Volume 650 Week 85 - Wednesday 10 September 2008(continued on Thursday 11 September 2008) 
Volume 650 Week 85 - Wednesday 10 September 2008(continued on Thursday 11 September 2008) 
[Volume:650;Page:18767] 
Wednesday 10 September 2008 
( 
continued on Thursday 11 September 2008 
) 
Public Transport Management Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 10 September. 
Clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Last night we had started to debate the title which is the Public Transport Management Bill. I suggest that a more appropriate title would be the “Public Deception Bill”. The reason for that is very clear. When the introductory version of this bill was brought back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee after a round of consultation the great majority of the submitters had opted for a tightening of control on public transport and for giving authorities more say in terms of obtaining information from commercial operators etc. Even the Government stated in the foreword of the bill that it supported that move instead of going towards the extreme option C which is that a regional council or authority can remove commercial operators from bus services that do not require a ratepayer or taxpayer subsidy. It was very clear in the introduction to the legislation that adopting that option would undermine business confidence so we thought it was good that Cabinet had signed off the bill in the form it had when it was introduced to the House and referred to the select committee. 
But here we go in the Committee stage away from the submitters and the Labour Government is actually backing Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Greens to reintroduce option C which has been rejected by Cabinet and the majority of the submitters. That is incredible. Not only has the Government reintroduced an option that should not be there but also it is trying to rush this bill through under urgency. This legislation could be used to confiscate private property rights. Many bus operators who came before the select committee argued and demonstrated that they have worked long and hard to build up their businesses but under this last-minute change the legislation will give regional councils and some public transport planners a free hand to organise and dictate how things should be going. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I will carry on from the very good speech my colleague Pansy Wong made. I guess first of all for the benefit of the adoring listeners out there who tune in on a regular basis to hear my wonderful oratory my almost Barack Obama - like oratory on this matter I think it is clear that we should—[ 
Interruption 
] We will not go into pigs and lipstick; we will just stay well clear of all of that. That can best be left for another day. What I will run past the adoring listeners and the public out there is just simply what this bill is about and what its title should be. I think that the public who have been listening—and thousands of them were listening last night to this debate—have been confused about what option A option B and option C or what option B+ are. Really it is simply this. In any one particular jurisdiction—let us take Auckland for example—there are public transport operators. They may be ferry or rail operations but in most cases we are talking about bus operations. On some routes on some days and at certain times there are enough patrons of those services for the companies to be able to operate them as straight commercial businesses. They can go out and buy their buses they can pay for them they can mark them up in whatever colours they like they can publish fares and a timetable and so on and they can go about their business just as one would if one was starting a taxi company a courier company or whatever. Then there are other services in that same city on other days at other times or on other routes that simply do not have enough people using them to make any commercial operation viable. But it is clear that those services should be provided in order to try to keep a public transport network going. 
The first of those services are called commercial services. They can be run by anybody in the private sector and those operators can make a really good return on their investment—and they do. The others are called contracted services where the regional council has put in some of its own money and a very big chunk of the Government money coming from the National Land Transport Fund to go out and buy a subsidy. The Government decided that there was too much I think funny business going on from some of the bus companies and so on which were getting too much power in the negotiations and were playing some silly bugger games and it decided that it was time to give the regional councils a better balance about how they could negotiate those services. The Government quite properly set about consulting and negotiating with the various people in the industry. It negotiated with the Bus and Coach Association which is the representative body of the bus and coach industry and with a number of other players. Those players all reported to me at the time that they thought the talks had gone well the consultation had gone well and that everybody had come to an agreed position called option B. 
Option B was the halfway house. It is the old George Gair line: if one is given two solutions one always goes for the one in the middle. So option B” was that one in the middle that would be a compromise by all parties. Everyone could live with it. The bus companies were a bit upset as they thought that it went too far and I think that the Government thought that it had about the right balance and everyone said that they could live with it. If we look at the Cabinet paper from February 2007 we see that it lays out a whole series of decisions that one could easily map with one-to-one mapping using isomorphic mapping on a one-to-one basis to show what option B was. It was a great Cabinet minute and when the industry saw that Cabinet minute come out it was pleased. 
In the introductory copy of the bill when it was finally introduced to Parliament the Minister’s own foreword stated that the Government had looked at option C but it had ruled it out as being unworkable. It is not the National Party’s view; this is what the Minister stated in the foreword and in the records of this Parliament. And we agreed. But what the bus and coach people were then quite concerned about was the legislation that they had before them did not do quite a one-to-one mapping of option B. It was sort of an option B on steroids. It had a bit more added in a few little places which made quite a difference. So during the course of the select committee hearing we went through I think a process of trying to bring that legislation back and getting it to line up. 
The title of the bill the Public Transport Management Bill should now quite rightly I think be the “Public Deception Management Bill”. Those people were told: “This is what you will get.” The Minister’s foreword to the bill said that the Government rejects option C. Then out of the blue something really really interesting happened. We found that New Zealand Bus Ltd had got a very very highly qualified lawyer in the form of Professor Taggart. We found that Professor Taggart had gone to the Regulations Review Committee and raised some quite serious concerns. The Legislative Advisory Committee which is headed by Geoffrey Palmer had raised those same concerns about Parliament and its delegation of powers down to a body underneath the level of Parliament. What we did not know at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as we considered this bill was that the Regulations Review Committee when it heard that advice had some serious concerns about it so much so that that multiparty committee decided to write to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and point out the areas of the bill it had some serious concerns about and wanted addressed. As I have said during the debate on earlier parts of this bill if that advice had simply been “tick the box” stuff “remove clause C add clause D take out clause E” then I guess we would not have needed to have any consideration of it because it would have been a case of following the dots and doing it. But part of the advice was that the committee should give consideration to how it would best manage it. It was a very wide and open brief to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about what its members should do to tidy up the legislation. I repeat that. It was not “tick the box follow the dots” stuff. It was a more wide-ranging brief that needed some consideration. 
It turned out—it was somebody’s fault; I do know whose fault it was and I do not think we will ever know—that that letter from the Regulations Review Committee never got to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. So while we did the whole consideration and deliberation process on the bill we were blissfully unaware of that issue. Only after the committee had completed its consideration and then its deliberation and reported the bill back to this House did it become clear that something was wrong. So the National Party did I think what is the only logical thing that should have happened to this bill—and a lot of anger has been created because it did not happen—and that was say that the bill should come back to the committee. It was not the Minister’s fault or the Government’s fault. Somebody in the bureaucracy had screwed up. The committee should have been given a chance to take account of that advice incorporate it into the bill and bring the bill back to the House. I know that Labour members then got into a tailspin because they were running out of time and did not know how many more parliamentary days they had. I said I would give them a watertight commitment. I want the Minister to ask the chairperson of that committee if she wants to whether we have ever reneged on any commitment we have ever given. We have stuck to our word—watertight. We said: “Bring that bill back for 1 day— 
Hon Annette King 
: You were given a week’s notice. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. We were not given any. The Minister says we were given a week’s notice but we were given no notice at all. We said: “Bring that bill back for 1 day to the committee and we will work to get whatever the Regulations Review Committee wants done to it and then we will report it back.” But oh no Labour members voted that down. They said: “No way.” So there is democracy—gone. So this could be a breach of any democratic process. The title of the bill could be the “Breach of Democracy Bill”. Then the Government members said it did not matter because they had fixed it up. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: That cheque from Infratil must be a big one. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The Government said it did not matter because it had fixed it up. That is what Mark Gosche says. So when a select committee which is supposed to consider and scrutinise a bill carefully supposed to scrutinise it carefully and supposed to look at all the advice—including advice it had not yet received from another committee—and then make decisions about what it incorporates and what it does not Mark Gosche says: “Don’t worry about that. We’ve got this under control. We’ll do it unilaterally and by the way we’ve done a cosy little deal with the Greens in return for a whole lot of other things that are going on around this place at present in terms of support.” And the Government members will wheel back under the guise of some Supplementary Order Papers in the name of the Greens option C. 
How can we stay with the title Public Transport Management Bill? My colleague Pansy Wong is desperately right. This bill should be called the “Public Deception Management Bill”. Labour said in the introduction speech in the explanatory note of the first bill that it rejects option C because it is unworkable. That is what Labour said. Only because there was one submission from the Auckland Regional Transport Authority that was absolutely adamant under the chairmanship of the Auckland Regional Council’s Mike Lee who would love to own the bus company again did the Labour Government decide that. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to support my most excellent colleague Maurice Williamson and I totally agree that the bill should be called the “Public Deception Transport Bill”. It is being rushed through under urgency which is extraordinary but we need look only at the purpose of the bill to understand why. The purpose of this bill epitomises the way in which this Government likes to operate and that is about absolute power and control that is tantamount to a dictatorship. That is what the purpose espouses by conferring on regional councils powers to set standards for commercial and public transport to provide for regulation and registration and to help regional councils and the agency obtain the best value for money in achieving affordable integrated safe responsive etc. public transport. But essentially it screws the scrum. 
This is not an equal situation where people sit down and negotiate the best outcome. This is a contract situation where the regional council can virtually dictate what it expects and then it is up to a transport provider as to whether it wants to enter into that agreement with the regional council. Why would it? We will not get people stepping up to the plate and wanting to support regional councils if they are going to try to take advantage of this legislation to have a much more powerful position in the contract negotiations. That is what this bill is all about. This is the sort of legislation that epitomises this current Government. It does not do its homework and that has been quite clearly espoused by Maurice Williamson. He has shown quite clearly that the Government has failed to do the proper work and the proper analysis to get the best outcomes for all those involved and particularly for the people who are trying to be best served by a public transport system. 
The Government continues to fail the people of New Zealand and further poor legislation like this is just a constant glaring example of the Government’s failure to do its legislation correctly. We have only to look at the bill to see all of the changes that have been made and then we can look at the two Supplementary Order Papers which are quite substantial as well. That completely underscores what Maurice Williamson has been saying. The Government has not been doing its homework. It should have gone back and taken the opportunity to address the bill particularly when it did get a letter sent to it from the Regulations Review Committee. The Government had the opportunity to go back and address the bill in light of that letter coming to the fore but it did not take that opportunity. There can be no more glaring example of the Government’s failure to uphold the democratic principles that we want to see espoused in this Parliament. 
This happens time and time again in legislation. There is poor problem definition which means that the Government does not come up with the correct solutions to deal with those problems and we get convoluted legislation which the Government just does not understand the ramifications of. Another glaring example I have to say is the Electoral Finance Act and that has been declared unworkable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Come back to the bill please. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I am giving an example of yet more legislation that is just a constant mess. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and explain why the democratic principle of making sure that all those matters pertaining to the bill was not dealt with. I am talking about the Regulations Review Committee’s letter to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and perhaps Dr Michael Cullen might like to explain to the Committee why the step was not taken to readdress that matter through the select committee as espoused by Maurice Williamson. I think it is incumbent on the Minister to get up and explain her Government’s position in regard to not going back and doing the job properly. I think that would be eminently responsible. But no we will not see that. We will not see why option B was not dealt with appropriately and once again that has all been explained very well by Maurice Williamson. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It is an interesting day when we are discussing legislation in regard to public transport. If we look at the history of this legislation and at some of the other issues that are going through the Parliament at this time we see they have a very similar background of corporate involvement in decision making beyond what we would expect the parliamentary process to engage in. 
