been said—I certainly support the intent of the bill and support the three key areas with a high emphasis on the training aspect which I think will better gear our JPs to respond to more diverse communities. In terms of going forward the bill is well overdue—50 years overdue. I certainly support the bill. 
Bill read a third time. 
Tabling of Documents 
Letter from the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter I received today from the Royal Federation of New Zealand Justices’ Associations thanking all parliamentary parties and members for their support of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 3 April. 
Part 1 Regulation of immigration advisers ( 
continued 
)  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the consideration of Part 1 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. When the Committee rose last night we had heard some very interesting discussion in the Committee. I remember in particular the member David Bennett predicting dark clouds would swirl all around us and descend on us. Everything was misery. I really really struggled to understand that. It seemed that would occur because the Minister had had the gall to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. But maybe Mr Bennett has become good at predicting the weather because in case members have not noticed this I will say it is raining outside. 
I also thought the member Pansy Wong would be pleased that we are going through the Committee stage of the bill because on 1 February she complained about the much-needed legislation to regulate immigration advisers and said the bill was languishing in Parliament. It is really good that the bill is in the Committee stage and I think the Opposition members should celebrate that along with members on the Government side of the Chamber. 
Part 1 is a very important part of the bill. It is critical to protect the interests of those who seek advice assistance or representation. Immigration advisers deal with all kinds of immigration applications including matters relating to residence temporary entry work permits appeals exemptions and refugee status claims and appeals. In 2004 immigration advisers were used in around 9000 residence applications and in 2003-04 they were used in around 66000 temporary entry applications. Those numbers will have only increased in the past couple of years. 
The objective of the Government in this bill is to ensure the regulation of immigration advice and to enhance the ability of immigration applicants to make a well-informed choice as to an experienced or a qualified immigration adviser. We want to reduce the risk of serious harm to those who use immigration advisers by ensuring the use of competent and ethical services and to provide an accessible and a clear complaints and redress process for those who use immigration advisers and have less than satisfactory experiences. 
As we discussed in the first and second readings of this bill immigration advice is as diverse as any occupation and it goes from the very good to the very bad. Advice is presently provided by immigration consultants lawyers education recruitment advisers not-for-profit organisations and also through personal contacts. Some advice is provided by experienced professionals who uphold decent standards and give excellent advice and assistance. Unfortunately some advice is given by people who do not uphold those standards. There are no formal statistics on the number of complaints that have gone to the Department of Labour and the Minister of Immigration. As MPs we have heard many horror stories during the debate on this bill in this Chamber and during the select committee process in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. All parties committed themselves during that process to ensure that the bad practices which have such an adverse impact on intending migrants and on New Zealand’s reputation as a fair country come to an end. 
That is why it is important that in Part 1 we have clearly defined what immigration advice is: advising directing assisting or representing people in relation to immigration matters. But this bill also states that immigration advice does not include providing information that is already publicly available or that is prepared or made available by the department. Nor does it include directing a person to the Minister the department an immigration officer or someone on a list of licensed immigration advisers. Clerical work and settlement services are defined by clause 5 of the bill. Translation and interpretation services are not defined in the bill as immigration advice. 
Clause 11 deals with those who are exempt from the requirement to be licensed. In the bill as reported back from the select committee those exemptions are dealt with in the primary legislation rather than by Order in Council as proposed in the original version of the bill. The committee has recommended that MPs and their electorate staff should be exempt—and I think we all agree with that one. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: This is not a second reading speech. This is meant to be the Committee stage not the reporting back of the bill from the select committee. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well I would like to see Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s staff deal with his issues. If he did not have an exemption he would not cope with his job. Also exempt are public servants who provide immigration advice within the scope of their employment agreement. That makes sense as does the exemption of foreign diplomats and consular staff. 
There was a lot of debate—as referred to in previous speeches—about whether lawyers should continue to be exempt as was intended by the original bill. Unfortunately lawyers have been known to be among those who provide poor immigration advice—I know David Bennett would not agree that is possible—and many of us can attest to that. However we are assured that the complaints and disciplinary process under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act will be an improvement on the previous system under the Law Practitioners Act. 
A very strong case and very magnificent submissions were made by the Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and community law centres. We acknowledge the great job they do. We accept that properly trained employees and volunteers who work for those organisations already provide high standards and an essential service to the community and that therefore they should be exempt from the licensing requirements of the bill. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Do you think Taito Phillip Field should be exempt? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Why does the member not ask him? 
Another issue that was not in the original bill but that the committee considered was whether people who have recently exercised any power of decision making in relation to immigration matters should be prevented from holding a licence. There is a legitimate question as to whether those positions provide inside knowledge and contacts that could give a competitive advantage. Unfortunately we have had some bad experiences in that area. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s interjections are just too much. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The majority of the Labour members of the select committee supported a prohibition for 12 months on the licensing of anyone who has exercised the power of discretion on immigration matters such as former immigration visa or refugee status officers and former Ministers and Associate Ministers of Immigration. That is intended to act as a restraint of trade. I think it is very very reasonable because it mitigates against any advantage that such people might have in becoming licensed immigration advisers. I do not agree with the member Pansy Wong who said that provision was a slight on immigration staff. Rather it comes about as a result of bad experiences and we do not want to go there again. 
I am particularly interested in clause 33 which states the Registrar of Immigration Advisers is to develop competency standards. For the first time in New Zealand we will have competency standards for immigration advisers. Clause 33 provides for “… rules and criteria relating to—(a) relevant qualifications: (b) practical experience and knowledge: (c) continuing professional development: (d) communication in English.” That will start to professionalise the industry and give it the reputation that it needs. In addition under clause 34 the registrar will develop a code of conduct that must be observed by licensed immigration advisers. The code will address standards of professional and ethical conduct for licensed immigration advisers. 
Part 1 of the bill provides for a complaint and disciplinary procedure against licensed advisers through the establishment of the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal. We have recommended that the functions of the Immigration Advisers Authority be split between the Department of Labour and the tribunal which would be administered by the Ministry of Justice. Natural justice rights are given to an adviser to provide a written statement of explanation and following the investigation of a complaint disciplinary sanctions may be imposed. Those sanctions include the giving of a caution or censure a requirement to undertake specific training the suspension or cancellation of a licence the claiming of a penalty of up to $10000 and the payment of compensation to the complainant. The sanctions which are able to be enforced in the District Court include a refund of all or any part of the fees or expenses paid by the complainant or another person to the immigration adviser. 
I believe the provisions in Part 1 along with the other parts of the bill and the amendments made by the select committee will ensure the regulation of immigration advisers and help to put an end to the problems that intending migrants have encountered over many years. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Last night in looking at the amendment placed before the Committee by the Maori Party as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples the Minister gave some responses to some of the concerns that we put on the table. I want to put some questions back to the Minister to try to seek some clarification from him. In the first instance however I just want to go back over a few things so that it is really clear where I am coming from. 
The first thing is that our Supplementary Order Paper was about the notion of establishing a Maori Immigration Education Council. We based our rationale for that on the view that the Treaty of Waitangi according to a number of experts better than me is the nation’s funding document and the constitutional blueprint for nation-building. So we figured that it was quite a good idea to have some education around the Treaty for people who come to Aotearoa. That is a précis of where we were heading with our Supplementary Order Paper. 
Unfortunately we learnt last night that under Standing Order 319 relating to amendments proposed to be moved in the Committee of the whole House the Government is exercising its right to place a financial veto on the Supplementary Order Paper. We learnt that this sort of action is fairly rare and we also learnt that it means that our Supplementary Order Paper cannot be voted on but can be debated. We ask about the rationale for the Government doing that. The Minister gave some views about that but we obviously still feel disappointed that the Government has moved in that way to basically take away our right to have our Supplementary Order Paper debated on. 
As I said the Minister referred or responded to some of the questions about that. There are a couple of points I want to make. The first one is that the Minister referred to the kaitiaki of tikanga in the Maori caucus. I wonder with no disrespect to the Maori members of the Maori caucus whether the Minister can give us some guide as to whether it is a regular occurrence to refer issues around the Treaty or Maori issues to the kaitiaki of tikanga in the Maori caucus. The second point is to ask whether that referral is to one person or to a group. The third point is to ask whether that is accepted common practice. That is the first issue and I ask the Minister to give a response on that. 
The second issue is in respect of the amount of money. The rationale given for our Supplementary Order Paper being taken off the agenda is that there are some fiscal restraints on the Government and therefore under the Standing Orders it was appropriate that the Government took action last night to use the financial veto. We are talking about apparently $1.5 million per annum. So the first issue for us—as I try to explain the issue from our point of view—is that there was some money in the Budget that could have been removed for the purposes of supporting this initiative. The issue is that the amount of money we are talking about according to the Government is not significant enough to justify the financial veto. 
But the key concern is around where the figure comes from in the sense that $1.5 million per annum has been identified yet we have not discussed the whole notion of how the Maori Education Immigration Council might operate. Yes there are some issues around what it might look like but it seems as though the figure of $1.5 million has been plucked out of the air without any discussion of the actual concept of the council with those of us in the Maori Party who have put the Supplementary Order Paper forward. So I ask the Minister to perhaps respond to that issue. 
The third issue is that last night the Minister provided quite a number of booklets that give some information about the Treaty saying that if the immigrants who come here would just take a little care to read over those booklets then they might actually gain an understanding of the Treaty. In response to that firstly I ask the Minister whether he has read the booklets. I have not. That is the first point—would immigrants take care to read those booklets? The second point is to ask the Minister whether immigrants would understand them. Would immigrants who come here possibly without English as their first language understand the booklets and if not what would be the point of putting the booklets in front of them? The third point stems from being a Treaty educator myself. I know that just simply plonking books in front of people does not actually deal with the issues about the place of tangata whenua and indeed that of the Treaty partners. We want to give immigrants a real appreciation of what we are actually aiming at in this which is not only the education issue but the issue about involvement in decision making. That pretty much made up a large part of my discussion last night. We were looking at those issues so I want to put those points. 
The last point I want to raise was that last night the Minister talked about clauses 32 33 and 34 of the bill where issues around the competency standards are raised. I noted that he looked to the officials while I hope giving a fairly clear lead of a desire to have issues around the Treaty—encompassing I hope a wide range of issues including from perhaps a tangata whenua point of view Maori language Maori culture and so on—included. But I noted in those clauses when I had a quick squiz over them that I did not see competency standards in respect of anything about Te Ao Maori. I am hoping that when the Minister turned round to look at the officials that was a good enough look from him to say to them that that needs to be addressed. I would appreciate some sort of response to that. 
This wraps up our last chance to ask the Minister to reconsider the matter of Standing Order 319 and to allow our Supplementary Order Paper to be voted on or at least to give us a bit more of a clear lead as to how the issues that I have just raised this afternoon might be addressed. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Let me first restate to the member Te Ururoa Flavell the Government’s commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and indeed to seeing Treaty education tikanga Maori and te reo Maori as part of the broad education of people in this country including new migrants. It is important. Maori are the first people of this land and their identity is much of what defines our collective identity as New Zealanders in Aotearoa. 
The member has asked three specific questions and a general one and I will quickly respond to each of them. Firstly my reference to the kaitiaki of tikanga by the Maori caucus was an informal and collective reference to the role that our Maori caucus plays in very strongly advocating internally within the Labour Party for matters of tikanga Maori and Te Ao Maori. They are in many ways the guardian of that flame within Labour and indeed a force to be reckoned with within Parliament as well as within the party. I gave due deference to my colleagues last night and I can confirm to the member that there was proper consultation on a formal basis with the Maori caucus in respect of this bill and in respect of the member’s amendments which took place before the debate last night. 
Secondly the member has questioned the Minister of Finance’s costings. Those costings are of course approximate. They are the costings done by the Minister of Finance’s office. I think what is key here is that a non-trivial amount of resource is required to set up a new council—which was the burden of the member’s proposed amendments—and that that fiscal hurdle had not been budgeted in the forward estimates or in the current Budget round and therefore the amendments would have required spending that was without a current or planned appropriation. That is an appropriate and standard use of the financial veto and an appropriate standard process I understand was employed by the Minister of Finance in coming to that decision. 