In this case we had an agreement between the major parties involved in the issue. The public transport providers—in essence the bus companies—the major regional provider the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and other regions were involved. The Government of the day had made a purely commercial decision as one would expect in the sense that it was agreeable to all the parties involved. That decision was never followed through even though it got Cabinet approval. The Minister may like to deny that and say it was subject to some kind of formality through the consultation of the parliamentary process but that is not the reality. The parties involved understood that they had a commercial decision and that was the expectation of everyone involved. Then when it comes to the reality of passing the legislation through this House the Government has changed its mind and goes against that commercial decision and does what it thinks is expedient to satisfy its supporters. 
That is very much the theory of what we are seeing in the Winston Peters saga as well. It just shows the whole nature of this Government that it cannot be trusted on its word. It will go against the people it has made agreements with in the past it will do what it feels is right at one particular time to achieve political advantage and it has no concept of what the public wants. It is not governing in the interests of what is best for New Zealand. The parallels between this bill and what we are seeing in the Winston Peters saga are very similar. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please come back to the bill. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: This bill is a very convenient example of the way this Parliament is being used by the Government to keep up its profile in legislation that is not appropriate. Let us look at what Parliament should be discussing; it should be looking for a solution that is in the best interests of public transport users. A solution was provided and agreed upon. Why will the Government of the day not continue to uphold an agreement that was made in good faith by parties sitting around a table and negotiating in the best interests of public transport users? Public transport is an issue that we have to deal with and there needs to be some solutions. Auckland is the prime example of where we need public transport solutions. The parties involved need to include the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to the effect that it does transport issues in Auckland. We need to include the bus companies which have a big role to play in the Auckland public transport network. We also need to include the Government because the Government of the day has an important role in providing the solutions. 
But we cannot allow the Government of the day to use legislation just to pay back its mates. We cannot allow the Government to use legislation in a way that does not achieve the purposes of public transport and this is what we are seeing from this Government today in this Chamber. Why does the Government need to do this legislation under urgency in the last weeks of a dying regime? That is the question the public will be asking. The public will want to know why this Government would not stick to its word and why it had to move away and do what it felt was expedient just to satisfy its supporters at the last moment before going into an election campaign. That I think is what members of the National Party were so aggrieved about in the select committee process. We went into it in good faith. We went in there looking for a solution that would solve public transport problems and help public transport users in Auckland and we looked for an objective solution that would be appropriate. We were encouraged to find that the parties had actually come to an agreement at some point in time and that Cabinet had actually supported and approved it. There was no approval subject to any political process. The Minister in charge of the bill Annette King is just making that up at this stage to try to get away with the fact that the Government changed its mind. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I will complete my comments with regard to how the Public Transport Management Bill actually got to where it is at. As this bill came back to the House and we then began the Committee stage the whole breach of process along the way has become clear. 
The Government puts great store on consulting. It had consulted widely and had got to an agreed position but the bill that is currently in the Committee is not anything like that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Quite wrong. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: The Government put it through Cabinet and the Cabinet minute shows the position that was agreed to. So when Annette King says “Quite wrong.” she should tell us why Cabinet made the agreements that it made. They were things that people could live with and that National would have voted for. There we are: National would have voted for the Labour Cabinet’s decisions. I make it clear in the Committee now that National would have voted for the Labour Cabinet’s decisions. 
Then it gets worse. We ended up with the bill going through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee where one submitter the Auckland Regional Transport Authority was furious in wanting option C. We did not get that through. The Labour members did not have enough of a majority for that and Peter Brown I think quite sensibly would not support option C so the Labour members did not get it. But in terms of the title before National hammers it home that we think this is the “Public Deception Bill” I ask the Minister this: who wrote these words? Who wrote these words in the explanatory note of the bill for its introduction: “Prohibiting all commercial services in a region would reduce opportunities for public transport operators to innovate and would reduce the control operators have over their businesses thus potentially undermining business confidence. For these reasons option C is not preferred.”? I can only assume the Minister wrote that. It is her bill. It is in her name and I can only assume that the Minister—because of the way that legislation goes—put that out. 
We can imagine how aggrieved the industry feels when it was consulted and was told that no the Government was going to go with option B. The industry saw the Cabinet green come out in February 2007 and it was in favour of option B—a one-to-one mapping of all of the issues in exactly the way the industry thought they should be addressed. When they saw the bill they found it had gone way beyond option B to “Option B on steroids”. They try to get that reined back. My amendments were as best I can tell—and if the Minister had ever wanted to she could have pointed out why this was not the case—my best attempt to try to bring the bill back to being a one-to-one alignment between a one-to-one isomorphic mapping of option B as agreed to by Cabinet and what the bill should have said. Labour voted down every one of those amendments so it clearly will not do what it had committed to the industry it would do and it will not deliver what the Bus and Coach Association (New Zealand) Inc. had thought it was going to get. Then it turns out that a grubby little deal had been done whereby the Greens put up Supplementary Order Paper 249 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons which was probably written out of the Minister’s office or with officials’ help to get it to where it is at and which brings back option C—absolutely in full force it brings back option C. 
If this is not the “Public Deception Bill”—and if that is not the title the bill should have—then I do not know what is. How can people have any confidence in the Government after consulting it getting to an agreed position seeing a Cabinet minute come out being told: “This is where we’re going.” and saying: “OK. Well we can live with that.” only to find out they are to get their throats cut by a deliberate deceptive process? It was a process whereby even one of the select committees of this Parliament after writing advice about something did not have that advice incorporated in the consideration of and deliberation on the bill by the relevant subject select committee. If that does not qualify the bill for being called the “Public Deception Bill of the Year” then I do not know what will. In fact it will go to the awards show next year as the greatest example of public deception. 
So I agree with my colleague Pansy Wong that the title Public Transport Management Bill is wrong and I say that people out there in the public transport sector will be very worried if this Government ever consults them again in the future. What was the point of doing that? What was the point of the consultation? If the Labour Government had wanted to do what Mike Lee and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority people wanted why did it not just go ahead and do that to start with? Why did the Government not actually cut out the middleman and the select committee—well it actually did that in the end because we did not even deliberate on or consider the stuff from the Regulations Review Committee—and just bring in option C bang it through under urgency on one day which is what we are doing to the bill now and say: “There you are. Forget democracy.”? At least that would have been an honest way of doing it. 
TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 47; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 248 in the name of the Hon Annette King to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to omit and substitute words in clause 2 is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee of the whole House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The bill is set down for third reading forthwith. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have the Order Paper from Wednesday 10 September. If there is a new Order Paper out I would like to see a copy of it. I have not seen it—it has not been made available to us—but there may be one. On the Order Paper I have after the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill there is the Public Transport Management Bill Committee stage only and then the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I do not know how members are supposed to function in a House with an Order Paper that is supposed to tell us what the order of legislation is but does not. The third reading of the Public Transport Management Bill is not listed on this Order Paper nor has there been an Order Paper printed for us to see a change. I would really like to know how that process works. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I realise the member is a relatively new member but the motion moved last night was for urgency to include the remaining stages of this bill. It is a motion that has been moved in that form in this Parliament I think one could say since time immemorial and it enables the House to move from the Committee stage to the third reading. That is the effect of urgency apart from extended sitting times. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Did you publish the urgency motion? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that Mr Williamson. That has been covered. 
Third Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Public Transport Management Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill enables regional councils to require improvements to New Zealand’s public transport system. Regional councils will be empowered to impose greater controls over commercial non-contracted public transport services. The bill also provides a mechanism enabling regional councils to require that some or all public transport services be provided under contract. 
This bill does not tell regional councils how to run their transport systems; it simply gives them the tools to run them as effectively as possible. Regional councils will be able to set longer notice periods for commercial public transport providers in commencing varying and withdrawing services. This will allow providers more time to respond to changes and ensure the continued delivery of services to communities. 
Regional councils will have greater access to information such as detailed patronage statistics. This will enable more effective planning of public transport and the development of regional public transport plans. Where this information is commercially sensitive strict requirements will be in place to govern its release. The bill will also give regional councils greater monitoring powers to ensure that commercial services are meeting controls. Regional councils will be able to set quality and performance standards enable the integration of services ticketing and fares and where justified require the bundling of services. To ensure that any controls set by regional councils are justified the bill also includes an oversight mechanism to allow existing commercial public transport operators the right to appeal to the Environment Court. The role and process for the development of regional public transport plans has been improved and clarified. The New Zealand Transport Agency will be producing guidelines to assist regional councils with the new requirements for regional public transport plans. The bill defines the transport disadvantaged outlines clearly accessibility standards that may benefit them and recognises that accessibility issues go beyond simply the ability to get on to a bus or ferry. 
Finally the bill enables regional councils to require that some or all public transport services must be provided as contracted services. Councils will be able to discontinue commercial services and operate what will be known as a contracting regime. It will be up to each region to decide whether it adopts a contracting regime and already in New Zealand we have a range of contracting options carried out by local authorities. For example in the Tauranga area where Peter Brown lives there is a fully contracted model which allows those regional councils to use whichever tool they would find best for their region after putting in place a plan and consulting to get the best possible deal for passengers. 
I have to say that missing in this debate from the National Party was any mention of passengers. The whole debate from that party was about bus operators and I think that that shows the difference between the members and parties who support this bill and those who oppose it. This debate is about getting the best deal we can with ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money for the passengers we want to see travelling on public transport. But what we heard from the National Party was a whole series of ideas—about the development of the bill deals made and a whole range of other fanciful things out of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—cobbled together as National’s approach to this bill. There was almost more voting on mindless meaningless amendments from Maurice Williamson than there was debate on the bill. The public of New Zealand sat through hours of mindless voting in this Parliament—to make two or three changes to the title of something—in an effort to delay a bill that will advantage passengers. 
I say four-squarely—and I place it on the Table today—that we stand for the passengers of the public transport service. I know that operators will be getting a good deal from this Government because in the whole time that Maurice Williamson was the Minister of Transport he spent the grand total of no more than $40 million a year on public transport. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Five years. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Over the 5 years or whatever it was that he was the Minister of Transport he could not get himself out of the groove of putting money into roads and ignoring passenger transport. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Say something nice! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will say something nice about Maurice Williamson—I certainly will. I think that he speaks the truth about the National Party’s transport policy and when he tried to he was hushed up. He was taken out of the job and Bill English took it over for a couple of weeks until the party could trust Maurice again. 
I say in conclusion that this bill will have a significant effect on operators who have existing commercial services discontinued. Regional councils are required to consider a number of factors when adopting a contracting regime. A lot of safeguards are built into this legislation but the bottom line is that it will be good for the travelling public of New Zealand who want to use public transport services.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Let me start from the very outset by assuring the Minister that the National Party does care about passengers and about a public transport system that works. That is why we made the offer we continued to make the offer and we would still be making the offer today if it were an option on the Table to vote for what the Government had originally decided to do. That is why. If we were opposed to it if we did not care about passengers or if we did not think anything needed to be done then we would not have been prepared even to support the option B that was canvassed consulted on and agreed to in the Cabinet minute of February 2007. 
Let us make that clear to the Minister straight away: National thinks that some improvements to the public transport regime were needed. We think that the consultation was a meaningful process we think that the original decisions the Cabinet of this Government came to were the right ones and we tried as hard as we could through the process not to make “mindless” and “meaningless” amendments to the legislation. 
The Minister never once took up my challenge—never once took up my challenge—during the Committee stage to show where any one of the amendments I had proposed was not in line with the originally agreed option B. If the amendments had not been in line with that option and if they had been just frivolous or vexatious then the Minister could have said that National was just time-wasting. But every one of those amendments was intended to try to bring this bill back into line. However we were attacked and accused. I think the Minister said that we did not care about integrated fares and integrated ticketing. Well my typewritten amendments are quite clear. There is a whole range of amendments about how important integrated fares and integrated ticketing are and because they were to be a complete mirror-mapping of option B they would have allowed for that process to occur. 
Actually I am interested to know why the Minister thinks we need legislation; integrated fares and integrated ticketing are happening around the country already in some jurisdictions. If we go to Christchurch we see that a phenomenal operating system is going on down there already. But I think that says more about the local authorities in Christchurch and their bus companies and their cooperative spirit than it does about those in Auckland which do not seem even to agree on which side of the road buses should drive on. I have seen them drive on both the left and the right. So for that reason I do agree that legislation was required. 
When the bill first reached the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I sat down and had a quick read of it. I read the explanatory note. I was delighted to read in the explanatory note after the bill’s introduction to find that the Minister had completely ruled out option C. She stated in the explanatory note: “For this reason the Government rejects it.” and I thought that that was good because it went too far. Option C will give unbelievably unfettered powers to the contracting authority on an almost “take it or leave it” basis—“Do what we say or you do not get.” 
I say that in any contract negotiation he who pays the piper calls the tune. When it comes to contract negotiations the regional council will have the money so it will be able to be very forceful in terms of what it lays out as its specification for its contract. When it does a request for a proposal for contracting for services it will be able to be very specific about what it is seeking. The bus companies will have to say either that it is too tough or that they do not think it is fair but in the end if they want the council’s money—because that is how the contract works—they will have to comply with what it is putting out in a contract. I think that is an absolutely fair basis for it and that is what option B would have been. 
But now the regional council will have the power to drag all the commercial services in here as well and maybe even take away an property right that a private sector operator may have built up over decades. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Only one decade—this one. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well Howick and Eastern Buses is a company in my electorate that was started by the Dalbeth family. They built up a phenomenally good and well-patronised local bus company. It is just not fair to say to those people: “Yes you have spent years putting your sweat and toil into building a bus company but we will now not only come in with a contract but also we feel we have absolutely every right to demand what you want.” 
Again if a person was contracting for someone to build his or her house that person would lay out the specifications tell the architect and the builder what he or she wanted and negotiate what that price would be. But that person would not have the right to say: “Well I will also have a say over somebody else’s house down the road and tell that person what colour it will be and how big the bathroom will be.” One would not have the right to do that but option C will give regional councils that total power to come in across the top of the contracted services quite properly and to bring in the commercial operators which is not quite proper and say: “Take it or leave it. We do not care how much sweat and toil you have put in and how much property right you have built up in your business. We will do it.” 
If I am wrong then the Government would not have gone with option B at Cabinet it would not have gone with option B-plus when the legislation was brought in and it would not have put in an explanatory note stating: “For these reasons we reject ‘Option C’.” So when the next Labour speaker gets up and says that Maurice Williamson is wrong I want the listening audience—which I have been informed is quite small; in fact it could be named so I will say to John Peter and Mary the three of them who are listening— 
Hon Annette King 
: Peter Paul and Mary. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I think Peter Paul and Mary are the three people listening out there. I say to those three listeners that if the Government was serious about what it was saying at the beginning then the legislation would have reflected the consultation and reflected the agreed position. In that case we would have been debating this third reading 2 or 3 days ago because National would have given this bill its full support and we would not have taken as much time as we have done. We would have agreed to put option B through in the legislation and everybody could have lived with it. The regional councils would have had some real power but they would not have had absolute power and they would not have been able to abuse the power that would allow them to be in a position where they could say “take it or leave it.” 
This is driven by an ideology. The chairman of the Auckland Regional Council Mike Lee is clearly of a mind that it would be far better if the regional council actually owned the buses again. He is from the left he openly admits to being from the left and that is where he comes from. He thinks that Auckland would have a way better bus service if the regional council could own the buses again. 
I did a survey in this House and I need to report it to you Madam Assistant Speaker because I am not sure that you were present. It was a very very good survey. I asked the House—a number of members were present on that night including the Greens; I think Metiria Turei was here to witness it—how many people thought that Auckland had a good bus service when the Auckland Regional Transport Authority owned and operated it. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Lots of people. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Mark Gosche has just changed the vote. We had nobody saying that the other night but now I think he has said that lots of people did. This is excellent! When the Auckland Regional Transport Authority owned it it was the most despicable dreadful operation going. That is what there was and Mike Lee would love to go back. He was unable to convince the Government this time although now that it has bought back Air New Zealand and KiwiRail who knows? Maybe the bus companies are next on the agenda to be bought back and nationalised. 
Pansy Wong 
: And supermarkets. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes we will be having the Labour Government supermarket chain next. 
Mike Lee was not able to convince the Government to buy back the buses this time but he got the very next best option. He has now got the total and absolute control through this bill to say: “Not only do we have the right to negotiate for the bits that we want to buy from you”—and quite properly so—“but also we will take total control of your operation and we will actually force you into obeying our rules to the point of even taking away from you some commercial services that you may have built up.” 
I think the Minister’s words in the explanatory note of the bill were absolutely right. Annette King got it absolutely spot on: “For these reasons the Government rejects ‘Option C’.” What have we gone and done now? We have gone in through a grubby little set of arrangements around the traps whereby the select committee did not even get to have all the evidence considered and brought into the bill and then some Supplementary Order Papers were drafted and put in at the last minute by Labour to outflank its coalition partner New Zealand First. 
New Zealand First did the right thing. Peter Brown sat and listened to the evidence. He listened clearly and decided he would not support option C. I understand from everything I have heard that Peter Brown went out and talked to lots and lots of people in the industry—to lots of the players including the Bus and Coach Association—and came to right position. That cannot have been an easy thing for Peter Brown to decide especially at this time with all of the other bits and pieces that are going on with his party. But he did the right thing. 
Peter Brown must feel a bit gutted about this. He did the right thing. The select committee would not vote for option C—it was voted down. I found it interesting that the Labour members on the select committee put in a minority report in the select committee’s report. 
For those reasons I say that National does care about public transport. We do care about passengers. We would have supported option B and I say today that we would still support it. If members want to put forward option B now then we will vote sit down and shut up and it will be all over. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 This is a very pleasurable day for Labour politicians and for other politicians who are here to pass public transport legislation that will improve the public transport system in leaps and bounds. We have seen over the last 20 years—since I think 1989 when the legislation that the Public Transport Management Bill replaces was first bought in—a very rapid decline in public transport use largely driven by the fact that the National Party froze the public transport subsidies for 5 years at around $50 million. In Auckland that was $18 million. Ordinary people trying to get to work in Auckland were forced into cars because there was no decent public transport system the trains were dilapidated and ready for the museum or the scrapyard and buses were not purchased by bus companies in the private sector because there was no incentive to do so. It was a recipe for disaster that would require any future Government to spend billions of dollars building more and more roads because there was no alternative. 
Driving around Auckland as I do regularly I have seen a dramatic reduction in the congestion that Auckland has suffered for a very long time. There are two good reasons for that. One is that people are deciding not to drive cars as much because of the price of fuel and the other is that there is an alternative and it is called public transport. That public transport system may be groaning at the moment but it would have been completely lost if we had had a National Government for the last 9 years. The reason it has been able to improve is that we have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into it. But the accountability for that spend is not there the ability to plan better is not there and the ability for the regional council and the local authorities to work with the private sector in a fair manner is not there. That is why we have this legislation. 
Members on the Labour side of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee listened to the submissions heard what people had to say and promoted the idea of improving the legislation by adding option C. Why did we do that? Well we did not just listen to the bus companies who have an enormous vested interest in seeing the taxpayer and the ratepayer pour more and more millions of dollars into public transport without necessarily getting the results. The results are now starting to actually plateau because more and more money alone will not fix the problem. We need planning. 
The select committee had an excellent submission from a representative of the consumers. He happened to be I think the Auckland Green Party representative. He came along to the select committee and those who listened to him were just blown away. He lives in the central city somewhere around Herne Bay or Ponsonby and he goes to work in Manukau City by public transport. It takes him 2 to 2½ hours to do that by bus and train. Is it connected so that the buses that he gets from Ponsonby into the city and then to the train station and then from the train station in Papatoetoe out to Manukau are all linked up so that they meet at the same time? Can he use the same ticket? Can he guarantee himself that the fare will be cheap because he uses the same integrated ticket? Not on your life! It is a shambles. He came along and showed us the shambles that is Auckland’s public transport system which cannot be put straight without this bill being passed. It was an embarrassment. It was crazy—he would get off the bus one stop before the train station in Papatoetoe because the fares actually went up if he stayed on the bus until the last stop. They did not even coordinate the fare system. He could not get off at the train station without having to pay the next full fare as if he had travelled the next section. What a ludicrous situation! 
The private sector says that that situation should be left as it is and that nobody who pays the bills should be allowed to tell them what to do. Well hang on. Where does that happen in the world? Sixty to 80 percent of the revenue for those bus companies comes from the ratepayer and the taxpayer. The National Party says we should leave it that way we should not give them any controls and we should not allow them to see the books and see how the money is spent and see whether they are getting results. Oh no! The National Party says we should leave it to the market. That is what the National Party says. It put up some pathetic Supplementary Order Papers written by the bus companies—that is how they do policy work over there. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune—I heard Maurice Williamson say that. That is what happens with the National Party’s policy—whoever pays the piper gets to call the tune. For the National Party it is about putting up the industry’s submissions in this House as Supplementary Order Papers. That is how it works over there. It does not work that way over here. The other interesting fact is that every regional council—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Excuse me. Can we just have one person speaking instead of an argument across the Chamber? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Every regional council of substance in this country that runs subsidised public transport systems supports this bill and the addition of option C. The select committee got letters from the regional council here in Wellington from Christchurch and from Auckland and they said that they support the fact that an option should be added and a region should get the choice of having option C. 
I have to say that Mike Lee does not control the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The people who sit on that board are appointed by all of the territorial local authorities. Last time I looked John Banks was not a left-wing politician. I actually like John—I think he has a good heart—but I would not describe him as a left-wing politician. He is one of the people who appoints the Auckland Regional Transport Authority board so is Bob Harvey so is Len Brown and so is the Mayor of North Shore. They appoint the board for their commercial nous. I am sure many of those people on the board do not vote for me or for the Labour Party because they are there not for their politics but for their commercial nous. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority has said that it needs this to fix up the problems if it is to go forward and continue to improve public transport. 
The Auckland Regional Council is very busy at the moment—not purchasing buses but purchasing trains to replace the clapped out rubbish that was left to us by the private sector which did not invest a single cent in a new train in this country in all the time they owned them. Everybody in Auckland knows that. If Maurice Williamson has this fantasy that the Auckland Regional Council has a secret plot to go out and buy buses I tell him that I think it has its hands full at the moment trying to get the trains to replace the private sector rubbish that was left behind. So we will see improvements in public transport in Auckland and we will see improvements coming because the private sector and the public sector will work together. That is the sort of thing we hear over there. We heard from private bus companies that asked to be given option C because it was good for business. They said it was good for business to have contracts that they could go to their bankers with and say: “Look we’ve got a guaranteed revenue stream we’ve got a long-term contract and we want to improve the bus fleet. We can now borrow money.” That is what will happen. 
In terms of the pathetic excuses the National Party used about the process I will say that the letter from the Regulations Review Committee—which I am happy to table if need be although it is a public document now—was followed absolutely. We changed the Public Transport Management Bill according to the requests of the Regulations Review Committee. It was not a big fuss. It was an annoying problem that the letter got lost but the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee met again and we sought to do a special report to the House. That report would have said that we agreed with the Regulations Review Committee and we had changed the bill accordingly but the National Party denied leave for that to happen so it has been done by the Minister of Transport after we wrote to her as a committee and asked her to do it. There was no fuss no bother. It was not big stuff; it was just sensible regulations review changes that were passed in this legislation by way of amendment. 