Thirdly in respect of the information booklets may I just take this opportunity to clarify one slight oversight in my comments last night. A number of the booklets were given directly to prospective migrants but there was also a pack of four smaller booklets that were designed for the training of immigration advisers and immigration staff. The member has quite rightly pointed out that it can be hard to get across the sense of the Treaty simply from the written page. That is why we have taken an active role in training our immigration staff in the principles of the Treaty so that they might as part of the settlement programme and the settlement strategy communicate that orally and in person to new migrants. 
The member asked whether I had read the booklets. I have had a good skim of them. I cannot say I have read every word on every page but then I am not a migrant and therefore not the target audience. I am satisfied that the booklets are a good effort and that they do contain the information that we need to get across to migrants. 
Fourthly the member has asked whether my reference to our assiduous officials last night in respect of clauses 32 to 34 was in the nature of an indication from me as Minister that I expected the registrar and policy to reflect the principles of tikanga. I am happy to confirm for the member and for the Committee that it has always been the Government’s intention that the principles of the Treaty should be contained within those matters that are the proper purview of the licensing of immigration advisers and indeed the training of immigration staff internally. 
In summary I do not think there is any great difference between the positions of the Maori Party the Maori caucus of the Labour Party and the Government in the principles of this matter. I think we are all heading in the same direction but we are proposing somewhat different routes. It is our view that a whole new bureaucracy is not necessary to achieve these aims and that the most effective and efficient thing to do is to channel that training and that information through the existing channels that we are proposing in this bill. I would hate for that member the Committee and the public to think for one moment that this Government was less than fully committed to the underlying principles of the Treaty which define us as a nation and which will be an increasingly important part of our collective future. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 This is a good opportunity to be able to contribute to the debate on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. The Labour Party supports this bill. It is a Government bill. I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which heard the submissions on this bill so it is wonderful to see it come through to its Committee stage and I also look forward to the bill reaching its third and final reading. 
I have been interested to hear some of the other contributions to this debate. Many of them were made yesterday because today’s debate is the continuation of the interrupted debate on the Committee stage of the bill. It was interesting to note that both yesterday and today when Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith took a call on this bill he took his time to raise all sorts of issues but not once did he raise an issue that he has subsequently constantly interjected on which is the issue of wanting some answers from Taito Phillip Field on his involvement in immigration issues. It is very interesting that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith chose not to take his formal speaking time in the Chamber to raise that issue yet continues to make interjections about it. He did not interject when his colleague David Bennett talked about “9.30 o’clock” in his contribution to this debate last evening but that is another story. 
I want to talk about how important the introduction of this bill is. It is not a minute too soon. It is certainly not a minute too soon for those people who have been in a very vulnerable position at the hands of immigration advisers at a very vulnerable time in their lives. Those people have been looking for professional competent advice at a time when it makes a big difference to the decisions they are about to make. They have a right to good competent advice on the immigration procedures in this country and on their likelihood of being able to immigrate here successfully. This bill ensures that a much more professional approach will be taken to the advice that people receive in that regard. 
For all of those people who are subject to that advice this bill is coming before this House not a minute too soon. It is good to see that we were able to progress it at reasonable speed but not with undue haste through the select committee process because this bill has a profound effect on people’s lives at a time when they are very vulnerable and need to make sure they get absolutely the appropriate advice. 
We heard in the select committee submissions and I have certainly heard in my role as a local member of Parliament in the Waikato area many sad stories from people who have come to this country in good faith on the advice of immigration advisers in the belief that they had a very good chance of immigrating successfully and integrating into New Zealand society. They have found that they have integrated very well into society but sometimes they have subsequently found that the advice they received at the outset was not correct which causes all sorts of harm and disruption. In fact people feel quite traumatised by having made significant financial decisions to come to this country and then subsequently finding out that the advice they were given at the outset was not correct and that they did not meet the criteria for becoming resident in this country. 
This bill creates a new framework for the regulation of individuals providing immigration advice both onshore and offshore. It is important that we cover both areas because they are where people receive their advice from. The framework is critical to managing the growing immigration advice industry. One of the very interesting things we discovered in the select committee was that the industry is both formal and informal. We had a lot of interesting discussions about that issue and had to make some decisions about the types of people who were giving immigration advice. They stretch from lawyers who of course are governed by other Acts of Parliament all the way down to family members and other well-meaning people giving immigration advice to a whole range of people trying to make decisions sometimes not based on the best advice. It was one of the many very difficult issues to deal with in addressing this bill. 
The legislation will bring New Zealand into line with other countries such as Australia and Britain. That is important because I think the more consistency we have on this issue the better and the less confusion there will be for people operating in this field of immigration advice. This bill in raising the standard of immigration advice will promote and protect the interests of migrants and potential migrants who receive immigration advice. That will therefore enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migration destination. It really does harm our reputation as a migration destination if immigration advice is not appropriate. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Before the dinner break I was talking about my support for this bill and about my involvement in the select committee process and getting it through to the Committee stage that we are now debating.  
I make particular reference to the very fine work the officials did on this bill. As I said before the select committee had some very difficult issues to deal with. Although the bill seemed straightforward at the outset as do many of these bills it became more and more complicated as we went along the process. We had issues to debate and discuss around lawyers and whether they should be caught in the requirements of this bill or whether Acts of Parliament that already covered them were sufficient. We had to consider whether payment for advice was the issue we should be regulating around or whether the issue was the provision of advice per se. There were a range of issues that we looked to the officials for advice on in terms of the evidence and practice out in the community. We certainly received very good advice from the officials on those matters. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee made some recommendations to change aspects of the bill—mostly minor and technical changes. Those recommendations include establishing the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal which is to be independent of the Immigration Advisers Authority and for the tribunal to be administratively supported by the Ministry of Justice. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It is sad to see a Government filibustering because it has no work to do. 
SUE MORONEY 
: That was Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith who took a call on this part of the bill yesterday. He did not ask any questions of Taito Phillip Field with regard to this matter but he has been quite interested in interjecting about it ever since. I invite Dr Smith to approach Taito Phillip Field and ask him the questions he so obviously wants to ask during the debate on this bill. This bill is about regulating immigration advisers. If the member has questions to ask of a particular member of Parliament—an Independent member—perhaps he would like to address those questions to that Independent member of Parliament. 
This Labour-led Government understands that a sustainable well-managed and balanced immigration programme is one of the keys to New Zealand’s economic transformation. This bill is part of that understanding. I have no hesitation in recommending the bill at the Committee stage. Thank you. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill and I particularly want to pay tribute first of all to the previous Minister of Immigration Paul Swain who brought this bill forward. I also congratulate the current Minister of Immigration my good friend David Cunliffe— 
Darren Hughes 
: The Hon David Cunliffe. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
:—the Hon David Cunliffe who has done a great job in promoting this bill. I know personally how many meetings and discussions he has had with many many ethnic communities around the country. In many places I myself was with him to explain the purposes of this bill and why we had to bring it forward. 
The ethnic communities—the migrant communities—have a lot of horror stories. Over the years particularly the last 5 years that I have been in Parliament we have heard a lot of horror stories from many immigrants who had to deal with some of the fly-by-night consultants and advisers on immigration. 
I must tell members this story. I was in Tauranga last weekend and I heard some comments about the local MP from some of my friends who for whatever reason actually voted for the member opposite Bob Clarkson. They did so by mistake obviously though they did not realise it at the time. Now they tell me that the member for Tauranga is hardly ever available to listen to their plight. 
Some of those people have a lot of horror stories to tell about consultants. We have heard horror stories about consultants taking immigrants’ passports and money and then going off overseas leaving the immigrants high and dry and in a lot of difficulty. So I am delighted that the Government has brought this bill forward to make sure that our people—the immigrants and ethnic communities—are protected from some of these sharks who have been out to rip off these people. 
More important this bill is about managing our immigration. It is important to remember that this country depends in many ways on people who come from overseas whether they are skilled people or whether they are their families joining migrant communities here. These people have major issues. This bill will rectify some of the shortcomings that a lot of those people feel are in the system particularly in relation to some of the so-called advisers. 
I have another story. The other day somebody wanted to get permanent residence for his spouse. The so-called consultant after the first application was made advised this poor fella to go straight to the Minister rather than go through the proper procedures. This guy took all the couple’s money then sent the application over to the Minister for special directions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Ashraf you were once a respected agricultural scientist; look what you’re reduced to—filibustering to save a dying Government. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: The member is an agricultural scientist as well so there are no worries there. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Which way are you going to vote this time? We’re never sure. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: As I said— 
Darren Hughes 
: Put your burka back on Bob. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: He wants a burka; he should have a burka on him! I say to the member that he should be going out and looking after his constituents. He never takes the opportunity to see those ethnic communities and migrants. In his own area some of those ethnic people actually voted for him and they have never seen him again. It is very sad. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt my colleague during his presentation but during an interchange Bob Clarkson used an unparliamentary term. I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
Bob Clarkson 
: I didn’t. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It was the one where you covered your mouth after you used it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There will be silence. You did use the word. 
Bob Clarkson 
: I said: “Don’t lie.” but I didn’t say he was lying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: But you were— 
Bob Clarkson 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I feel moved to take a call on Part 1 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. I had not intended to do so but I could not believe— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: The third-former! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Lockwood Smith should not talk about third-formers; he should talk about first-year university students. He is the member of Parliament who was chased out of a toilet window at a university campus in this country because no student wanted to talk to him at all. 
I was not going to talk about Part 1 of this bill which sets up the need for immigration advisers. What prompted me to take a call in support of Part 1 tonight was hearing—what do we have to call him now—Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD say that the Government was filibustering a bill because it wanted to talk about its legislation. That old Tory arrogance was on display. Lockwood Smith does not think it is worthy enough to get up here and talk about protecting New Zealanders by making sure that new New Zealanders get access to decent immigration advisers. 
That shows me why that man is so out of touch. He has been in Parliament far too long. He represents all the worst excesses of the National Government of the 1990s and its condescending approach to people. He came down here tonight on pay day—when members of Parliament are paid—to sit in the second row of the National benches because he cannot get any higher than that and he has the disdain and the disrespect to say that the Government wanting to support its own bill is filibustering. 
This was an open window into the heart of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD. It reminded me of why we will work so hard on this side of the Chamber to make sure that Part 1 of a bill like this one will continue to be brought into Parliament. I never want to see the kinds of rip-offs and rorts that have been perpetrated on vulnerable people come back in the way they did when Lockwood Smith used to have a front-bench job and occupied this side of the Chamber. 
Dr Lockwood Smith says that I do not know what it was like. I do know because every day that I was a student at Victoria University—staying at a very good hall of residence I might add Weir House—I paid interest on my student loan while I was studying. Then when I got a job I had to pay interest on that loan as well all because of Lockwood Smith. So when he comes to Parliament tonight and arrogantly scoffs at very important Government bills he should know that in actual fact we are making positive changes for ordinary people. 
Those of us who have the privilege of representing constituency seats know all too well that often one has the difficult situation where people have paid tens of thousands of dollars to immigration advisers—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. He knows that if he wants to criticise the Chairperson there is a proper way of doing it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Could I just draw to your attention that in fact we are meant to be debating Part 1 of the bill. The member has been speaking I think for about 3 or 4 minutes and I have not heard him mention Part 1 of the bill yet. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Chairperson I want to say first of all that at the very point I was interrupted by Dr Smith I was mentioning the costs that people had to pay to immigration advisers which I would have thought was pretty much within Part 1. I have been chipped away at—which I do not mind—by National Opposition MPs and when they interject it is reasonable that I get the chance to reply to the things they are saying. Longstanding MP David Bennett is shaking his head like the parliamentary veteran he is but if members interject it is reasonable that the speaker on his or her feet gets the chance to have a chip back. But at the very point I was interrupted I was talking about Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been addressing the bill. There has been robust debate from all sides. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Which clauses? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith now wants to know which clauses I am addressing. If he really is the immigration spokesperson for the National Party he should know. I ask him which clauses are covered by Part 1. He does not know. So the man who is now interrupting my speaking contribution does not know. I know Part 1 is clauses 3 to 14. He is now checking his papers because he does not know that. Part 1 is clauses 3 to 14 and I ask the member to check. Well in actual fact it goes over the page as well— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It goes further than that. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Well it goes up to clause 64 but he did not know that—[ 
Interruption 
] 
All these provisions cover the very important matter of how we will make sure we have some decent immigration advisers in New Zealand. We will have a proper licensing regime which National never bothered to get on with. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What about Taito? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Now he is interjecting about Taito Phillip Field. Of course I notice that all of a sudden Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has not been asking many questions in Parliament about Taito Phillip Field any more. Am I to think that he was not very genuine about his inquiries on that matter when he railed in this Parliament and did that big angry puffed up thing that he likes to do from time to time? Am I to assume that was not what he was wanting to do? 
I want to know from National why it never introduced proper licensing regimes for immigration advisers. I wonder whether it is because just recently one of its Ministers from the last Government has been up before the courts charged with fraud as an immigration adviser. When National Party members could not convince that person to join their party they waited until he joined an honourable party like New Zealand First then poached him with the baubles of office that they could offer at that time. That is what they did. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What did the court do? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Lockwood Smith wants to know what the court did implying even further his association with that person and endorsing and agreeing with what he did. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: This member criticises the court! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: So Lockwood Smith does not think we need this part of the bill now because the court made a decision in some way. Well Lockwood Smith might not see any constituents any more because he is so busy trying to get on with things but I have constituents who have been ripped off by some of the shonky immigration advisers. I think it is fantastic that there will now be a licensing procedure and that a complaints and discipline procedure is being put in place as well. This will help a lot of people over a lot of time and I think that will be very very useful for the kinds of people who when they are moving to a—[ 
Interruption 
] Bob Clarkson now interjects a man who has never done a single constituency day’s work in his life. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 12 be agreed to: 
To omit subclause (2). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendments in the name of Dr Pita Sharples as has already been advised have been ruled out of order by financial veto. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe be agreed to. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. There is a slight difficulty in that the Supplementary Order Paper also covers Part 2. Presumably you mean the amendments that relate to Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the amendments that relate to Part 1. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 Miscellaneous provisions 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 In my hand is a copy of a press release issued by the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment which states that it fears that the immigration consultant sector could be driven underground. This is the largest association of immigration consultants which has long supported and advocated the licensing of all migrant consultants and it is in general supportive of this bill. The association’s latest fear is driven by this devious Minister of Immigration’s very late introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper that looks like it will introduce another charge on registered immigration consultants in the form of a levy. 
 During the consideration of this bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we spent quite a bit of time on the cost of registration for immigration consultants. We were told that a new registration authority would have around 10 full-time staff and that the establishment cost of $1.4 million to $2 million dollars and $500000 to $900000 in capital costs would be funded through a variety of sources such as the Immigration New Zealand memorandum account and Crown funding. The Crown would also fund the annual cost of regulating the non-profit advisers and investigating and prosecuting unlicensed advisers. The department would also give consideration to gaining some third-party revenue towards those costs. 
By and large then the balance of the annual ongoing cost of the $1.3 million to $2.4 million to support this regulatory regime will be funded through registration fees from the for-profit consultants. We were told that Cabinet also agreed in principle that the for-profit advisers should pay an annual licence fee in proportion to the cost of regulating them. A figure of between $1000 and $2000 was indicated. We were told that an additional supplement to reduce the $1000 to $2000 annual licence fee would also be considered by Cabinet when the final figures become much clearer. 
The basis of the department arriving at a registration fee of $1000 to $2000 per consultant was from its database. The department also commissioned a survey by BRC Marketing and Social Research which projected that approximately 1000 immigration advisers would be regulated. This figure has long been disputed by the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment which is the largest association for immigration consultants. It indicated that the figure of 1000 immigration advisers was simply unrealistic. It reckoned it would be optimistic to think that the figure might reach 500. Let us remember that lawyers are exempt from this bill. So the association raised its concern with the Minister and it was told by him that in the explanatory note to the bill it was stated that an additional supplement to reduce the $1000 to $2000 licence fee would be considered by Cabinet if the numbers seeking registration were too small to cover the total cost of regulation. 
But the late Supplementary Order Paper that has been introduced by the Minister without consultation with the sector after the select committee has completed its deliberation on the bill—including on the fees—raises alarm because the Supplementary Order Paper introduces the term “levy”. This provision would allow a levy to be imposed in addition to fees as provided in the original legislation. We believe that is an act of bad faith and that it is devious and underhand. Last night the Minister in the chair the Hon David Cunliffe actually took a call—we are grateful for that—and said that the latest Supplementary Order Paper— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take offence at some of the terms the member has used. There has been no lack of good faith in this process. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister has taken offence at the terms the member used so I ask the member to withdraw. 
PANSY WONG 
: It would totally cut down Parliament’s vocabulary if words like “devious” and “underhand” were not able to be used. It is true for a start. I invite you Madam Chairperson to think carefully about the amount of vocabulary that might be left behind if parliamentarians want to take part in robust debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for her contribution and I think that she does have a point. However the member did take offence and as that has happened I ask the member to withdraw. 
PANSY WONG 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Can I just check did the member withdraw? 
PANSY WONG 
: It is my call and I am still on my call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I asked the member to withdraw her remarks. Please withdraw. 
PANSY WONG 
: I withdraw Madam Chairperson. 
Last night the Minister tried to brush off concern by stating that this is simply the result of legal opinion because the term “fees” can mean only recovering costs. That should cause further alarm for these immigration consultants because it is clear to me that the department realises that the number of 1000 immigration consultants is possibly overly optimistic despite its database and despite its paying consultants to confirm that figure. That means that introducing this levy on top of fees might mean the $1000 to $2000 that was explicitly promised to that sector may not be realised. 
I have tabled an amendment to test whether there is good-faith open government in dealing with the public and the immigration consultant sector. My amendment is logical and very reasonable. It states that the total annual fee and levy per registered consultant would not exceed $2000 without consultation with the sector. This is not breaking new ground. The precedent lies with the Accident Compensation Corporation which annually will undertake consultation in setting its premium. If the reason for this late Supplementary Order Paper is technical or legal then the Minister should have no problem supporting my amendment. At the very least he should take a call and announce here and now that the annual fee together with a levy would not exceed $2000 as promised and document it throughout this consideration of the bill. 
This is a serious issue. National supports the bill up until this stage because we believe in striking a balance between consumer protection and at the same time upholding the reputation of credible immigration consultants. But we are not prepared to be a party to destroying the immigration consultant sector through high fees and levies to fund bureaucracy. After all Immigration New Zealand funds a million-dollar website with only two job listings so it is not exactly careful with spending other people’s money. With the demise of immigration consultants should the high fee and levy proceed then potential visa applicants would have to either use lawyers or resort to unlicensed immigration consultants. We are then back to square one as the reason for introducing this bill was to drive out unqualified immigration consultants. So I say to the Minister that no ifs and no buts we want him to make it clear to the public and the immigration consultant sector by supporting my amendment that he wants to uphold good faith and transparency in passing this bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I thank the member who has just resumed her seat Pansy Wong for her intervention. I am happy to confirm that the Government has absolutely no intention of raising the combined levels of application fees licensing fees and adviser levies above the indicated level of a maximum of $2000. Indeed I am advised that the charge will quite likely be set at significantly below that level. 
But it is true that the Government has had to introduce a clarifying amendment on the definitions in the bill and I am happy to say that that is on the basis of recent legal advice. The issue is really one of definition and it turns as follows. A fee must as close as possible relate to the value of a service provided to the person who paid the fee. If there was any margin above that the fee would instead be defined in law as a tax and would therefore be outside the Treasury guidelines and be unlawful. Therefore those proportions of the amount that is needed properly and constructively to cover the industry-good functions of the authority and the administration of the tribunal must be defined in law as a levy and cannot be defined in law as a fee. To be fair that is an issue we probably should have foreseen in the original drafting; we did not. The lawyers have clarified it more recently. But what I took exception to in the member Pansy Wong’s remarks was any accusation that this was a matter of bad faith; it certainly was not. The amendment will not impact on the total charges faced by the industry. 
The member has raised I think two subsidiary arguments. The first is that the charges should be enshrined in legislation through an amendment of her own to somehow provide protection for immigration advisers. The problem with that is that it is extremely bad legislative practice to write a nominal dollar amount into primary legislation. Why is that? It is because it is a long process and very expensive in terms of the public’s time and the resources of Parliament to put an amendment bill through the House. If we put in a nominal dollar amount which of course erodes in real terms every year due to inflation—a little maths lesson for the member—it is unlikely in nominal terms to be realistic in 10 or 20 years’ time. Why would we commit the faux pas of putting a nominal amount in legislation? That would violate best regulatory and legislative practice in which by convention we embody the principles in legislation and policy and then the implementation in subsidiary and delegated legislation regulations or  
Gazette 
 notices by Order in Council when things like fees should be set. So that is the reason quite normally and in keeping with good legislative practice why we are correcting this anomaly in that way. I do not think I need to spend any more time on that other than to say that I have heard the views of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment and that its members have nothing to worry about. 
The member has bandied about a number—I think 2000—in terms of advisers in the industry. I think the member might be confusing the number of advisers in the industry with the number who are members of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment the former being significantly greater than the latter. Therein lies the problem and therein lies the proof that we are doing the right thing. The good advisers along with other advisers benefit from that proportion of their levy that funds the industry-good functions that protect their reputation. The honest and reliable individual adviser who pays his or her levy that supports the industry-good functions and keeps the industry clean and reputable benefits directly by that reputation because frankly it grows the market for the whole industry. If that were not the case the reputation of the industry would erode and the market would shrink and that is when we would have the potential for disruption and a black market to arise. So I am very very comfortable that this is the right thing to do and that it is good regulatory and legislative practice. It is also an act of good faith by the Government in order to correct as quickly as possible an anomaly in the original drafting. I thank the Committee for its time. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. Of course we have already talked about setting up the processes that underline the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. It sets up a regulatory framework so that we can get some standards into the sector. I want to move on to the issue of the levies that the Opposition members seem so concerned about. It certainly was an issue that was canvassed during the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearing process when we heard the submissions. 
David Bennett 
: No it wasn’t! 
SUE MORONEY 
: I recall that the member who is trying his best to interject David Bennett actually asked quite specific questions of the officials about how the levies would be set up so it should be no surprise to the members of the Opposition. They were part of the process and they were asking all of the same questions that Government members were. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Look nobody can hear when interjections are going across the Chamber like that. It is reasonable for there to be one or two interjections but the member has been warned. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The question of levies was well canvassed and how the setting up of the tribunal and the registrar would require cost recovery because that is how all professional groups operate. It is hard to imagine why the members of the Opposition are surprised that just like any other legislation that sets up standards regulations competency and all those sorts of issues there is a cost recovery basis that is expected because of the professional upholding of those provisions. 
This legislation of course means that immigration advisers will have to meet competency standards and be deemed fit to practise. They will be subject to complaints and disciplinary procedures just as other groups are; just like midwives nurses and all of those groups I am used to advocating for and representing. They all have their own processes just like this and yes they all have levies on a cost recovery basis to ensure that those processes can be robust that those processes can operate and that those processes can operate on an independent basis. So those issues were well canvassed in the select committee during that process. In fact the member opposite David Bennett asked quite specific questions around that issue because he was obviously concerned—as many of the select committee members were—about the cost and making sure that it was appropriate and affordable. 
Of course one of the other issues we were concerned about in the select committee was the implementation time frame. I think we had agreement on this but sometimes when we come to the Committee stage of these bills Opposition members suddenly find that they have a different position on the things we thought we had agreement on. However we will test this one out as well. The select committee recommended that the implementation time frame be reduced from 5 years to 3 years. So we do have agreement on that one. The time frame was reduced from 5 years to 3 years because we determined that this was such an important issue. As I said previously this legislation has come before Parliament not a moment too soon and we wanted to ensure that the time frame of the implementation was as speedy as possible. 