I am enormously proud of this legislation. As an Aucklander and as somebody who grew up catching the train and the buses and as someone who is now representing working people who need to do that every day of the week I am very proud that in the last few days I will be able to speak in this House as an MP this bill will be passed as amended. I know it will make an enormous difference to everyday New Zealanders’ lives. They want a public transport system that is reliable and they will have that through a cooperative relationship between the private sector and the public sector. I trust regional councils because regional councils are elected by the people. No bus companies were elected by the people to administer the $900 million of public funds that we put into public transport in this country compared with the $50 million that the National Party used to put in. No we actually care about public transport. This bill will deliver a very good result for the public. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 What a good sentence that Labour member the Hon Mark Gosche ended on! He said his speech was one of his last in Parliament. The Labour Government is going to have its biggest electoral defeat because it holds the New Zealand people in contempt. It rushes through the House the Public Transport Management Bill and it introduces last-minute changes that Cabinet itself rejected. 
Let me remind listeners—who have now increased to five because Maurice Williamson’s spouse and mine have joined the three other people who are probably listening to this debate—that we have just heard a very confused speech from the Hon Mark Gosche. On the one hand he gave praise and said he was enjoying the fact that people in Auckland were using public transport services. He was enjoying the fact that public transport services are available right now. So I ask him why the Government introduced this legislation. Then he told us the reason. It was because one Green Party member came before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee; suddenly a bill had to be passed to enable the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and the Auckland Regional Council to plan the whole public transport service around one Green Party member’s needs. That is a mightily expensive exercise. 
I hope the next Labour speaker will explain to us why if things are so bad it has taken the Government so long to do something. Why does it take 9 long years before this Labour Government in its dying days rushes this legislation through the House? I have some bad news for the Hon Mark Gosche. My parliamentary secretary used to use the train to come to work in Wellington but the number of fare increases has driven her back to using her car. Using the train has simply become too expensive. So although the member is trying to defend the Labour Government’s record on public transport it simply does not stack up. 
In relation to the talk about an integrated ticketing system Wellingtonians are talking about their new Snapper system. Christchurch has already implemented it. It makes one wonder why legislation needs to be rushed through the House under urgency just to enable an integrated ticketing system to be adopted in Auckland. I understand that Auckland is making very good progress on it anyway. 
It was really interesting to hear the Hon Mark Gosche say that he rejected the view that it was a case of “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” I thought that was so true coming from a Labour member because in the last few days weeks and months we have heard about poor Owen Glenn who donated half a million dollars to Labour and who certainly did not get his money’s worth. He was betrayed and attacked. I do not know what dogs have been let off in order to get him. 
The passage of this legislation under urgency is a total outrage. It was introduced into Parliament under a disguise. People understood that this legislation would give the regional councils and authorities that control the funding of public services for which a subsidy is required more power to ask for information etc. The Government left those people in no doubt by stating in the explanatory note of the legislation that it would not go all the way and adopt option C which would empower the regional councils and authorities to prohibit commercial services. Throughout the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearings every submitter who appeared before the committee had the understanding that he or she was making submissions on a bill that would adopt option B which would give more power to the planning authority and the funding authority but would not go the whole way and allow those authorities to prohibit commercial operators. 
But then the chairman of the select committee Mark Gosche tried to twist the arms of the committee members. Even though the Labour Cabinet had rejected going all the way and adopting option C because according to Cabinet it would undermine business confidence and would stifle the introduction of innovative measures the chairman wanted the select committee to adopt option C. The select committee members questioned the officials. We said that surely it was outside the scope of the legislation to introduce such a major amendment. The chairman quickly put that concern to rest: he said that the Minister of Transport had agreed to it. She could not get that option through the Labour Cabinet so she tried to bully the select committee into adopting it. Even the New Zealand First members could see the nonsense of our changing the legislation in the last minute with such a dramatic switch of direction and they rejected it. 
The select committee members also questioned the officials as to whether it was viable and practical for them to rewrite the legislation to introduce option C. We could tell by their reaction that it was not possible for them to make sure that it would be good legislation and that there would not be implementation problems caused by such a major change being rushed through. 
I think that by the end of the select committee process all the submitters understood that option B was no longer the original option B; additional controls had been introduced. But they decided to accept it as it was. One can imagine one’s shock when as the bill was going through the Committee of the whole House a major Supplementary Order Paper was introduced by the Green Party. Owen Glenn has told us that he understands that New Zealand First has control and influence over Labour because Labour needs its support to pass legislation. But now Labour has looked past New Zealand First to the Greens. Supplementary Order Paper 249 was introduced and the Minister would not take a call during the Committee stage to reassure us as to how a small party could accomplish the task of introducing such a major Supplementary Order Paper with the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed when the officials had expressed to the select committee the difficulty in introducing last-minute major changes. 
This legislation will come back to the House. Lawyers will be lining up—they will be laughing all the way to the bank—because of the loopholes and technical problems in it. The select committee and the officials were never given a chance to comment on the huge change in direction. The Labour Government and the Greens hold the New Zealand public in contempt and they will learn the result of their holding the New Zealand people in contempt. The people do not appreciate the Government promising something then changing the whole direction during a parliamentary process without public consultation. Labour went against its own Cabinet decision and it deserves to have a huge defeat at the ballot box. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 During the term of this Parliament New Zealand First when it comes to transport has had a very good working relationship with the Minister of Transport and the two Associate Ministers. I would say that it has been a first-class relationship when it has related to our working together but on this issue we disagree. On this issue New Zealand First takes a different view from the Government. I will explain why. The Public Transport Management Bill is really attempting to address an Auckland issue. Everywhere else in the country public transport when it comes to buses is working if not very well— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Adequately. 
PETER BROWN 
: —adequately well. It does not need a great deal of legislation to improve it. It is true that in many places public transport is operating under a full contract model and the Minister acknowledged that that is the case in Tauranga. In Wellington public transport is largely contracted but it is still working very well. In Christchurch and I think in Queenstown it is a mix of contract and commercial operations and it is working very well. 
When this bill came before the House in its initial instance it looked a very simple straightforward bill. There were three options. Option A was the status quo and I think that most people although we recognise the issue principally as an Auckland issue or almost totally an Auckland issue recognise that the status quo was not working in Auckland. Option B seemed to be the favoured option because option C was ruled out in the explanatory note of the initial bill—and quite firmly. It was not just that it would not be considered by the Government; there were good reasons why it had not been considered. So it came down to a bill that I at least thought revolved around just option B as proposed in the bill. But when the submitters particularly the bus company submitters came to us they told us a different story. They told us that another option B had been agreed to between officials and bus companies and that it had gone to Cabinet and been signed off. That was the understanding I at least had and I believed that the option B in the bill was a modified version of the option B that had been agreed on. 
New Zealand First understands the concerns of the bus companies. We believe that bus companies have a role to play. They look after the passengers they carry the passengers and it is up to them to provide the services. So we believe they have a positive role to play and it should not be a role that puts them into some sort of subservient position where they are told: “You will do this or else.” New Zealand First does not agree with that attitude. Although some of the bus companies—the minor companies I have to say—agreed with option C the big players which carry thousands of people were committed to the option B version that had been agreed to before the bill came into being. 
I have to say that when those bus companies’ representatives came before the select committee I had never seen such enthusiasm such determination and such desire to provide a service. It sort of sprang out at us; they were passionate about their cause. They were not doing it just for the money. I cannot believe for one moment they want to run empty buses around the town just to collect the subsidy; they want to provide a service. They told us that in Wellington they had taken chances by putting on services at a financial loss and over a period of time they had built up the services they referred to and made them profitable—but only just. Enthusiasm determination and competence are needed to run a bus company and people who know how it all works and ticks together are needed. Equally innovation and investment are needed. But we all know that this regime—even though the Minister has said “Oh well it will be optional as to whether Auckland people introduce it or not.”—will come to pass and that is why the lobbying has been so extensive. If we bring in a regime that says: “You will do exactly what I want because I know better even though you are running the bus company.” there is a real chance of dampening that enthusiasm and of dampening that investment and innovation. In other words there is a good chance that a second-rate service will be imposed on the Auckland public whereas if we encourage people to do their thing—what they are fully aware of and know the facts and figures for—the chances are we will get a far better service because they are in there to service passengers. 
In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I listened intently to the bus companies’ representatives and I spoke to them privately—as the Hon Maurice Williamson referred to—before New Zealand First made a decision whether to support or oppose the bill. We certainly thought the bus companies had a case worth supporting. There are five categories of bus service. Earlier on in the House I said there were four but the Hon Maurice Williamson has added the fifth and that one is very important. To run an efficient bus service the service has to be reliable convenient comfortable and affordable and as the Hon Maurice Williamson reminded me it has to be safe. I had taken that as read. So there are five attributes— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You haven’t ridden in buses in Auckland then? 
PETER BROWN 
: Clearly I have not for some time. Those guys know what they have to do to deliver an efficient bus service. New Zealand First says they should have been given their chance with the introduction of option B—as agreed behind the scenes—before the bill arrived in the House for its first reading. 
What disturbs me—and I will not talk too much about it because it has been well canvassed—is the regulation review issue. The issue came up in the select committee but a certain letter did not get to that committee. We addressed the issue as speedily and efficiently as we could and I believed that the issue had been taken care of. But I have since found out that the Ministry of Transport engaged an independent consultant who consulted the Auckland Regional Transport Authority did a financial analysis and then wrote a report to the ministry. But the report did not come to the select committee and the bus companies were not consulted on the report. 
I have a copy of the letter written to the Minister by the Bus and Coach Association and it is quite worrying. Obviously I cannot read all of it out. It was copied to me in my role as transport spokesperson for New Zealand First—if you like a support party for the Government. I will read out a segment of the letter to the House because it is worrying: “Our concern regarding the MOT report—the financial analysis and the disregard for due process—raises serious issues about equity and objectivity. The main points are summarised below:” I will read out two of them: “The data provided for the analysis came from ARTA without reference to the industry when ARTA has a vested interest in the findings of the financial analysis.” That concerns me immensely. The letter goes on to say: “The analysis is based on a bus scheduling exercise conducted by ARTA officers using a selected sample of commercial registrations and associated contracted services where ARTA assessed the relative efficiency of operating these services on an all-contracted or mixed commercial/contracted basis. These results were then provided to MOT without any reference to the bus industry.” I will stop there on the letter. 
I say that that analysis should have gone to the select committee. It is not good enough for that committee to make a decision to send the bill back to the House and for us to have the Greens produce a Supplementary Order Paper to bring the bill back to option C which was never agreed to by anybody in the first place. New Zealand First opposes this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I will start the Greens’ contribution to the third reading of the Public Transport Management Bill by giving some thanks particularly to the MMP parties—to the Maori Party to ACT to Jim Anderton’s Progressive party to Taito Phillip Field and indeed to the Labour Party for supporting the Greens’ option C proposals which were debated in the Committee last night. It is important for the public to note that these are the kinds of times when MMP truly delivers its benefits for the public of New Zealand. What we have done with this collective of parties in Parliament has been to make sure that there is a real constructive option for councils when dealing with the public transport needs that are so clear in their cities and in Auckland in particular. 
Probably I ought to give some thanks to National members too for spending all of their time in the debate on the bill in this House on giving the Greens the credit for option C. Of course we are most happy to accept credit for option C because it is in fact the best outcome for the community and for public transport. At times and at this time in particular when our most vulnerable communities are suffering from the rising cost of food and fuel prices alternatives must be made available to them so that they can get out and do their daily business in an easy financially useful accessible and cheap way. Option C and this bill will provide that option for our communities. We are absolutely proud that option C has been supported by Parliament. 