In addressing Part 2 I want to make sure that listeners understand that what we are talking about is ensuring the independence of people carrying out functions under the Act. That is of vital importance. What we must make sure of in setting up this legislation—this much-needed legislation—is that the processes are transparent and there is accountability; the independence of those people carrying out those functions is a vital part of ensuring that. The legislation also sets up the register of licensed immigration advisers just like for example nurses have a register and they become registered nurses. 
Part 2 also sets up the process for an appeal to be taken against the decisions of the registrar and the tribunal. Again that is about accountability transparency and fairness in the system. Part 2 goes on to talk about a whole range of miscellaneous matters such as the annual report on the performance of the tribunal’s functions and the power of the registrar to delegate. These are all very important details in making sure that we actually do get this right. This legislation as I said before is not a minute too soon and we need to get the detail right in it. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is sad to see what was once quite a proud Government reduced to filibustering in this Chamber. This Chamber costs thousands and thousands of dollars every minute and it is sad to see it happen. It is sad to see the Government so reduced that Ministers are so frustrated they use four-letter words in this Chamber. It is a sad day that this Labour Government is reduced to this level. 
I say to the member who has just resumed her seat Sue Moroney that it is actually quite important what one says in this Parliament. That member told this Committee just now that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed the issue of the levy. If that is the truth why did the select committee not incorporate it into the legislation? Why did it not incorporate it? The Labour Party has a majority on the select committee. If the issue of a levy was considered at the select committee as that member has just told the Committee—or was she not telling the truth? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Members know very well that they cannot accuse another member of not telling the truth. The member will withdraw and apologise. The member cannot accuse another member of not telling the truth. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: But I did not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the member did. Please withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: To help progress matters I will withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Now I will ask the other member Mr David Bennett to do the same thing because he said exactly the same thing. Please withdraw and apologise. 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry I am not debating this. I am asking you to withdraw and apologise for accusing a member of not telling the truth. The member will rise withdraw apologise and say nothing else. 
David Bennett 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: What I was questioning the member on—and I was very careful—is the fact that she told this Committee a few minutes ago that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed the issue of a levy. If that is the truth—and this is important because members should be truthful to this Parliament—why did the Labour members who have a majority on that select committee not amend the legislation to incorporate a levy? Because they did not. The levy has been brought in by a Supplementary Order Paper after the select committee process. I want that member to acknowledge that maybe— 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to clarify the point that in the bill as reported back it was referred to as a fee but the issue was well canvassed by the select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: It appears that we do now have the truth and the truth of the matter is that there was no levy in this bill when it was brought into this Committee. The key issue—and this is an important issue—is that the immigration industry had no opportunity to make submissions on the issue of a levy. That is important because we have seen Labour doing that all the time with recent bills. It brings in Supplementary Order Papers at the last minute so that those parties that have a genuine interest in a piece of legislation have no opportunity to make submissions. 
Since this Supplementary Order Paper has come in the industry has made it clear that if it had had the chance to make submissions to the select committee—which I presume Sue Moroney was a member of—it would have told her and the select committee that it had a grave fear that a levy like this could drive the industry underground. That is the last thing I believe that the Government wants. National supports the objective of the Government here. We want to see a decent immigration advisory industry here. But we do not want to see legislation that drives the industry underground. That is the key issue. 
The Minister in the chair David Cunliffe has claimed that the levy is only a minor technical thing that the department advised him he should do. It is not a minor technical thing. The issue of whether to have a levy as distinct from fees for licensing is a major one. Is the Minister in the chair telling us that his department is so incompetent that when it was drafting this legislation it did not know that a levy might be required? For the Minister to blame this on his department is not very good. I believe that we deserve a slightly higher standard of debate from these Labour members. If they are going to take up the time of this Committee with filibustering we actually need them to tell us the truth about what went on at the select committee. We have established that what the last member told us was not in fact correct. The issue of a levy was not specifically discussed at the select committee at all. Let me be careful and say that to try to claim to this Committee that a levy was discussed is a misrepresentation of the facts of what went on at that select committee. 
These matters are important and I do not think it is good enough to bring in by way of a Supplementary Order Paper issues such as levies that are unlimited and can be set at any level. The Minister in the chair should tell us whether he thinks the fact that the immigration industry believes that a levy could drive the industry underground is a genuine concern. I suggest that he reflect a little bit on the issues around Taito Phillip Field that I have questioned him on at length over recent months. Money was paid there. There is no question that money was paid to people whom even the police may have trouble sorting out as to whether they are immigration consultants or are paying the money on. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call so that I can clarify the situation that was put before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Of course we did canvass very fully the issue of cost recovery and how that would occur in terms of setting up these processes. As the member opposite David Bennett who was involved in that select committee well knows that was an issue of quite some considerable discussion and debate in the select committee. 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. That speaker is implying that I support her contention that a levy was introduced in the select committee. That is completely not the case. The member cannot do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a point of debate and I am sure the member knows that very well. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The point I was making was that the issue of cost recovery in order to set up these processes was well canvassed. The member David Bennett was involved in that discussion; he was on the select committee. There was significant discussion about the issue of the requirement for cost recovery as happens when any professional body or group is being set up. It is interesting to learn that the Opposition now finds this a surprise when the issue was well canvassed at the select committee. So I wanted to take a very quick call to clarify that issue. It should be absolutely clear to anyone— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Members cannot give a running commentary the whole time. I have warned Mr Bennett and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith about this several times tonight. If they want to take a call they can take a call afterwards. Please do not make a running commentary so that no one can hear anything. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I would appreciate it if the members opposite could take a call to clarify their position on this. Sometimes it seems we get to the Committee stage and we find that things we believed had been fully canvassed are being argued against by members opposite. So I just wanted to take a very quick call to clarify that situation. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I find it quite distressing that a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Sue Moroney would say that a levy was discussed at the select committee when it was never discussed. No documents relating to that select committee mention the word “levy”. It was never discussed at that select committee. The issue came up only when the Supplementary Order Paper was introduced today. 
This is a major issue. Sue Moroney is saying that we discussed the word “levy” and that we were cognisant of the idea of a levy being employed in this case. That is simply not the position. I take offence at that member trying to imply that I was part of any negotiations on a levy because there were no negotiations on levies in the select committee. I can give written proof of that from the Minister of Immigration David Cunliffe because the explanatory note to Supplementary Order Paper 104 states: “There is a need to provide for a levy as well as fees”. 
In the select committee we talked about fees constantly. If one looks at all the documents one sees that they refer to licensing fees. There was never any discussion about a levy in addition to those fees. The idea of a levy has come only at this subsequent stage when the Minister has found that the system to be employed may not cover the cost of the new system for registration. So the Minister has brought in a levy to bump up the cost on immigration consultants. 
The members opposite who were on that select committee know that a levy was not discussed in that select committee. They know that it is not proper and right to come into this Chamber and talk about something that did not happen in a select committee. They know they should stand up and take a call to say that they are sorry and that they made a mistake. But they did not do that. Sue Moroney misrepresented other members of that select committee and that is an offence in this Chamber that that person should take very seriously. It is a matter of pride and dignity for that person to actually stand up and deliver an apology for misrepresenting the members of that other select committee and all that. 
Let us talk about licensing fees. The document I have states that many people who submitted on this legislation were concerned about the level of any licensing fee. Most people on the select committee expected a fee between $1000 and $2000 and that was based on a general concept that there would be 1000 licensed advisers. So a budget was expected basically in the range of $1.3 million to $2.4 million for the new licensing regime which was to be made up of fees between $1000 and $2000. 
That gives quite good support when we look at all the documents presented to the select committee for the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward by Pansy Wong. Mrs Wong’s Supplementary Order Paper looks for a limit of $2000 but the Minister has said that we cannot have any limits because that is bad law—you know that is not how it should be done. But the reality is that in the select committee all the information that was provided to the members of that committee was that $2000 would be the top cap anyway on the basis of the number of advisers expected. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It still is. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: If that is still the case as the Minister says why does he want to bring in a levy at this stage? He wants to bring in a levy at this stage because he and his officials are now aware that 1000 providers of immigration advice may not actually be the case. They are also aware that if they charge people $2000 to do this kind of work that number of 1000 advisers will actually go down because people will go out of business. They realise that they will be left with a white elephant of a licensing system which will have potentially only 500 people providing advice and having to pay for a $2.4 million system. That is why they have brought in a levy because they are trying to save themselves from a system that was not designed properly in the first place. 
For members on the other side to say that it is all about levies that were discussed I tell them that that is not the case. We discussed fees and fees were seen on the basis of being from $1000 to $2000. The word “levy” was never approached in that manner. To bring it in at this stage is really a show of no faith in the industry. It is a show of no faith in the people out there who are providing that immigration advice. 
Another part of the fee and levy system that I think we need to consider is in regard to community advisers. A number of submitters talked about organisations that do things on a community basis—such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux Inc. There are also other organisations—for example in Hamilton the Waikato Migrant Resource Centre. These places provide a lot of immigration advice and they were originally not going to get the exemption. The National members on that select committee pushed hard for the distinction for those being exempt to be on a not-for-profit basis rather than having an exemption just for the Citizens Advice Bureaux which Labour members felt they could sell to their colleagues. 
A not-for-profit basis is much more appropriate because that includes organisations like community law centres. It includes places like the migrant resource centre in Hamilton. It also includes an Indian group from Auckland which provides its own advice. Those kinds of organisations should be exempt. They have no intention of paying between $1000 and $2000 and they have no intention of paying an open-ended levy that will now be in addition to the fee. 
Those groups will be the ones that will really be hurt by this Supplementary Order Paper. This Supplementary Order Paper actually hurts the most vulnerable people who are giving advice. Its provisions will go out there and make those community groups—like migrant resource centres—the ones that will have to pay huge levies just to make up for this Government’s vision which is misguided. 
This is an example of a Labour Government that has no comprehension of the impact of its legislation and that comes into this Chamber and just changes its mind at the last minute in trying to cover all the gaps. It is a Government that then blames the select committee and its members for things that were never discussed in that committee and it is a Government that will not take responsibility for its own mistakes. It is a Government that knows that although this legislation had a good purpose it is now misguided in the sense that the Government has brought in a Supplementary Order Paper that will add a levy on to the fees that were discussed in the select committee. I encourage those members— 
Darren Hughes 
: Ah so it was discussed in the select committee now. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The fees were discussed but not the levy. 
Sue Moroney 
: Ah now he’s changed his mind. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: So the member on the other side needs to stand up and take a call to acknowledge her mistake in misrepresenting the select committee deliberation because the word “levy” was never discussed at the select committee. Licensing fees were always discussed but these levies are in addition to the licensing fees. That member knows that and she should get up and apologise to the Committee and to the members of this Committee whom she has made such false accusations about. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am reluctant to take another call. I am indulgent of the member because he is a new member but that really was a pile of unadulterated drivel. So let me have a go— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Minister has no right to say those things. I ask him to withdraw and apologise because I have taken offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has taken offence at those words so I ask the Minister to withdraw. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw and apologise and clearly he is a new member because as he gets on in this place— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. When he withdraws and apologises he is only to withdraw and apologise. He used the word “and” and then brought in another sentence after that. He is to withdraw and apologise just for that. He cannot make a comment as well. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I actually did just ask him to withdraw as we did previously. I will ask the Minister to do it clearly again—that he withdraw— 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: —and not relate it to what was said. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —and the apology was a bonus. 
My first point of difference with the member is that the word “levy” was clearly explained in my previous intervention to be “within” not “in addition to” the nominal sum that was described. The concept of the levy is in addition to the fee but the cumulative total of the two is within the amount prescribed. I made that clear unless the member has misheard me or doubts my word—the former is quite likely and the latter would be a breach of the Standing Orders. 
The member then trotted out the spurious argument that the poor immigration advisers would go out of business because somehow they would be paying a combined fee and levy of something less than $2000. It is difficult to tell what planet the member has been on—it is clearly not “planet Waikato” where real people live— 
Sue Moroney 
: Or which select committee he’s been on. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —or which select committee he has been on because someone may not have told him that the fee charged for an individual residence visa is often in the realm of $10000 per client per transaction. This is a combined fee and levy of less than $2000 for a whole year. So even if an adviser had only one client in the whole year this would be less than 20 percent of the adviser’s revenue. If that was how David Bennett worked as a lawyer that probably explains why he has found gainful employment—of sorts—in this Chamber. 
The member then moved on from that high point to say that the burden would fall on the little guy. This was a treasure of an argument because having misunderstood the level of revenue that some of these scoundrels get away with he then tried to defend the raggle-taggle by putting it all on the shoulders of people like those working in community law centres. Well the problem with that argument is that lawyers are exempted from the coverage of the bill and community law centres are staffed by lawyers. Therefore the people working in those centres are exempted as I understand it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It’s too complex for David. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is too complex for him perhaps. Secondly other providers of voluntary advice where they have sufficient internal standards to demonstrate competence—such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux—are also exempted. So unless a particular community organisation decides to go out on a limb and offer what is in effect professional immigration consulting advice then that is its choice. But it then falls subject to the same requirements of the bill. Otherwise—surprise surprise—we might find that the good and enterprising people in the industry will rebrand themselves as non-governmental organisations and hang out the shingle in that way. That might be the way that the current Opposition would run regulatory policy but I guess we have seen it all before. 
If that combined set of two speeches represents the best that the Opposition can do in terms of offering public comment on the substance of this bill then my advice to Opposition members is that they should go back to their previous tactic and just vote for it. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I want to speak about clauses 66 through to 69 which are part of Part 2. 
David Bennett 
: He’s on the bill now. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I was on the bill in the last speech I gave too. I hear David Bennett already interjecting. 
Sue Moroney 
: He can’t help himself. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: As soon as he opens his mouth he manages to make quite an interesting advertisement for himself. I noticed that most of his speech centred on Sue Moroney and I wondered why he was so sensitive about that member’s point. But given that he is a one-term wonder in Hamilton East I would be a little sensitive too if I were him. 
The key point he missed in his attack on Sue Moroney was that she clearly talked about cost recovery. The Minister has just outlined through the schedules exactly what that will mean and what the proportion of revenue will be for some of the advisers we are talking about. But if after two speeches the “present” member for Hamilton East still cannot understand exactly what the bill is trying to achieve—even though he sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that considered the bill; I had to look up the committee report to see whether his name was actually listed there—then I do not know what more the Committee of the whole House tonight can do to explain to him a piece of legislation that he should know more about than most other members of Parliament because not all of us had the privilege of sitting on that committee. He was given that opportunity but clearly he has done absolutely nothing with it. 
It was very difficult to tell from his contribution whether he was in favour of or opposed to what the Labour Government is proposing by way of Part 2. It seems to me that clauses 66 through to 69 set out some pretty clear expectations around how the register will work in order to achieve the No. 1 goal which is to get confidence into this system and to make sure that members of the public can understand what we are trying to achieve and what standards we are trying to put in place. 
I note that clause 66 sets out the purpose of the register. It has in it some quite practical things that I think will be useful for people. The first in subclause (2)(a) is how to contact a licensed immigration adviser. We have all had cases where people have paid a huge amount of money to an immigration adviser who all of a sudden has disappeared into the dead of night as a fly-by-night operator and even we as members of Parliament have been unable to track them down or get hold of them. Letters have gone unanswered and the ability of people who in good faith have paid money to get a service have not been able to get that service. 
So I think that it is quite right and proper that the first purpose of the register will be to ensure that people are able to access all those contact details. I refer to the information about the licensing regime that comes into place with the passage of this bill and the type of licence a person is actually holding. I see that the information is contained in clause 67 whereby information on the limited provisional or full licence—the three different types of licences we are legislating for here tonight—has to be available to people so they can quickly check online. Clause 66(3) states that the register can be an electronic register on which the registrar may post information so that people can quickly check to see whether they are dealing with somebody who has a long history there and is recognised by way of the provisions of this legislation or whether they are dealing with somebody who has held only a provisional licence that has expired some time ago. Even worse the person might not be on the register at all in which case people can give that adviser a very wide berth. So I think this is a very critical part. 
In terms of the disciplinary regime around this part I tell the Committee that if any complaints have a formal procedure to be gone through then all that information is available there as well—information about whether people have been suspended have had their licences cancelled or have applied for licences only to have them refused. That is interesting information to know as well because it may be that some people have gone down the path of trying to have their businesses registered and then finding that they do not meet the criteria we are putting in here—the good standards to protect people—those people have decided to go out in the market anyway because they have been trying to earn as much money as possible. But a quick check will show there must be some reason for their non-registration. At the end of the day it is up to the person seeking the information to make that final decision. This is a commercial arrangement; in the end the person has to be responsible for the decisions he or she makes in a buyer-beware environment. 
At least what we are doing in clauses 66 67 68 and 69 is ensuring that as much information as possible is given so that a clear register is able to be set up. The register will list what is important. It will list the sorts of information one can expect to get from people—their addresses how to contact them what status they currently hold whether their licences have been suspended or cancelled and whether any alterations have been made. 
People should also then be able to search that information without a fee. I was surprised that National Party speakers who have been so concerned to make sure that immigration advisers can charge whatever they like were very critical of Labour members for supporting that. We will be able to get that information for free. That will be something where there will be no barrier to people in the sense of being able to find this information and make a difference to their search so I guess that the real practicality of this entire bill is borne out in Part 2 in clauses 66 through to 69. It will be a real test not only from a Government point of view of making sure the administration is efficient up to date and easily accessible but also from the point of view of testing whether immigration advisers will be cooperative in supplying all that information and in making sure they are keeping within the spirit and intention of what the Minister has set out. 
I again comment on Sue Moroney’s point about cost recovery that she mentioned in respect of the select committee consideration for which she was heavily criticised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD and also by the present member for Hamilton East. I think that that was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what Sue Moroney was trying to get to but she was able to deal with that quite effectively to ensure that the Committee of the whole House was left in no doubt about what took place at the select committee. 
I think it is incumbent on the National Party to say whether it will keep this register should it become the Government—what aspects it is in favour of and what aspects it is opposed to—to ensure that we are able to put the best possible information in front of people who have the privilege of being immigration advisers. In a sense those people are literally holding other people’s lives in their hands. Often people come to them with the only copies they have of original documents. They entrust them to those advisers and believe that they will be the gateway for them to start a new life in a new country—a country that all of us in this Chamber are blest to call home. A lot of trust is involved here and I think that having something like this that is so practical and that sets out information that is so clearly required can only advance the interests of people and benefit those who are trying to work their way through the New Zealand Immigration Service and the system. 
Obviously we have to have a robust system. It is a privilege not a right to come and live in this country so it is fair enough that there are a lot of rules even though sometimes they can be technical and difficult to follow. Immigration advisers can help although a lot of constituency MPs give a lot of assistance on immigration cases as well—and that is a right and proper thing. But this register properly maintained by a decent registrar will indeed ensure that the intentions of the Committee tonight in passing clauses 66 through to 69 will be honoured—and I think the country will be better off for that. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to insert new clause 77B after the proposed amendment to insert new clause 77A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
77BNotwithstanding clause 77 and clause 77A the combined total of the annual licensing fee and the annual immigration adviser’s levy for each applicant and licence holder may not exceed $2000 without consultation with the sector. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 48. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendment to principal Act 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise to take a call on the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. Although I absolutely support the bill because of its removal of discrimination against women in the armed forces at the same time I also hope we never see an escalation of active combat roles for either women or men. 
It is appropriate in debating Part 1 of this bill that as the bill moves towards becoming law we are also approaching Anzac Day when we celebrate the contribution of those who have served in past conflicts—men and women. This year I will be marching with veterans and proudly wearing the medal of one of the women in my family who served in World War I. It has been wonderful to be given the medal and it is a great honour. Women in those days were restricted from combat roles but we all know and acknowledge the significant contribution that women have made in our defence services over the past years. 
It is interesting to talk with other women relatives about their war experiences. Of course they hated war and the devastation it brought to families but many women saw their experiences during war as liberating which is kind of sad I suppose. They found it liberating because they were able to perform roles and work that previously were restricted to men. Women excelled in those roles. Recently while I was in London I saw an exhibition about the construction of fighter jets during World War II. Every photo showed women operating complex machinery on the planes fitting them out and well in charge of this important war role. But they were not on the front line of course. 
Recruitment of women for the armed forces in New Zealand did not reach substantial numbers until August 1941 when 600 women were serving. The numbers then gradually increased until a peak figure of 8700 was reached in August 1943 and thereafter women were gradually released. But in November 1945 3500 women were still serving in the New Zealand armed forces. 
The participation of women in services during the last world war—and I hope we never have another one—released men for more active armed service just as the entry of women into industry released men for tougher industrial assignments in the armed forces. Those women had great home ties but those home ties were light enough to permit them to participate actively in the war effort. They did so by voluntarily replacing men in paid jobs that had been depleted of labour by recruitment for the forces. 
I am looking forward to Anzac Day and to hearing stories and marching alongside women who played an important role in all the world conflicts we have been involved in. But as I said may we never have to be in that position again. 
Today it is very different. Women already play a full part in the operations of New Zealand’s Defence Force and their contribution is both significant and highly valued. Part 1 of this bill builds on and validates career options for women as well as advancing this Labour-led Government’s commitment to a society that is free from discrimination in all of its ugly forms including discrimination on the basis of gender.  
David Bennett 
: Rubbish! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I say to David Bennett that we on this side of the House take women’s issues very very seriously. I am proud of the opportunities that the Labour-led Government is building in order for women of all ages and backgrounds to reach their potential. This Government has launched and begun implementing the first-ever Action Plan for New Zealand Women. We have put pay equity back on the agenda which a National Government removed in 1991. We are progressing pay equity within the public sector. We have established the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner within the Human Rights Commission. We have introduced and extended paid parental leave. We have improved access to childcare and out-of-school care. The list just goes on and on. 
What has been very very interesting is seeing the Opposition so desperate for women’s votes that it has been trawling around women’s organisations in a pathetic attempt to convince women that National has changed its attitudes towards women. National’s vote for Part 1 of this bill will not make a difference in convincing women. National will have to work day and night to convince most women in New Zealand of that. It takes more than turning up to shake a few hands and appointing a women’s affairs spokeswoman. 
David Bennett 
: It takes more than a union backing you and that’s all you’ve got. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I have stood up for women all of my life which is more than that member has done. 
Let us go back to where Judith Collins stands on this issue. In 2003 Judith Collins said that National planned to extinguish the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. She said that it was time to get rid of the sexist relic. What has changed? What has changed is that National realises that women see it as a hard-nosed uncaring party so it set out to convince people that really it is nice cuddly and quite soft. But my question is whether Bob Clarkson represented the real National Party views about women when he said that New Zealand women should have more babies—one for him one for her and one for New Zealand. He said that. Is that not amazing? It is good to know that at least this Government is on the side of all women and is standing up for them. That is why we have adopted this bill and that is why I am proud to be speaking for the Government on it. 
It removes the last exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters applying to the armed forces by repealing section 33 of the Human Rights Act. Just in case members opposite do not understand section 22 of the Human Rights Act states that it is unlawful to discriminate against anyone in employment by reason of his or her sex. However in section 33 there is a specific exemption that allows preferential treatment in the armed forces based on sex where duty of serving in an active combat role is involved. It is not an outright prohibition on women serving in combat roles but rather allows men to be preferred in certain situations. 
We have had a very progressive Defence Force since we had a Labour-led Government leading this country. In 2000 it formally rescinded in a directive this policy of not allowing women to serve in combat roles in order to adopt a more inclusive approach to the employment of women in combat roles. This bill will bring legislation in line with reality and send a strong message that women are to be considered equal with men. 
The bill will also enable New Zealand to ratify its obligations under the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. I took note the other night when the member Dr Wayne Mapp described the committee as a tinpot organisation. Dr Mapp should get real. It is an important organisation. He should go out and tell women’s organisations that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women is a tinpot organisation and see what sort of response he gets. 