Option C was supported by all of the Auckland councils by all but one regional council and by those operators in the public transport arena who were unable to break through the legacy of incumbency and monopolistic behaviour established by the previous National Government’s policies on public transport which were developed in earlier times. Those policies essentially entrenched the capacity for commercial operators to continue to lock out other operators from the public transport sector. We are very pleased to be able to break the monopolistic policy that was proposed and supported by National many years ago and to be able to reform and transform our public transport system into one that truly works for the community as a whole. 
I think that enough has been said on this bill and that that is all that needs to be said. We are very pleased that it is passing into law. We are very pleased to have delivered this outcome for the community of Auckland in particular and also for other communities around the country. I am pleased to see this bill passing into law. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker tena tatou katoa e huihui mai nei i tenei rangi. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Assistant Speaker and to us all gathered here today 
.] 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: This’ll be interesting. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: This will be interesting. Ten days ago a cloud descended over Wellington. Well to be more precise tension spread through the Metlink buses trains and ferries as commuters came to grips with a price increase of between 50c and $1 per trip. To compound the situation the extra costs come from paying for the privilege of jostling for a seat and fighting for space with only the ticket collector game enough to run the gauntlet between the crowded crush of the commuter traffic. The one consolation for the passengers was that at least they were not in Auckland— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: This is more a novel than a speech. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: —it is—for those who live north of the Bombay Hills like I do are now rushing to grab that bus or train in far greater numbers than ever before. Patronage of the Infratil buses for instance has increased by about 7 percent in the last year. In real terms that is an extra 6000 trips. We celebrate this congestion as a marker of the further development of public transport systems and initiatives to reduce road traffic. It is a tangible measurement of the way in which we are lessening the nation’s dependency on oil and reducing carbon emissions. It gives us hope that we as a nation are making humble efforts to address the peak oil and global warming crises. 
But there is little to celebrate if we as a Parliament are not doing what we can to make life easier for those choosing the option of public transport. We must make it a credible option. We must make public transport fulfil the expectations of people that it will respond to their needs in terms of frequency and capacity and in terms of public transport services. I remember 5 years ago in June 2003 when the Britomart transport centre was officially opened Ngati Whatua o Orakei officiated with the kaumatua TakutaiWikiriwhi blessing the site and the station platforms and we had a dawn service. The first train arrived at 5.40 a.m. on 23 June and from what I have been told it commemorated the historic moment 73 years earlier when the first scheduled train set off from downtown Auckland. As the train arrived a large crowd gathered and a lone piper released the call. As passengers disembarked the kapahaka group of Te Puru o Tamaki and Ngati Whatua let forth a haka and a waiata to truly herald the moment. 
Some of the less informed among us may ask why we would have a dawn ceremony for a train. I say: “Why not?”. It is entirely appropriate to clear the way and to embrace the new dawn that we envisaged would come from the opportunities that come with more comprehensive public transport. For many of our whanau before they embark on a journey they have karakia to ensure safe travels ahead. In much the same way opening Britomart at dawn—te ata tu—is imbuing the provision of public transport with that same significance. It is about ensuring that the population is safe protected and able to travel well. 
This bill continues that goal. The bill will enable regional councils to adopt controls on commercial public transport services in order to implement any policies that can meet the unique needs of their region. Although we would assume that the regional public transport plans would take into account issues of vehicle quality and service reliability and the provision of integrated systems such as ticketing and fares we would also expect them to consider special provisions for the people they service—provisions that will enable them to respond sensitively and appropriately towards passengers who are elderly disabled children and all groups that may require special service. 
The aim of this bill is also to help regions obtain the best value for money in public transport. Although it makes particular mention of the impact of competition for commercial operators we would hope that the balance weighs in favour of efficient and effective services for customers. Attracting and retaining new passengers is a challenge that regional public transport services must turn their minds to. There is no point in having a competitive and efficient market in place if value for money is compromised or if services are congested slow and unreliable. This bill will enable regional councils to decline registration of a commercial service if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the service will not meet the controls specified in the regional public transport plan. The bill will also force services to deregister for non-compliance. These are all positive initiatives that are about improving the quality of existing public transport services. We have heard speakers in the House describe how Aucklanders were forced into cars and it is that culture we are trying to break in order to put people back on public transport. But in the space in the market that appears from the deregistration of non-compliant providers we would expect other initiatives and other alternatives to be introduced which will fill the gap. 
Many members will be familiar with the overhead call that echoes through the station platforms in the London Underground: “Mind the gap”. It has in fact become so popular that Transport for London even sells T-shirts with the branding: “Mind the Gap” to remind passengers of the dangerous gap between the train door and the station platform. This bill must also mind the gap. We in Parliament must mind the difference between what is real and what is not real. We must look beyond the limitations of what currently constitutes our public transport system and think creatively around ways of achieving an integrated safe and sustainable public transport system that will make immediate progress in lessening our dependence on oil. We must do everything we can to mind the gap between public perceptions of the problems of public transport and making it a viable option. 
The Sustainable Energy Forum has recommended that one possible positive intervention the Government could take up would be to increase present subsidies for public transport even to the point of making public transport free. We believe that this option should be investigated further. It may well be useful in considering this further to apply an analysis based on the genuine progress in the next genuine progress index. In such an analysis we would envisage that the whole-of-economy costs would be weighed. The health and environmental costs of allowing private transport to continue unabated must be recognised as a significant constraint. 
The unequivocal truth is that New Zealanders are almost totally oil dependent for transport. We cannot delay action in terms of the developing public transport options. The ability to register services commercially provides opportunities for operators to establish innovative public transport services that would not otherwise be provided. We encourage all those in the transport sector to take risks to be bold and to stretch our thinking in terms of achieving an integrated safe responsive and sustainable public transport system. Opting to explore the electrification of public transport or rationing schemes to respond to short-term fuel projects might be other projects that are worthy of further review. We need to prioritise urban design around walking and biking and this is just the start. 
I believe that what happened at Britomart 5 years ago was right. We are at the dawning of a new era and we must engage all our energies into planning for our future. The Maori Party supports this bill. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank the member from the Maori Party for that last contribution on the Public Transport Management Bill but I think that when people look at public transport they need to look at the reality of the situation we have in New Zealand and the reality of what will happen in the future in transport. Public transport is often seen as having a clean green image and as providing us with the best mechanism to transport people in an environment that is dependent on oil. There is a big news flash for those political parties that believe that and it is that in 5 or 10 years’ time we will not be dependent on oil. The technology is there now. It is just a matter of making it commercially available and that will happen in a very short period of time. The world is moving away from oil and that movement is accelerated by the problems in accessing oil from the Middle East and also by the cost of that product relative to the new technology. 
It will be only a matter of time before people will be looking at roads and cars as providing the most green efficient form of transport we can have because public transport will still be very highly dependent in a lot of cases on fossil fuels. Some public transport will also run on electricity but that public transport will probably be more expensive to run than smaller cars that are run on electricity. So when we look at the public transport debate we see that people need to be realistic about future transport options and that the future is in electric vehicles—especially electric cars which are not far away at all. 
The debate that centres on public transport as offering some kind of universal panacea that will provide our transport solutions in a clean green way is incorrect. The reality is that modern transport mechanisms and scientific advancements will mean that we will see some of the traditional forms of transport actually become the clean green method of transport. I think the public need to be aware of that in this debate because it is something that is lost out there in the community. We have the notion that public transport is the only answer. Well it is not the answer. The answer will come from technology and the technology is here. The commercialisation of that technology is probably a couple of years away but it will happen in a very quick period of time. 
So when we look at this legislation it is important for us to remember that public transport will probably have its biggest effect by reducing congestion in places where there is large-scale transport of people or products. Public transport works best where there are concentrations of people and it will be relied on to move people in a quick and an efficient manner in places where possibly people could not do that through their own ability. When we look for situations like that we see there are probably only a few places in New Zealand where that applies on a population density basis. 
One of those places is Wellington which is served by a very efficient public transport system that has been there for a number of years. Auckland also has a public transport system and as the city develops it is turning into much more of a consolidated urban environment with bigger population densities around the central city and therefore more need for public transport in the central city area unlike the spreading city that we have had in past generations. So we do have a public transport issue in Auckland and it needs to be addressed. Auckland has our biggest population concentration and it will get bigger. There will be issues about congestion and about moving the people of that city around. 
But the bill before us today is not the answer on those issues. The answer is to get a common solution that the parties involved in public transport agree upon. We had an answer like that. The bus companies public transport users Government and regional government came together and came to a concise solution that was workable for all parties. They agreed upon it and expected that agreement to be implemented through legislation passed in this House. But what do we have here? We do not have that agreement. We have a Government-mandated change that the Government believes is a better solution than the one agreed upon by the parties involved. 
The Minister said there was no agreement—that we agreed in principle only—and that through the political process things can change. That is not good enough. What gives the people in this room the ability to change what the professionals the people who know about the business of servicing Auckland’s transport needs have agreed upon? What gives the Government of the day the ability to know better than Aucklanders what they need for their public transport solutions and to know its solution is better than what they have decided on? There is no reason for that. Nobody in this room has the ability to make a better decision than the people of Auckland can make. The people of Auckland made a call and we should have supported that call. We should not be in this room changing it on a whim to something that we think is better. That is what is happening through this legislation because option C is not what the parties agreed upon. 
The Government of the day believes option C is the best solution. It is engaged in making a decision on an ideological basis. It has come to the conclusion that it knows better than the people involved in the industry and it is providing what it thinks is the best solution to this issue. That is simply not good enough. It simply will not work. Adopting option C means that some of the other players in the industry namely the bus companies which New Zealand First has been very staunch to support in recent months will turn. They will say option C will stifle private sector involvement in Auckland transport issues. This bill will stifle innovation. It will stifle any investment that the private sector may have wished to make into addressing Auckland’s public transport issues. 
What will we be left with? We will be left with the Government having made a decision on the basis of what it thinks is best and with a solution that does not involve one of the key components in any viable solution to Auckland public transport issues: the private sector bus companies which have a vital role to play. Theirs is not the only role to be played but it is a vital one. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority also has a vital role to play. It should be encouraged and helped in its process as well. But there needs to be a consensus agreement whereby the two parties through the Government can come together and arrive at a workable solution. This bill does not contain that workable solution. The Government has a mandate to implement what it thinks is best for the people of Auckland but this bill is not what is best for the people of Auckland because it cuts out one of the big players in the process. This decision will come back and bite the Government in a very short period of time because the other player the private sector bus companies will not want this legislation to go through. The companies will see it as being detrimental to their ability to serve Auckland City’s public transport needs. 
That problem now lies with the Government. By making this decision the Government is effectively saying it will take control of public transport in Auckland. If the Government is to take control of public transport in Auckland in that way then it has to fund it. The Government has not put up the money it has not put in the innovation and it does not have the ability to do that. The Government will find that it has lost the opportunity to work with the private sector and has missed out on the innovation and increase in service that the Auckland users of public transport will demand. 