The Government has an important and impressive human rights record. Overall New Zealand has just 10 reservations to five human rights treaties. What the new National Party spokesperson on women’s affairs Jackie Blue perhaps does not understand is that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights. Those pertaining to equality for women are not just about women’s affairs; they cover the whole spectrum. They are things like the student loan scheme which the Government introduced that assists the unequal debt burden that women incur. There are many other areas where this Government has done work that impacts on women. I am pleased that this Government along with New Zealand First is doing work on low pay and the casualisation of the New Zealand workforce. When Jackie Blue was first appointed to her shiny new spokesperson role she said she needed to study up on women’s issues. I was astounded to hear that. Perhaps she could begin by studying a little bit of history and accepting—or maybe even apologising for—the damage that past National Governments wrought on women particularly in employment. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Pay equity. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: In pay equity but I was also insulted to hear the co-leader of the National Party Bill English attacking the Government for not defending home-care workers in his speech last week. Well hello! Those home-care workers—those women workers whom National has suddenly developed a huge concern for—were being paid less than $4 an hour during the 1990s. This Government has increased the minimum wage seven times since it became the Government in 1999. Over 100000 workers mostly women workers—and yes those low-paid workers in home care—under this Government are being paid nearly three times what they were being paid in 1996. Many home-care workers are still being employed as contractors. If we are talking about women’s rights it was very interesting to me—with my private bill on the minimum pay for contractors at select committee—when members of the women’s division of Federated Farmers said they supported it and were attacked by that member David Bennett for not knowing what they were talking about. [ 
Interruption 
] Well of course that member opposed the bill there were no surprises there. But people who are concerned about women have to show they mean it. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill which I support. This legislation started as a member’s bill but has now been changed to a Government bill. Although this bill keeps abreast of modern times in ratifying the current situation the need for urgency is interesting indeed. The legislation has been out of date for 7 years; women have actually been allowed to go into combat for the last 7 years. 
The purpose of this bill is to repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act 1993 in order to allow women employed in the armed forces to participate in active combat roles. This bill removes the last exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters that applies to the armed forces. When the Human Rights Act was originally enacted the New Zealand Defence Force’s policy was not to allow women to go into combat. However for the past 7 years it has been the policy not to discriminate against women in the armed forces so at last the Government is keeping pace with the department. 
Currently the provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan has 21 women out of 100 staff who are deployed there. They are doing a great job and the law will finally give recognition to those roles now and in the future. The roles that women play in making up any working environment add value to all aspects of the workplace. I am sure that when women are overseas on combat duty the contribution they make is outstanding. 
Women in the past have played significant roles during times of war. Due to the area they were in their contributions were limited to non-combat ones and normally to ones out of the Defence Force itself. But the roles they played were significant in the war effort. This step forward to allow women to enter active combat situations is one we can be proud of as we break down the last barriers for women in New Zealand. The women in New Zealand’s armed forces have worked hard to get themselves into the situation where they are seen as equals in an area that has been male-dominated for a very long time. Many women who have now left the armed forces should be proud of the recognition that they have earned for other women who are now in active combat positions. 
I must also highlight the issue that my colleague highlighted last week: the number of women in the armed forces. Women now have unlimited choices when it comes to selecting a career. Unfortunately a career in the armed forces does not seem to be attracting the same number of women as men. That is interesting considering there are more women in New Zealand than men. It now has to become a focus of concern that women are not entering the armed forces at the same rate as men. That needs to be addressed. In 2002 the overall percentage of female personnel in the New Zealand defence forces was 14.9 percent. In 2006 it was 16.5 percent. There now needs to be some accountability for the ratios that we have seen improving over the last 4 years by 1.6 percent—a rate that is below the improved rate in other industries. It is a challenge for us and for the defence forces to ensure that women want to enter this industry and to make it their career. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 I appreciate the fact that tonight in the Chamber we seem to have the unanimous support of Parliament for the passage of this important legislation—the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. The point has been made that this is not law that is required to achieve equality of the sexes in our armed forces. We already have that; the provision of the defence forces already allows for that. I think the Chief of Defence Force made that decision some years ago and back in 2002 it became operational. So the amendment to the Human Rights Act is something that can be addressed without changing the current arrangements; the current arrangements are simply reinforced by this legislation. 
This legislation is important because it is going to remove a legislative discrimination. It is a statutory discrimination that exists on the statute book to protect something that is no longer required. Why does Parliament need to spend its time at this stage just reinforcing something that is allowed? The reason is a document that was tabled in Parliament today and that has now been referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee—the national interest analysis for the removal of the reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. 
As New Zealand’s Minister of Women’s Affairs I am very proud of the fact that I will be able to go to the United Nations—to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women—and present on behalf of the people of New Zealand that we are now fully compliant with the convention. I think it is a tremendous thing we are saying for a country that has offered leadership in respect of women’s affairs for such a long time to the extent that we were the first country where women were eligible to vote and that we are able to show leadership in this area as well. 
I want to tell the Committee what the text of the current reservation to the convention actually is. It reads as follows: “The Government of New Zealand the Government of the Cook Islands and the Government of Niue reserve the right not to apply the provisions of the Convention insofar as they are inconsistent with policies relating to recruitment into or service in: (a) The Armed Forces which reflect either directly or indirectly the fact that members of such forces are required to serve on armed forces aircraft or vessels and in situations involving armed combat; or (b) The law enforcement forces which reflect either directly or indirectly the fact that members of such forces are required to serve in situations involving violence or threat of violence.” That is the reservation we currently have with respect to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. When this legislation is passed and the national interest analysis comes back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee then New Zealand will have done everything that it was asked to do in respect of the convention. 
It is important to remember what the Government was asked when it reported to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women for the fifth reporting period. The exact words from the committee after considering New Zealand’s fifth report were: “State Party is urged to expedite the steps necessary for the withdrawal of its remaining reservation to the Convention …”. So this legislation is us doing precisely what we were asked to do—to expedite the steps remaining to enable us to ensure that we can withdraw this remaining reservation to the convention. 
 When I think of what Parliament has been able to do on this occasion I really want to acknowledge the work of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Its members took this particular measure very seriously and came forward with some sensible recommendations about how the wording of the bill could be properly clarified in order to achieve the objectives we had set. 
I want to reinforce again just how important the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is to New Zealand and what New Zealand is adopting by accepting that in its entirety. The language that is often used is that the convention represents an international Bill of Rights for women and I note one of my colleagues Darien Fenton used the expression that women’s rights were human rights. I heard a powerful women speaker at the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995 in Beijing. She was one Hillary Clinton who I hope will be a President of the United States one day. She made the point very strongly that we cannot separate out women’s rights from human rights. Women’s rights are human rights. They are for the benefit of humanity and we cannot separate them one from the other. 
The whole point of incorporating the principle of equality of men and women in our legal system is to ensure that we do not have discriminatory laws whether or not they are there exercised in practice as is the case here. We actually do not want them on the face of our laws to be discriminatory. I think that this particular measure will reinforce how important our women are to our armed forces and the fact that we have come a long way since 1993 when the Human Rights Act was passed and it included this particular provision. 
I pay tribute to the Army and to the defence forces generally. This is not simply a matter of saying that all will be equal and that women will be able to undertake whatever role. In fact the Navy had already opened the diving branch to women in February 2000 so it had already gone some way towards removing the last restricted trade within that service. For the Army the issue was much more complex. It had to adopt a phased implementation—for example equipment that was a strength barrier to women or indeed to smaller men was phased out when new equipment was being introduced along with other changes such as accommodation. I know that the armed forces have also taken strong measures to ensure that there are no other forms of covert discrimination such as harassment including sexual harassment within the armed forces and it has certainly taken that role very very seriously. 
I pay tribute to all of our armed forces. They have come on board with wanting this to be—not as an interjector said earlier the right to serve on the front line—the right for women to have their engagement involvement and integration within the armed services respected for the equal role that they are able to provide. I am extremely pleased with this particular bill. I am very proud of the fact that I will be able to report this to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women itself when I appear before it sometime between 23 July and 10 August this year. I pay tribute also to Lynne Pillay who brought this bill to the House as a member’s bill then was willing to see it given up to the Government so that we were able to progress this measure in a way that we could get it passed in time. As members know other members’ bills under that particular timetable have had to take a second role to the more controversial legislation covering a section 59 defence under the Crimes Act. Therefore we needed to pull this bill forward off the members’ schedule and on to the Government Order Paper in order to have it passed in time. 
We are very keen to ensure that we are able to lift the reservation in time for New Zealand to report to the committee this year. I think Lynne Pillay has done a great thing by not only putting the matter on the Order Paper in the way she did through a member’s bill but also being willing to give it up to the Government so that we could get it passed in time. I certainly pay tribute to Lynne Pillay because she really has done us a great service in making sure that this matter has been brought to our attention and given the appropriate attention. 
Finally I think I have already mentioned the select committee but I do want to pay tribute to it again. The select committee has done a great job in ensuring that we have the wording right. I think this is a very good example of when all parties can come together and support very good law. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am proud to stand here and support Part 1 of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. It is not a contentious bill. I understand that there were six submissions to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and one oral submission. 
I will take just a short call on this bill. I have read through the speeches on Part 1 and Part 2 and everyone has said it all before. This bill is overdue. It sets right an anomaly in the Human Rights Act that discriminates against women serving in active combat. In actual fact that has not been the policy at all in the armed forces for the last 7 years so this bill is catching up with the practice of today. But it is better late than never. 
I also take the time to talk about Nancy Wake. I know that my colleague Judith Collins has made a plea as have other members of this Parliament for this woman to be recognised. She is a very brave New Zealand woman aged 94 who is living in the United Kingdom but she is a New Zealander as she was born in New Zealand. It is women like Nancy whom we need to look up to and give accolades to. This bill hopefully will set the last hurdle so that women can participate fully in the armed forces whether it be in the Army the Navy or the Air Force. 
The bill rights an anomaly. It now allows us to follow modern practice and to be consistent with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The shame of the whole matter is that we should have had this bill long ago. It has taken 7 long years. I must congratulate Lynne Pillay the Labour member on taking on a member’s bill that has now been adopted by the Government. 
I will stop at this point. There are other points that will be made by my colleagues but certainly I would like to say that we support the bill and we will certainly talk to the other parts of the bill tonight. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 This is a wonderful opportunity to be able to stand and support the Committee stage of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. It is also interesting to note that this bill appears to have support right across Parliament because when I looked at the membership of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that heard the submissions on this bill I was a little worried when I saw that the only woman member of the team of National MPs on that committee was replaced during its consideration of this bill. I thought that did not bode very well. However I am pleased that what my perhaps naturally suspicious nature perceived was not indicative of the way that National intends to vote on this bill. I was pleased to hear Jackie Blue say that the National Party will be supporting this bill. 
The bill has come through as a Government bill—it has been taken over—and the Minister spoke very well when she thanked our colleague Lynne Pillay who put the bill forward as a member’s bill. It was drawn from the ballot but because of the time frame that we were working to—to be able to endorse the requirements of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women—we were able to take it over as a Government bill and allow it to make hasty process through its stages. So here we are debating the Committee stage. 
It is of no surprise that a Labour Government bill deals with this legislative discrimination because Labour of course is known for being very active on the issue of making sure that achievement is made by women in all sorts of fields in New Zealand. I will just put this into the context of the sorts of things that the Labour Government has achieved for women in this term alone—and this bill will continue in that vein. 
In this term Labour has launched the Action Plan for New Zealand Women. It has expanded and improved the provisions of the paid parental leave scheme by increasing it to 14 weeks. It has also extended that scheme so that self-employed people are able to have paid parental leave as well. Of course the Working for Families package and improved access to early childcare and early childhood education are also significant achievements that affect all family members but they have a particular impact for the women in families. 
I take this opportunity to voice the hope that National in supporting this bill can also see its way clear to support those families who are looking forward to having the 20 hours of free early childhood education. I feel quite disappointed that the Opposition seems to want to goad providers in the sector into not allowing the provision of this 20 hours’ free early childhood education. If National really wanted to get in behind New Zealand women then it would be supporting encouraging and wanting those providers to make sure that the 20 hours of early childhood education went ahead. 