So when we look at this legislation it is important for us to note that we need to have a strong public transport sector and that that may be for reasons other than those that political parties in this House currently see as underlying public transport requirements. Those reasons may be based more on issues of congestion and city development rather than on the use of fossil fuels. But there is a need for a consensus approach when coming to these solutions. We were very fortunate to have reached a consensus in the agreement that went to Cabinet but we are not fulfilling that agreement through this legislation. The Government has got itself into a dilemma now by changing its mind after it had an agreement and not fulfilling the requirements of that agreement. The ultimate losers from that will be public transport users in Auckland. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate on the Public Transport Management Bill. I might perhaps be the last speaker I suspect but I say to the previous speaker David Bennett that in all the years I have been in this Parliament I have seen a number of interesting things in terms of transport legislation. The member can look to his colleague on the front bench the Hon Maurice Williamson who was wise enough—and it is rare that I pay this tribute to him—to have listened very carefully to the submissions made in a select committee some years ago on the issue of cockpit voice recorders. The Government put up legislation at the time that intended one particular aspect in regard to prosecutions and using that information. Following the hearing of strenuous submissions not from everybody but from some that said: “We think you’ve got this spectacularly wrong and you need to rethink.” Maurice was strong enough brave enough and wise enough to listen to those submissions and to go against what Cabinet had decided. The wisdom in that case was not with Cabinet; the wisdom was with the submitters. We face the same situation today and far from it being from one particular aspect several submitters supported option C. 
I find it quite unusual to be speaking against my friend and colleague Peter Brown from New Zealand First because he and I usually substantially agree on transport matters. But in this particular case I think New Zealand First has got it wrong. A number of submitters very strongly supported option C which was the decision of the select committee. And these supporters are not minnows. They include the Auckland Regional Transport Authority the Auckland Regional Council four Auckland territorial authorities Local Government New Zealand Auckland Sustainable Transport and three public transport operators—one of which includes Veolia Transport Auckland—which run all the suburban rail transport in Auckland. These folk were not about saying: “Hey look—our narrow commercial interests.”; they were saying: “For the greater good of the area.” which is precisely what the previous speaker was talking about. 
What a pity that the wisdom of Sir Dove-Myer Robinson many years ago was not actually more widely accepted. He proposed to greatly expand the public transport network not because of fuel costs at the time but because of the development of the city. Thank goodness an earlier person with a Dutch name in this Parliament—a guy called Julius Vogel—had the wisdom to go against popular sentiment at the time— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: And commercial. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: —and commercial sentiment and actually develop New Zealand by putting in place strong transport networks and this Government has done exactly the same. This Labour-led Government is committed to providing high-quality public transport systems throughout the country because we believe that improved public transport is not only vital to achieve our goal of sustainability but vital in the interests of our communities. This bill will improve the tools available to local authorities for providing public transport services to a set standard. 
As I mentioned in my speech in an earlier stage of this bill if members opposite would like to research a company called I think Carrington Bus Company—a short-lived public transport operator in the New Plymouth area—they will see that the tools in this bill are needed in terms of the countervailing powers of larger operators operating commercially but saying: “Here’s how we’ll commercially deal to this company. We’ll drop our fares on their routes to zero until they go broke.” And that is what happened. Two larger operators dropped their fares to zero to put a commercial operator out of business. The National Party is very fond of saying that it is the party that supports business understands business and knows about business but the unfair commercial practice that was operated in that instance caused a very good local company to go broke in a matter of weeks. Why? Because the other companies operating on those routes were able to cross-subsidise from their other operations subsidised by the local community. 
This Government far from what the previous speaker said has put a huge investment into public transport not just because of the oil prices—we began this long before oil prices rocketed up—but because we see congestion as a huge impediment to business in Auckland to the normal commercial operations of the city and want to encourage people particularly those in Auckland to use public transport as Wellingtonians have done for many years. Central government is putting funds—something in the order of $640 million in this current financial year—into mostly public transport. Some of that is the purchase price of new electric units. On top of that local government is putting around $270 million into public passenger transport. On top of all this is the electrification plan for Auckland suburban services. One would have to say that well over $1 billion of public money goes into commercial and contracted passenger services throughout the country. 
If we look at what is trying to be achieved in this bill and the reason for going to option C we see that anyone who analysed this thoroughly would see that the purpose is to give more tools to central and local government particularly to local authorities for providing public transport services to good standards to meet the demands of the community and to actually plan for prepare for and provide for the future. The bill will give regional councils greater powers over non-contracted—that is commercial—services in order to help regions get the best value for money and to achieve an integrated sustainable public transport network. 
The history of how commerce works is really worth looking at. If as the National Party believes the market will provide let me recommend a book called  
The Great American Streetcar Scandal 
 set in Los Angeles in the 1930s. It shows how commercial interests demolished what was to have been the best public transport system in the United States at the time. They absolutely demolished it. The streetcar system in Los Angeles was effective wide-ranging and provided transport for a huge number of people but it was demolished by commercial enterprise because the state of California did not have a bill like this to protect it against unfair commercial operation. I am a strong believer in providing a framework in which commerce can flourish and operate in a way that helps the beginning company but also protects the interests of the public. 
If members can find the people who own the Carrington Bus Company and explain this bill to them I guarantee when they see the provisions they will say they wish they had had this at the time. One of the members opposite said “What about the Commerce Commission?”. Well the Commerce Commission said: “If a bus company wants to reduce its fares to zero on a particular route then that is entirely fine.” That is what happened because the bus companies that Carrington set up in competition with were able to reduce their fares to zero on that one route in order to knock that fledging company for a six and put it out of business. 
I am pleased that this bill will enable local councils to set quality and performance standards for commercial public transport services—things such as emission standards or minimum periods of operation. These sorts of things are vital when one specifies public transport network conditions. The bill will also allow councils to require operators to integrate services fares and ticketing in order to serve the needs of the community. I think that integrated ticketing is a huge facet of this which we should not ignore. I have talked about it for a minimum of 15 years and I think it is absolutely vital to the success of public transport operations in major cities. Thank you. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a short call on this very important bill the Public Transport Management Bill. Auckland has been calling out for this legislation for many many years. There have been numerous attempts since the 1950s to get an adequate comprehensive system that Aucklanders can use with confidence in terms of times cleanliness efficiency and value for money for the taxpayers and the ratepayers of Auckland. I am delighted to be part of a Government that has listened to Auckland and has said that yes we do need to finish the roading network but just as important we need to provide public transport so that Aucklanders have an alternative so that we can continue to improve the air quality in Auckland and so we can provide value for money for Aucklanders. 
I am very sad to see the National members attacking this legislation. Following on from the very good speech made by my colleague the Hon Harry Duynhoven I ask National what they are talking about when they say that Aucklanders should be paying $50 a week in tolls but that they are opposed to public transport. I asked Jim McLay a former member of this House who is now the principal of Macquarie Bank and who is advocating toll roads in Auckland and advocating public-private partnerships where all the risk falls on Aucklanders whether he is advocating this policy that the National Party is pushing. National is attacking public transport while promoting Aucklanders having to pay a levy of $50 a week at least on toll roads and people will be forced back into their cars as there will be no adequate public transport. What is National’s interest in this? That is my question to National members because in my view this legislation is absolutely vital. 
We have seen Stagecoach—the main provider I will concede before Infratil took it over—declaring major bus routes as commercial routes so there is no subsidy on them and forcing everybody else who might need some support off those routes particularly those who link other suburban routes and are not the main carriers and then halfway through a contract they just say: “We’re not going to do this any more.” So suddenly the Auckland ratepayers needed to find I believe about $5 million as did the taxpayers to meet that. I say we need some security as taxpayers and as ratepayers that we are getting value for money and this bill is the first major step towards Auckland getting a really good public transport system that is value for money. 
It is my great pleasure to support this bill. I congratulate the Greens on their initiative in this. I believe that no carrier no public transport provider interested in providing a service and not interested in skimming the top off a service that is not comprehensive has anything to fear in this. It is about time we got proper comprehensive public transport in Auckland. It is part of our plan to provide sustainable value-for-money and fuel-efficient services that all Aucklanders can access so that we can do the intensification we need to do in people-friendly areas that are not cut through by motorways that are not working efficiently because people just sit in cars idling wasting fuel and wasting time. 
Everyone in Auckland talks about at least a billion dollars being the cost of congestion. That is people’s time and wasted fuel. Maurice Williamson is talking about that and he wants to add another $50 on to that impossible cost that many Aucklanders are already facing. This bill the Public Transport Management Bill gives Auckland the tools it needs in local regional and central government to actually provide value for money for taxpayers and ratepayers as well as for motorists. 
This bill is supported by the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority which was set up to finally deliver rather than have the constant political ping-pong we have had. Labour Government supporter Sir Dove-Myer Robinson had his policy on public transport; Rob Muldoon and the National Government came in and threw it out. The fourth Labour Government said it would work with Auckland and look at a decent public transport system; Ruth Richardson and all her cronies came in and chucked it out. It is time we had some sustainability in service provision and some value for money. That is what I am standing to support and that is why Labour-led Governments are delivering for Auckland and delivering value for taxpayers across New Zealand. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Public Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 47; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time. 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. First I thank Sue Bradford for bringing this bill into the House as a member’s bill and I also thank the Law and Order Committee for the very bipartisan way in which it addressed the issues in the bill and for the thought and work the committee members put into improving it. This bill is being moved for a third reading by me because it is now a Government bill. 
The bill is really about acting in the best interests of the children of women offenders. It is about improving the life chances of some of our most vulnerable citizens. I welcome the clarification of that purpose through the proposed amendments that the committee endorsed. I also thank Sue Bradford and Parliament for supporting the amendment that I moved in Supplementary Order Paper 174. 
Back in the second reading of this bill I raised concerns not about the bill’s purpose but rather about the costs of implementing the changes required by it. When I consulted with the Department of Corrections its officials advised me that to fully meet the needs of women prisoners with children up to 2 years of age it would require an additional 24 places in three prisons which would have to be specifically designed and they put a cost on that of more than $1 million per place provided. When we look at that level of cost then we have to consider questions of priority against other needs including the benefits that for example that level of expenditure might deliver if directed to areas such as preventive work—to keep women out of prison in the first place—or programmes to prevent reoffending. 
I went back to the Department of Corrections and I asked it to come up with a more affordable way of delivering on the purpose of this bill. I also met with Sue Bradford at that time and we discussed together the options that might be available but that were less prohibitively costly and that would allow us to move quite early on the implementation of steps to deliver on the bill and have more immediate positive outcomes. We came up with a proposal to provide eight places in Auckland and Christchurch women’s prisons at a total cost of about $2 million in capital and with an ongoing operating expenditure of around $1.5 million. To implement that alternative required an amendment to the bill and Supplementary Order Paper 174 amended subsection (1) of section 81C as inserted by clause 5 to make the construction of accommodation for women prisoners with children who are less than 2 years of age subject to the availability of resources. That amendment means that the Government can now implement the bill in a more considered manner and ensure that the best interests of children are adequately protected. 
The amendment also allows for consideration firstly to be given to the impact the new community-based sentences are having on judges’ sentencing decisions and to the number of women being sent to prison. We now have the option of electronic monitoring—the ability to have people serve detention within their own homes—and in the case of those women with children who do not constitute a risk to the community this is obviously a preferable alternative. Ideally the new sentences will mean that fewer women offenders with dependent children will receive a prison sentence. Indications are that judges are using community-based sentences more when convicting women offenders. Between May 2007 and April 2008 4.5 percent of women convicted received a prison sentence. That is significantly down from a peak in 2004-05 when 7.4 percent of all women convicted received prison sentences. In the meantime it will be possible to provide a total of eight places at the Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility and the Christchurch Women’s Prison. The amendment allows us to take the time to assess the ongoing benefits of allowing children up to the age of 2 years to reside in prison with their mothers and how best to run the programmes that will surround that. 
This bill is a response to Parliament’s awareness that when women with dependent children are sent to prison their children may suffer as a consequence. The children are innocent yet they may be the victims of their mothers’ crimes well into their adult years. Children deserve better than that. The Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill is one way to reduce the impact of maternal imprisonment on children and it is supported by the Government for this reason. Again in finishing I acknowledge the strong cross-party support for this bill and commend it to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I speak in support of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the work that Sue Bradford has done on this bill and I thank her for bringing the issue to our attention. I also thank my colleagues in the National Party for the support they gave me and my colleague Katherine Rich when we took this bill to our caucus. I know that many National Party supporters will be a little puzzled that we think that this bill is worthy of our support but we live in the real world and we know that the world we live in is not quite as lovely or as safe for children as it should be. 
I would like to acknowledge at this stage that we have a dead police officer in Mangere and another one shot and fighting for his life. I am overwhelmed to find out that there was a young child in the house concerned. I understand that that is the real world for some people. When we think about a child spending any time in prison I ask frankly who in his or her right mind would think that that was an ideal situation but the sad truth is that for some children it is significantly safer to start their lives in prison rather than in the homes in which we allow them to be brought up in. 
Under this bill should the whole thing go ahead—and I note that rather than there being a set date the commencement date is to be decided by the Governor-General by Order in Council—babies will be in prison with their mothers if their mothers comply with certain requirements. The requirements are that those mothers are drug-free that they look after their babies properly and that they are being good mothers. Those are the sorts of things we would like for all of our children—that their mothers are drug-free are not into alcohol and are looking after them. There will be parenting assistance which will be of extreme value in these situations. Let us be frank: how many mothers do we know who end up in prison for a long period of time? There are not very many. As Mr Goff has said we now have home detention and it seems to be the preferred sentence for most offences but unfortunately some women will end up in prison and we need to give some thought to those of them who have young babies or who are expecting. 
This measure is not a new and outrageous situation. In fact I have in my hand a booklet put out by Her Majesty’s Prison Service in the UK entitled  
All About Mother and Baby Units.  
In looking through it we see that a lot of the issues in the bill are addressed in the booklet. It is about accepting that unfortunately mothers end up in prison sometimes for extended periods of time. They are the mothers of little babies. The fact that they are in prison does not necessarily mean that they are bad mothers but it does mean that we can give their children a start that they may not otherwise have. 
As a mother myself I can say that the bonding between a mother and her baby is surely the most important consideration. We know of many instances in our own lives where that bonding has not occurred. We see how the baby can be affected by that and we see that the mum will never be the good mum she wants to be. We also know that both the mother and the father are important in the bringing up of a child but we cannot have mums dads and babies all together in the same prison—that would be going a little bit too far. 
It is incredibly important that we stick to the provisions about testing for drugs. It is incredibly important that we accept that these mothers are our most vulnerable mothers and our most challenging mothers in many cases and that their babies will be our most vulnerable babies. If we simply allow mums to have babies in prisons and we do not put in place really sensible parenting programmes and really good schemes to make sure they come out of prison not only better people but better mothers then that would be a shame and a waste. 
I am concerned that this bill does not have a commencement date. We had assurances from the Minister of Corrections Phil Goff during the Committee stage that the matter would be addressed. In fact I recall the Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen making that clear. I do not know whether Ms Bradford has had any update on that. I am also concerned that there is no actual requirement that parenting facilities be put in place. The mother and baby units will be available only if they are built and the provisions are in place. I think that is something we should give some thought to. How can we introduce legislation that provides for mothers and babies in prison without having a real commitment to provide those services? I hope Ms Bradford who obviously is in discussion with the Government can tell us all about that. 
Breastfeeding is incredibly important for babies and for mothers but let us be frank not many mothers breastfeed these days. It is very difficult for a mother to start to breastfeed when she has been shoved out of hospital within 24 hours of her baby being delivered. It is incredibly difficult to get any sort of system going. It is very very difficult when Plunket does not even know that the mother has had a baby or if it does know it does not know where the mother is. It is very very challenging to expect that breastfeeding will suddenly happen for mothers with babies in prison and we are probably being a little bit hopeful in that regard. 
One thing I think we can say is that if this measure is done properly if it is supported by will rather than simply law we can ensure that for at least some months in a baby’s life the baby has a chance. We can also ensure that a mother who does not have the skills to be a good mother gets some assistance to change. I think that is really important. If we are going to try to rehabilitate people we have to give them hope. I cannot think of a better reason for a mother to have hope for the future than to have a child to look after. I cannot think of anything better than that. It is the one thing that will change some of these women’s lives. 
I am also aware—and Ms Bradford will no doubt remind me—that not all mothers in prison are there because of really bad situations. I think Ms Bradford reminded us of the times when she was arrested for protesting and was put in prison—but not for very long periods of time. Having said that we accept that not everybody is there because they are evil people but rather because they have got themselves into situations that they should not have been in. 
This situation is unusual in that we have multiparty support on the matter of mothers and babies in prison. I think it is an acknowledgment that we understand that life is not perfect. People often talk about crime prison and prisoners and about how terrible it all is but if we look a little more closely we see that most families have either somebody in prison or somebody who has been in prison at some stage; it may be a member of the wider family but for most families there is some connection. Actually we are not all perfect; families are not perfect. As I say to people we can choose our friends but we cannot choose our family—fortunately I like my family. But that is just the way it is. People have to live in the real world. 
In conclusion the National Party is proud to be able to support this bill. We would like—if it is the will of the people—to have an opportunity to implement it to take it from being just words and to actually put it into practice. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I am really pleased to see the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill making its way through its final stages in the House just before we rise at the end of this term of Parliament. I acknowledge the Minister of Corrections Phil Goff and Judith Collins for the contributions they have just made and for their personal support and the support of their parties for this bill. It is fantastic. 
Although this bill marks a very small reform within the context of our whole problematic prison system it is certainly a change whose time has come. We had the first reading debate on this bill way back in June 2006—now over 2 years ago. It has been a much longer haul than I expected for a bill that has been nowhere near as controversial as for example trying to change child discipline laws or to abolish discriminatory youth rates. 
This bill achieves a few comparatively simple things. First once it comes into force some mothers in prison will be able to keep their babies with them for up to 2 years rather than the 6 months currently allowed. At the moment there is also at times a grace period of up to 9 months for some mothers—that is there is an extension of 3 months on top of the current 6 months. There may also in future be an extension on top of the 2 years in certain circumstances. 
Secondly in some circumstances mothers who are on remand or who are sentenced prisoners with a high security classification will for the first time have the option to have their babies live with them in prison. Thirdly the new law will provide more of a mandate to prison authorities to ensure that if a child in a mother’s care is being breastfed she will be given the opportunity and space to do so. At the same time the bill does not discriminate against mothers who cannot breastfeed or who are not breastfeeding. They will have the same option of keeping their baby with them as circumstances allow. 
There were two major reasons for my placing this bill in the members’ bills ballot in the first place. I was first of all struck by stories from groups working with women in prison of mothers being refused any chance to breastfeed their newborn baby and of prison authorities in some cases using the right to breastfeed as a way of keeping women in line to be granted or denied at the will of corrections officers. At a time when health authorities around the world and our own Government here at home are promoting breastfeeding as giving the best possible start in life where mothers can manage it it seemed unbelievable that the best interests of the child could be served so poorly and in such a cavalier fashion within our corrections system. 
On this matter I will quote from the commentary to the bill signed up to by all members on the Law and Order Committee which states among other things: “When there is no other reason to terminate the placement [of a baby with an imprisoned mother] we expect that removing access to breastfeeding will not be used as a tool of prison management or discipline.” I hope this message will be sent very clearly throughout the corrections service right away. It does not require special budgets or the building of new facilities. I also hope that there will be more encouragement within the corrections service for mothers to feed and bond with their babies breastfeeding or not even where they are unable to keep their babies with them full-time. 
The second primary motivating factor for my putting this bill forward was that I have for a long time been moved—as any one of us here today who has breastfed and nurtured their own children would be—by the torment suffered by mothers who either suddenly find themselves without their baby or have their baby removed as a result of imprisonment or of the rules around their security classification. I had also at one time in my life in the wake of the Springbok Tour gone through a High Court case where the risk of possible imprisonment was high at a time when I was breastfeeding my own newborn daughter. On the day the eight of us involved were about to be sentenced I realised the full horror of what it would mean to be separated from my baby Katie for months or years. I will always be grateful to that judge who gave us all a suspended prison sentence. 
There are heartrending stories some of which we heard during the select committee process of mothers who went through the emotional rollercoaster of being told while pregnant that they could and then could not keep their baby with them—on again and off again—in a way that was emotionally absolutely devastating and traumatic. We heard of the grief of mothers who had their baby taken from their arms after the allocated time was up. We heard of women who had turned their lives round after being allowed the privilege of keeping their baby with them. Evidence came to us that for some women the opportunity to keep their baby in prison was life-changingly positive. We have also heard of the opposite impact which happens when one’s baby is torn away—it has the reverse impact on rehabilitation and on one’s chances when one gets out of prison again. 
The bill we are passing today will not solve all the problems of all mothers with babies in prison but it will certainly improve things for some. Its priority—and this should be noted—is to put the interests of the child first and to ensure that mothers who are enabled to keep their babies with them are fit to do so. Babies will be placed with their mother only if she wants to have the baby with her and if she signs a parenting agreement with a wide range of conditions. Mothers will also be able to keep their babies only if suitable facilities are available in the prison system for mother and child. 
In the final stages of the bill the Government made it clear that there are fiscal limitations—as Minister Goff has just pointed out—on how fast the corrections service will be able to develop more suitable housing for babies and mothers both in terms of babies staying in until they are up to 2 years old or even 2 years and 3 months old and in regard to the way in which different classifications of prisoners are required to be kept separate from each other. It is for this reason that the Green Party accepted the Minister of Corrections’ Supplementary Order Paper 174 which was introduced during the Committee stage. It means this legislation will be applied only as and how facilities exist and are developed but I have also accepted the Minister’s assurance that money will be invested immediately to begin to extend the facilities available. Because of the substantial cross-party support for this bill it is my sincere hope that whichever combination of parties forms the next Government this commitment will continue and grow to allow more and more mothers where possible and desirable to keep their babies with them. 
I realise that with a member’s bill like this it would not be realistic to expect a huge Budget allocation in the first instance given the pressures on Government Budgets in general and on the Department of Corrections in particular but at the same time without any financial commitment at all the bill would have been meaningless. I offer hearty thanks to Minister Phil Goff for his understanding of and support for what is being attempted here and for that initial Budget allocation. 
I also extend my sincere thanks to the parties in this House that are voting for the bill and have done so right through from beginning to end. Labour New Zealand First United Future National the Maori Party and the ACT party are all I understand voting for this bill. I think this support is a tribute to the compassion of the MPs and the parties concerned and to their understanding that this bill is above all about the welfare of babies whose need and right to bond with their mothers from birth if at all possible should be paramount in our thinking. 
I further acknowledge my fellow MPs on the Law and Order Committee that dealt with this bill and who are not a crew with whom I normally work. I thank all of those members but particularly Martin Gallagher from Labour who chaired the committee and Simon Power from National who proved to be an astute voice and sounding board for many of the issues arising from our consideration. I thank also the select committee staff and Government officials who helped with all the backroom work on the bill. 
Similarly I give a big thankyou to all the submitters. We had 58 submissions in all which is quite a large number given the small size of the bill the lack of controversy around it and the fact that it deals with only a tiny segment of the population. However my remarking that this bill was not particularly controversial is not to say that it does not have its critics. I was particularly struck by submissions from some who said we should not have any mothers with babies in prison at all. I agree with them but unfortunately the Green Party has not so far been in a position to be able to champion things like the piloting of habilitation or community justice centres outside prison walls much less many other much-needed reforms to our corrections and justice systems. 