But to go back to the bill it is good to see the across-the-board agreement of Parliament in respect of this particular bill. The bill will make sure that women can take a full part as they already do—and I think a few speakers have spoken on that but we are now fixing it up from a legislative perspective—in the operations of New Zealand’s armed forces. And of course their contribution is invaluable. The bill will build on and validate career options for women who have progressed significantly since the integration of women into the New Zealand armed forces in 1977. 
This bill honours a commitment to uphold and advance human rights that this Labour-led Government prides itself on. We have a belief in our society that discrimination on the basis of gender is a thing of the past as is racial discrimination and age discrimination. If this amendment bill is passed—and it looks as though it will be—it will enable New Zealand to ratify its obligation under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. This is New Zealand’s only remaining reservation to that convention. So I am happy to speak in the Committee stage in support of this part of the bill. Thank you. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As members on the Opposition side of the Chamber have indicated already we do support the bill and indeed we always have supported the bill. There was never any question that we would ever hold a different position. In truth as we have well observed the armed forces moved down this path many many years ago. I remember the extensive debates that were held in the Navy and the really difficult challenges it had in introducing true equality. Part of the challenge was about changing culture and part of it was about changing accommodations and so forth on frigates. It was a challenge but the Navy got through it. Now we see women service people throughout the world literally. This Government has a very active policy of deploying forces across the world in the service of peace and stability and the National Party has supported all of those deployments. None of those deployments could now be effectively made without the active participation of women so this legislation is crucial. 
I want to directly draw the Committee’s attention to clause 4—no one has referred to this clause interestingly enough. It is actually at the heart of the bill. The words I refer people to are “in an active combat role” which was a replacement for the words used when the bill was introduced “at the front line”—a prosaic term. This demonstrates a real lapse on the part of the Government. This issue which I have heard Sue Moroney talk about was so hugely important to a Government that prides itself on these sorts of issues that for 7 years it simply let it languish. It had to be introduced by way of a member’s bill. 
I have to remind the Committee that a National Government passed the Race Relations Act 1971 and the Human Rights Act 1993. We have been at the forefront of legislative efforts and Jenny Shipley really drove that 1993 legislation; it was hugely important for changing the legal framework. But this Government let this issue languish in the hands of a member and did not adopt it for 7 years. 
That means of course that one gets not legal language but prosaic language such as “at the front line” as opposed to what would be a more legalistic approach. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee picked up on this as did the submissions from the armed forces so “in an active combat role” was deemed to be much more appropriate terminology. I guess “at the front line” conjures up World War I and all of that. It does not actually reflect modern reality at all. 
I will deal with the meaning of those words “in an active combat role”. What does that mean in practice? It means that women are able to serve in every single capacity in the armed forces irrespective of the danger that those positions represent and also to use the term that the Army would use “to close with and kill the enemy”. That phrase is in the Army’s doctrinal manuals. That is the term it uses for infantry soldiers. In practical terms in short we are asking as a nation that any of our citizens—men or women—who join our armed forces put themselves at enormous risk and in certain circumstances be willing to literally enforce the peace by the use of military force. 
We should be under no illusions as to the significance of that. We should be conscious when we are debating a bill like this as to what the significance of it is. It is all very well to embellish it through terms such as human rights equality and so forth—and those are important values—but this is a bit different from most of the legislation we pass in relation to rights of people. Nevertheless this legislation is necessary because in truth that is the decision women are making when they join the armed forces. They are making conscious decisions and they know that in most practical situations the contemporary enforcement of peace and stability will not usually involve the use of military force. 
Indeed I think that that is a good thing. I have the highest of praise for the work that has been done in the Solomons in East Timor and in Afghanistan. The contemporary environment in respect of the use of our military forces is desirably not the classic approach of using fighter jets aircraft and all of that; it is actually about changing the way that people think in those countries. One does that by way of an active engagement with those people. Certainly these are risky situations. One does not have to build peace in a peaceable country; one has to build peace only in a country that knows conflict. But I believe and we know from experience that raw military force is ultimately not the pathway to do that. To change the minds of people by the force of example is a more effective approach and we can see that in the way that our armed forces have been deployed in recent years. 
I refer specifically to a decision made by Don McKinnon the former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and it was a political decision; members should make no mistake about that—to deploy our forces into Bougainville in 1994 without weapons. That was done very very deliberately to send a cultural message that the solution to the problem in Bougainville then was not through the use of military force. Yes it required trained military people who were used to dealing with tensions and issues of conflict but we actually had to change the culture there. That has been the case in East Timor and the Solomons and with the provincial reconstruction team. Sometimes of course the threat of military force is necessary as part and parcel of that but it is not inherent on it. 
The reason I am spending a bit of time on this point is because it reflects the contemporary change in peacemaking and peace-enforcement. I guess I would say to our American friends and our British allies in Iraq that there are lessons to be learnt in that; that the pathway in Iraq is in fact building a cultural change to break that cycle of violence. We know that that will be a big challenge. I know the Government knows that it will be a big challenge but it is necessary. I know that Winston Peters in not condemning the troop surge—when he was put on the spot one might say—understood the need to change the culture in there and saw the surge as perhaps providing some of the conditions that would enable that to take place. That is why he would say he wishes them well and why we would say that. I guess that in truth that is why the Government did not really disagree with him. It could see that everyone wants a good outcome there and that that will involve changing circumstances. 
The role of women in the contemporary armed forces will be hugely important and will be part and parcel of that. I know from what people have said that having women in the Solomons was very very important in being able to reach out to people because of the experiences that women bring to those difficult situations. One cannot keep women isolated in certain roles. If they can fill every role they have the best opportunity to reach out. So I did want to put those points on the record because it reflects a changing philosophy in the use of armed forces which is I think a good one. 
National is very supportive of this. We are particularly supportive of the way this bill has been redrafted. We really appreciated the submissions from the armed forces to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. It gave us a really good insight into the contemporary nature of the use of military forces in difficult areas in the world and how one changes the cultures of those countries by example in order to build the culture of peace in those countries 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 It is my pleasure as Minister of Defence to speak in favour of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill which I think is a significant bill in terms of its formal recognition of the role and the place of women within our New Zealand Defence Force. I welcome the fact that this bill introduced by my colleague Lynne Pillay and now taken over by the Minister of Women’s Affairs removes the last exemption for sexual discrimination in employment matters applying to the armed forces. I think we can celebrate that fact. 
The bill provides legislative recognition of a situation that already exists in practice which is that women in the Defence Force can and do participate in active combat roles. I am very proud of the fact that over the last 7 or 8 years as I have travelled around first as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and now as Minister of Defence visiting New Zealand’s deployments internationally I have seen women in all facets of the work that our Defence Force is performing. 
I remember I must confess something that slightly staggered me. When I hopped on an Iroquois helicopter in Timor-Leste in 2000 the situation was still quite difficult on the ground and we had machine-gunners wearing helmets in full combat gear on either side of the helicopter. When we got to the destination on the other side—we had flown from Dili down to Suai—we disembarked from the helicopter. The machine-gunner on my side of the helicopter had taken their helmet off and there was this head of blonde hair and it was one of our women service personnel. I suppose that was a very practical example of the way women are and should be taking on those sorts of roles. I have seen women deployed in Afghanistan East Timor and in the Solomon Islands and they are participating as full members of the Defence Force without any thought that gender can or should be a matter that affects the role they are carrying out. 
I guess this bill is a demonstration of just how far the House has come over the last decade and a half. Fourteen years ago the Justice and Electoral Committee—and I must add before I was a member of that committee—stated in a report on the Human Rights Bill: “The Government”—that was the then National Government—“will not commit women to combat until it can be demonstrated that a clear well-established and informed social consensus for involving women in combat exists.” That was just 14 years ago and clearly we have moved a very long way since then. I believe that that was an excessively cautious and conservative statement and I am very pleased that in 2000 we formally rescinded the policy in the Defence Force of not allowing women to serve in combat roles. Women now routinely participate in deployments where there is potential for them to take part in combat and of course as a co-requisite of that potential for them to suffer injury or even death in service of their country. We work very very hard today in the modern defence force to prevent any loss of life or injury on the part of our service people. We work hard to maximise their safety but we see no reason to discriminate on the basis of gender in terms of whom we commit to undertaking operational tasks within the services. 
Servicewomen today currently make up just under 17 percent of our regular forces around 23 percent of the Navy—that comes at the top in terms of moving towards a greater gender balance—14 percent of the Army and 17 percent of the Air Force. Around 9 percent of our servicewomen are presently in combat roles. There are for example over 80 servicewomen deployed in land-based operations around the world and well over 80 serving on board our Royal New Zealand Navy ships. Indeed it would not be possible today to maintain the operational effectiveness of our Defence Force without the contribution of women in those roles. With that full integration today I am yet to hear any criticism in any of the services that women are in any way less effective in carrying out their roles than their male colleagues. 
This bill is therefore very welcome recognition of that role and it is as I mentioned earlier to a large extent after the event. It will bring the law into line with what is currently the policy and the practice of the Defence Force. With its passage New Zealand will be able to satisfy our country’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The reservation relating to the armed forces and women is New Zealand’s only reservation to the convention. Indeed back in 2003 the committee urged New Zealand to expedite the steps necessary for the withdrawal of this reservation and with the passage of this legislation we will be able to do that. 
I am proud that we can now do this. I am proud that we live in a country where women are now enabled to play a full and equal role in all facets of our society and the Defence Force is not and should not be an exception to that. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I felt motivated to take a brief call by firstly one or two of the comments made during the bill’s second reading and secondly by some of the comments made by members from the Government side in the first part of the Committee stage. However there was a touch of realism in the comments made by the previous two speakers the Hon Phil Goff and my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. 
As the Hon Phil Goff pointed out this bill codifies in statute what has been the practice for some time and it is appropriate that we do that. National concurs with his comments that women play an important part in the armed services and should be there based on their ability to perform the role not on their gender. National supports that. 
I will make two further points. In listening to the speeches in the second reading and in the earlier part of the Committee stage I felt that the comments about symbolism were not in the real world. It may be symbolic for some people that we embrace women into these particular roles that they are doing but the reality is that there is an element of danger in the armed services. Right now we have not had to report any fatalities in this House; indeed we have very seldom had to report significant injuries. But in reality the armed forces from time to time are called to be not peacekeepers but peacemakers and in those instances they are in the theatre of war where there is significant danger. 
Those people who spoke—and I see Darien Fenton who made a contribution is here—need to be aware that the people in our armed forces in general are at significant risk and that should not be understated. Although we may be doing a symbolic thing here we need to be conscious of the fact that from time to time there are significant dangers. Those members who have seen films that we do not really identify with like  
Saving Private Ryan 
 will know that that sort of thing can be the reality of war and at some time in the future it may well be. That is when the people in our armed forces will be at risk including women who are in the services. 
I find it a little bit ironic that this bill talks about the front line. Certainly we can identify a front line in the Army and at times that is hand-to-hand stuff or it can be a range of things. In the Navy the front line is a little more distant and in the Air Force it does not now exist because our strike force is gone and it is hard to imagine where the front line is in the Air Force. That raises another issue about who might provide air cover for our women when they are on the ground in the armed forces. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Come up to date Eric. Your party has changed that policy. You’re against an air-combat wing now. 
ERIC ROY 
: Righto but here is a significant issue. I make the point that if we are committing any armed forces at all be they men or women we need to commit to supporting them in every appropriate way for the important work they do. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Women's Affairs) 
: 
 I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made. The first point I want to make quite clearly is that no one on this side of the Committee has said that the deployment of women in active combat roles is symbolic. The issue around symbolism is removing the exemption in the Human Rights Act which is no longer required because we do not have any exemption requirements in the Defence Force because of the move it made in the year 2000. 
The comment has been made that that change to the defence regulations was made by Defence Force order in 2000. I should say that it did not have immediate impact either which is part of the reason why this is not a 7-year delay in terms of responding to requirements. In fact when that Defence Force order was first made it was felt that it would take up until 2005 before finally all the positions that were available to men where there had been a barrier to women taking up those different trades and roles within the Army would be able to be fully integrated. That was part of the reason why no hurry was given to removing that particular part of the Human Rights Act. 
Another point was made about the bill starting off as a member’s bill. I think it is actually a positive that an individual member has brought a particular measure to the House. I do not think that it in any way belittles the measure or says it is any less important because a member of the House rather than the Government has brought it to the attention of the House. In fact I know perfectly well with the example a member used—that a National Government led the way with the Human Rights Act in 1993—a significant feature of the debate on that legislation because I was in Parliament at the time and in fact was a member of the select committee that looked at that particular bill was that the two controversial aspects of that bill which were the removal of discrimination based on sexual orientation and infections in the body capable of causing disease which is the HIV anti-discrimination provisions were both introduced by Supplementary Order Paper under the name of Katherine O’Regan as a private member not as a member of the Government. So sometimes these things require a private member to bring them to the attention of Parliament and I do not think they are in any way diminished as a result of that particular process being used. 
Apart from those comments I am very pleased with the way the debate has gone. I think that people have participated in a very positive and constructive way. I know that all New Zealand women will feel particularly proud that this year we will be able to report to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women that we have removed the last remaining reservation as a result of the passage of this bill. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I stand not as a New Zealand woman but as a New Zealand man and I am immensely proud that the women of this country will be able to report that finally we comply with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. As a citizen of this country I stand proud that we are finally addressing some of the basic issues of discrimination that have remained right through to the 21st century. 
Members who have spoken before me were correct when they said the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill removes an anomaly. The members were also correct when they said the bill reflects the changing philosophy of the armed forces and the changing status quo. But the bill is not really about gender nor about allowing women to do this or that; it is a bill about human rights. In that respect the Minister was correct when she said it is a bill that is symbolic. 
 The symbolism of this bill is that it is a clear statement to every person in this country that he or she has the right as a citizen to participate fully in the affairs of his or her family community and country. It is irrelevant whether that participation involves elements of danger risk or hazard. That is totally irrelevant. The basic requirement of every citizen no matter how capable or incapable old or young rich or poor and advantaged or disadvantaged is to participate in the life of this country in the life of every community and in the life of every family. 
This bill is important because 14 years after the Human Rights Act was passed and 30-odd years after New Zealand human rights legislation was first introduced into Parliament we are recognising that the minutiae of human rights still has a long tail. The human rights provisions are the most basic moves we can pass in this Committee. We spend a lot of our time on economic matters and on matters of self-interest and personal profit to a few. But the bottom line is that those things are irrelevant. We all walk this earth just once and when we leave this earth we should leave it with rights equal to every other person in this country. 
This Committee must be vigilant to ensure that every individual has an equal opportunity to participate fully in the affairs of this country. We must do away with the hegemony and patronising attitudes of those who say that some areas of life are difficult or dangerous. That is a decision for an individual to make whether they be male female or indeterminate. The future of this country is with every individual participating fully in our communities. 
I join with the Minister Lianne Dalziel in celebrating the symbolism of this simple bill—simple in that it enjoys the elegance of brevity. I simply commend the bill to the Committee. I am delighted that it is being passed unanimously but we should not let it go by without looking at the higher principle involved: that it is a celebration of human rights. There is no greater principle that this Committee can adhere to than the human rights of every citizen in this country— 
Hone Harawira 
: It’s not some celebration of human rights; it’s the killing of women. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: —having the right to participate fully in every community and I say to Mr Harawira in every debate. I support the bill. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. The bill is definitely not contentious; it is long overdue and it is about time the law actually reflected the status quo. 
We know that many women want to and already do participate in the armed forces in all sorts of roles whether they be pilots soldiers sailors or whatever. They are already there. Many of them are already in active combat roles and of course they should be able to continue in those roles if they so desire. 
We need to ensure that opportunity exists for women to participate fully in the armed forces. We already know that the rigours of war are both physically and mentally challenging. Women have already shown that they can participate fully in that respect. We must have the highest praise for those women—and men—who participate in the peacekeeping forces overseas and within the armed forces. We know that women have made a significant contribution in active combat roles and they will continue to do so. That is what we want to see. 
The number of women is increasing in all parts of the armed forces and we wish them well in the roles they carry out so successfully. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I would like to pursue and follow on from some of the comments made by my colleagues Lianne Dalziel and Russell Fairbrother and to look at the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill in its human rights context.  
With New Zealand being one of the three nations in the world without a written constitution one could argue that we were born of a human rights document—a brief and very blunt document—dating back to 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi and that a lot of the development of the law in this nation has drawn from that experience. 
We can then flick forward to 1945 when the world started to develop its own human rights standards. As my colleague Russell Fairbrother mentioned it was in 1972 that race relations legislation was actually put into domestic law. It took nearly 30 years from New Zealand acceding to international human rights norms to its actually developing its own domestic law.  
The Human Rights Commission Act followed the race relations legislation in 1977 whereby gender equality first became an issue in New Zealand law. So it will actually have taken 30 years from when this Parliament voted that women should essentially enjoy equal rights in our nation until we finally complete that process. As we heard from the Minister of Women’s Affairs this evening we can now fully accede to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. The Minister will be going to the United Nations later this year in order to give effect to that.  
If we go forward from the Human Rights Commission Act the next focus of debate was on the groups that were left out. Throughout the 1980s there was one significant attempt to add sexual orientation as a ground in the Act. That attempt failed at the same time as homosexual activity was decriminalised in 1986. The legislation to add a number of grounds to the Human Rights Commission Act including disability then came in in 1990. It is of no little symbolism that only last weekend the Minister for Disability Issues Ruth Dyson was in New York celebrating both the fact that the world has now developed treaty standards in relation to disability discrimination and that New Zealand is an extraordinary leader in that field.  
It was not until 1993—which is only 14 years ago—with the passing of the Human Rights Act again by this Parliament that we actually guaranteed that people with disabilities should not face discrimination because of that disability. I want to mention one point in terms of that debate. At that time I was doing some research work for the New Zealand AIDS Foundation. There was a real fear at that stage that both the armed forces and the police would be given an exemption from the legislation. It is not unusual in other countries for human rights standards to be brought in stage by stage. I remember researching and producing in some detail arguments that became part of the AIDS Foundation’s submission at the time of that legislation. Former members Warren Kyd and John Banks did not inspire great confidence in the wider community that there would not be an attempt to build discrimination into law. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Doug Kidd rather than Warren Kyd. 
TIM BARNETT 
: It was Doug Kidd. He is equally frightening in that respect. There was a real danger that uniformed forces would be able to continue to discriminate in the way they were allowed to before by the law.  
Through the 1990s the private sector and the voluntary sector worked to implement human rights standards but in terms of the Government there was a limited term exemption. Towards the end of the 1990s that became the real focus of the argument. In fact in those dying dull dreadful days of that National Government between 1996 and 1999 I remember that Tony Ryall who was then the Minister of Justice attempted in a rather shady deal to try to give the Government a permanent exemption from the Human Rights Act so that the armed forces and the police would have been able to discriminate permanently.  
It was thanks to Alamein Kopu I think who finally told some of her National mates that she would not go along with the deal that the bill was withdrawn at the last minute. So we went into the election in 1999 with a bit of an awkward compromise. Labour had a commitment to apply human rights standards to the law and that commitment resulted in the Human Rights Amendment Act 2001. The fundamental effect was that not only did Government departments have to deliver services in accordance with our human rights principles but also that all legislation had to be in accordance with those principles.  
Since 2001 we have turned to looking at New Zealand law to identify where discrimination still lies. I think that broadly speaking it has been in three areas. One area of discrimination has been against people with disabilities. Only 2 or 3 weeks ago in this Chamber we removed discrimination relating to employment standards for people with disabilities. The second area relates to women. As we have heard today from the Minister of Women’s Affairs this legislation really completes that path. If I dare do a tiny bit of special pleading the third area relates to lesbian and gay people in our society. The Civil Union Act 2004 effectively delivered equal rights in terms of relationship status but we still have some work to do in areas such as adoption and in some parts of parenting. But we are pretty near the end of the road there.  
What I am describing is a process of creating and implementing principles that really by the end of it will have taken 35 to 40 years in Parliament. Tonight at the third reading of this bill we are actually seeing the completion of that process in relation to women. Although the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill is a tiny piece of legislation—a short report—and is unanimously supported in the House I suggest that it is of quite tremendous symbolic importance. So I am very happy to stand here and support the legislation.  
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Consequential amendments to Employment Relations Act 2000 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Talk about the Employment Relations Act. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Dr Mapp has tempted me to talk about an area that is very very close to my heart. Dr Mapp knows that he should not encourage me to do so; he knows that I know a little about the Employment Relations Act. It is good that the main change in the bill is around the Employment Relations Act—it removes the provision that excludes the armed forces. I was really proud when in 2000 we included under the Employment Relations Act measures against discrimination on the grounds of not only gender but also race. That was a first. Although we have had structural discrimination on the basis of gender and race for many many years I think that this Government has made a lot of progress on that.  
I was very taken by the speech made by my colleague Tim Barnett too because I think that the human rights declaration is one of the most important treaties that nations have ever entered into. If any members have not read it lately they should get on the Internet and look at it. It still stands very firmly today— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but we are debating Part 2. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: OK—and if I may continue I see the human rights declaration and other treaties as being absolutely relevant to the Employment Relations Act 2000 because they relate to addressing discrimination on the grounds of gender and race and to addressing all other forms of discrimination. The issue is not just about discrimination in the armed forces and the combat forces.  
There have been significant issues in the past of discrimination in the armed forces. Some of them have made headlines and they have not been very pleasant headlines. I think that the defence forces have made an extra effort over many many years—well over recent years in particular—to deal with that. I have met some of the officers in the armed forces who are responsible for equal employment opportunities and for dealing with matters of discrimination. In fact as I have mentioned before—I am referring to discrimination and the issues of discrimination under the Employment Relations Act—the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust gives prizes to various organisations in relation to their dealing with and tackling of gender discrimination and other forms of discrimination and the programmes to address discrimination in the armed forces have won those prizes. I have met the leaders of those organisations who are very very committed to dealing with discrimination.  
Going back to the Employment Relations Act I tell members that we still have to deal with many many issues in relation to discrimination around gender. I mentioned in my earlier speech the issue of pay equity which is an issue that is still with us today. Seventeen years after the National Government did away with the legislation that we had in place—which was very progressive—we are still dealing with the effects of that discrimination. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is that 7 years? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Seventeen years—17 long years but we are catching up. There are years of work to catch up in order to remove the gender discrimination that was caused by the removal of the Employment Equity Act by the National Government in 1991. So when we talk about discrimination in terms of the Employment Relations Act we have to remember that and also to remember that this Government is doing its very very best and has put in place programmes to deal with pay equity. We see women in employment slowly catching up in terms of their pay.  
I also want to mention one of the things that is important to the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the amendments that have subsequently flowed from it—which I hope is within the scope of this part. One area that I see the National Party has vowed to do away with should it ever become the Government—God forbid—is the area of vulnerable workers. If we are talking about discrimination we are talking about gender discrimination. We are talking about low-paid workers in the service industries like cleaners who need that protection. If we are serious about doing away with discrimination that area cannot ever be repealed. In fact it needs to be improved.  
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Oh rubbish! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well I say “Come on!” to that member. Let us hear his views on this issue so I can tell all our friends around the place. Let us hear exactly what his position is on this area as well.  
The changes to the Employment Relations Act are really important in relation to this bill. I think as other people have said that they are a very important step in the progress of human rights in New Zealand. This bill is a very important step for New Zealand. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am delighted to have the opportunity to rise however briefly in support of Part 2. In the wider context of this legislation I think it is clear that everyone in the Committee supports the bill. It is delightful to see that we have such unanimity which is so unusual. But it is unanimity around an issue that is so important in terms of the human rights of New Zealanders. However I must observe that in terms of the industrial legislative framework one cannot escape the delicious irony that in respect of this provision there is a degree of inconsistency on the opposing benches in relation to the funding agents. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill with amendment and progress on the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.