I see the measure we are taking today as just one stage on a much longer journey towards the progressive reform of our prison system. Once again I acknowledge all those who have helped us take this small but critical and much-needed step forward. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise today with pleasure to speak also in support of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Like other parties in this House the National Party has supported the bill through all of its stages and continues to do so at its third reading. 
We have heard that the bill amends the Corrections Act 2004 extending the time that mothers can keep their babies with them in prison from 6 months up to 2 years with a 3-month grace period. It brings New Zealand in line with other international jurisdictions and is certainly not out of step with current trends. Of 27 countries including 8 Australian states I understand only Slovakia does not allow children in prison with their mums and in its case Slovakia defers imprisonment of a pregnant woman until the baby is born. Upper age-limits vary from 12 months in places like Hungary Ireland Japan Malta and Sweden to 6 years in countries like Germany and Spain whilst England’s upper age-limit is 18 months and Scotland’s is 6 years. New Zealand is looking at 2 years. Mothers will be able to look after their children for that time even though they may be in prison so that care bonding and feeding can be maintained and continued throughout that time. Two years is considered an optimum time for separation given the circumstances of average sentences ability to visit alternative care and whether the mother with the baby is able to access programmes and tuition to learn proper parenting skills. 
One of the biggest debates has centred on the idea that prison is not a suitable environment for a child or a baby. I think that everyone in this House will agree that prison certainly is not the ideal place to raise a baby and given the choice I am certain that no mother wants to bond with her new baby in a prison cell. It is an unfortunate situation but it is one we are none the less faced with in this country as the number of women in prison continues to grow according to the Ministry of Justice 2006 forecast. According to that forecast the women’s prison population is expected to increase to 532 women by 2014. However unsuitable an environment prison is we also agree that the health safety and well-being of the child are paramount. If we agree on that then surely we must also agree that to house a baby with its mother even within the confines of the prison walls where that baby is warm fed and cared for by the most important person in its life really is in the child’s best interests. 
Current statistics have been gathered from a couple of snapshots as at 31 January 2004 and again in 2006. In that period only 22 female inmates had babies with them in self-care units. The female prison population doubled from 186 to 370 in that period. The number of female prisoners older than 40 years increased from 14 percent to 24 percent of the prison population but the greatest growth was in the 14 to 29-year-old age group which now represents some 46 percent of the prison population. Inmates with children aged 2 years or under totalled 160 in 2006 with 140 of those children being aged from 2 to 5 years. We were told that 36 percent of inmates served short-term sentences being less than 2 years and becoming eligible for release at 12 months. Of the 43 percent of those serving long-term sentences half are sentenced to 3 years or less and are eligible for parole at one-third of that sentence. So the vast majority of children will be in prisons for less than 12 months. 
I want to relate a situation that I did speak about in Committee stage which actually reflects the good intention and purpose of this bill. It was a true story in Central Otago. A young mum offended. She had a 3-month-old baby. One of the local lawyers there told me that at every court date the judge struggles with what to do with dependants such as these that really fall through the cracks. The judge stated in his judgment that the defendant should have been given a sentence of community detention but because it was not offered in that area he could not give her that sentence. She had a 3-month-old baby. She had no family outside Central Otago because she had grown up there and so she had no support outside Central Otago. That mum was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment. She has to serve the entire 4 months. The baby has now been left with her grandmother. The mother was still breastfeeding the 3-month-old baby who was left with her grandmother. The lawyer quite rightly stated at the time that that situation was outrageous. The Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill will go some way to ameliorating that situation. 
Although we can criticise the fact that community detention is not available in all areas and was not available in areas such as Central Otago—we understand because of the lack of cellphone coverage—this is a real-life situation that demonstrates how this bill can do great things for that mum with a 3-month-old baby. Certainly the mother had offended but the offence was to the extent that the sentence was only 4 months’ imprisonment and her baby had to be left with her grandmother even though the mother was still breastfeeding. In this sense it was a bit of justice by geography but the judge had no choice. The judge admitted it was deplorable and after the enactment of this bill hopefully that situation will not occur again. 
I think it is fair to say that nobody believes that prison is the best place to bring up children but there are situations like that Central Otago case where this is the only fair and reasonable thing to do. At the end of the day what is the alternative? The alternative is where children and babies are separated from their mothers for an extended period of time and often get shipped between family members or foster homes from one house to another. This benefits no one. Under this bill parenting agreements will be set in place setting out obligations of the mother with the Department of Corrections for as long as the mother is in that programme—obligatory conditions that arguably provide conditions in upbringing considerably better than that child may have otherwise received in the home. 
National believes that mothers and babies deserve this chance to bond in those first few months of life. This sentiment was shared by a number of submitters including the Families Commission which said it is vital that babies form a strong attachment to one person within the first few years of life. From this grows a sense of security and trust self-esteem and the capacity to form loving relationships with other people. Developmental experts advise that children should not be separated from their primary care giver between the ages of 6 months to about 2½ years to 3 years for this reason. The effect of successful bonding is so profound that it relates to nearly all the aspects of the child’s future life. The interest of the child was National’s main concern in making decisions about the placement of children of prison inmates. We feel comfortable knowing that by allowing mothers to have their babies living with them in prison we are providing the opportunity to encourage those families to build stronger relationships which will hopefully continue to flourish once the term of imprisonment ends. 
Historically the vast majority of women have received short sentences and most continue to receive prison sentences of less than 2 years. The average I understand is about 11½ months. Currently those who are serving a sentence of 2 years or less are automatically released after serving half of their sentence. Therefore the number of children separated from their mothers will be kept to a minimum and through this extension we are significantly improving the status quo. 
There are some exemptions. There are some mothers who will not be eligible to apply to bring their children into prison. These exceptions include those who have committed unforgivable crimes against children. Those mothers will not have their applications approved and this is entirely appropriate. 
We have heard that significant changes to New Zealand’s three women’s prisons will be required in order to accommodate children under 2 years of age. But this is a cost that I am sure will be outweighed by the benefits to our society. We are protecting the safety and the well-being of our children. We are reiterating the importance of bonding and attachment between mothers and babies. We are helping to move towards the rehabilitation of the mother and quite possibly we are reducing recidivism. 
It is also important to remember the general consensus that during the toddler years the child will have no idea of its surroundings. It will have no recollection of time spent growing up in prison. It will not care. However that baby will know who its mother is. This change brings New Zealand into line with most comparable Western jurisdictions and focuses on the best interests of the child while potentially being very beneficial to their mothers and also to our country as a whole. 
I am pleased to stand and to continue National’s support on this bill. I also congratulate the original promoter of the bill Sue Bradford on bringing it to the House. We are pleased that it has had such wide cross-party support and we are certainly pleased to continue our support for this bill. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this third reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. The ACT party will be supporting this bill. Before I begin to speak to the bill itself I will take a moment to thank and to congratulate the bill’s author Sue Bradford on both her initiative and her efforts in promoting this very worthy cause. If we are to improve the outcomes for children born into families under often less than ideal circumstances and if we are to improve the outcomes for the benefit of society we must look to this sort of initiative. 
The ACT party sees this bill as a win-win situation for those involved. Firstly it is a win for babies who will now have the opportunity to spend those very important first few months and years of their lives with their mothers when that opportunity might previously have been denied them. Secondly it is a win for mothers who will now have the opportunity as I have just outlined to form that bond with their babies. Thirdly we hope in anticipation that it will be a win for the greater society in terms of the benefits those children will have for their futures. 
One aspect that ACT was particularly concerned about was striking a good and clear balance between promoting what was best for the child and ensuring at the same time that the mother’s obligation to society—the reason for her being in prison in the first place—was met. Some key amendments to the bill have resulted in that balance being struck. ACT believes that the parenting agreements for example which create a code of conduct are vitally important in that area. Furthermore it is important to note the amendments to the bill to ensure the safety of the child while also allowing for increased support for the mother. Those include new section 81A(1) inserted in clause 5 which ensures that screenings for mental health and substance abuse issues are completed in order to evaluate the mother’s ability to look after the child as well as to create the potential to offer the mother extra support in the future and that screenings identify that the mother has no previous convictions for an offence involving sexual or violent offending against children. As Sue Bradford outlined in her speech the parameters are reasonably rigorous and ACT supports them. 
More flexibility has been introduced into the process in that non-biological mothers and non-breastfeeding mothers are still eligible for the programme. While we recognise that the World Health Organization recommends that a mother breastfeeds her child exclusively until the age of 6 months and then up to 2 years after that we know that it is important to allow mothers not to feel boxed into a corner and pressured to breastfeed in order to be eligible for this programme. 
Retaining a parent’s choice about the best option for the family’s circumstances is paramount and something that is important to the ACT party. Too often children have been used as a tool in the behaviour patterns and decision-making processes that go on in prisons. There is less scope now for that to occur due to the obvious clause that allows children to stay with their mothers until they are 2 years of age. But that provision has been furthered by introducing clauses such as that requiring a child development specialist to be involved in the consideration of ending a placement rather than this being the role of solely the chief executive of the Department of Corrections. The provision creates a more robust decision-making process which is of very high importance when it involves the potential separation of a mother and her child. 
The international standards and experiences surrounding that very issue are also of particular interest to ACT. Article 2.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child deals in part with discouraging the unnecessary separation of children from their parents. It follows that this applies also to the separation of babies from their birth parents. Article 3.1 of the convention also establishes the key principle that the best interests of children shall be a primary consideration in any decision concerning them. Naturally all of this would be lost if a baby were unnecessarily separated from its mother after it was born because the mother had an obligation to serve out her sentence in prison. International experience indicates that it is frequently considered to be in the best interests of both the child’s health and development and the rehabilitation of the mother for the child to be accommodated with the mother in prison for a period of up to 2 years or more. In fact a study in the United Kingdom has shown that the detrimental impact on the behaviour of children deprived of parental care through parental imprisonment is greater—greater—than the impact on children who lose or who are separated from their parents in other ways. That just demonstrates further how important this bill is. 
The bill in fact allows New Zealand to catch up with the rest of the world in relation to this issue. I note that many other countries’ time periods far exceeded our own status quo of 6 months. In particular the time varies in Australia from between 6 years in Victoria to 1 year in Tasmania. The time period is 4 years in both Malaysia and Canada; 3 years in Singapore Hong Kong and Thailand; and 2 years in Indonesia and Viet Nam. Korea has a time frame of 18 months as do the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom; and it is 1 year for Japan. To my mind we are doing absolutely the right thing here in Parliament today by extending the right of mothers to retain their babies with them in prison until the children reach the age of 2 years. 
At a very practical level and as outlined by Judith Collins some children who will now have the ability to stay with their mothers in prison in their early years will actually have a better and a safer start to life. ACT has always promoted mentoring as the best possible way to assist families at risk. Hopefully this bill will assist mothers and babies in this way with both perhaps having more support than they would ever be likely to have had if that early start had been in their own homes. 
This issue is something that I feel strongly about. Simply being confused about the situation is no excuse for not doing something about it. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights stated: “There are no simple solutions but the complexity of the situation cannot be an excuse for failing to protect the rights of children who have a parent in prison.” The ACT party agrees with that statement and agrees with this bill. We happily give our support to it. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the third reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Firstly I must congratulate Sue Bradford on her success in getting this very important member’s bill now a Government bill to this stage. It is a very important initiative and one we are pleased to support. It is good to see a bill like this having considerable support from right across the House. This is also an opportunity to show that we are serious about ensuring that all children get the best possible start in their early years—far better than perhaps some of those babies would have had when their mothers were in prison. 
The Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill provides for a prison environment—unfortunately—that will support a child’s health. It will reduce social hazards and all of the conditions that affect a child’s well-being such as poverty gambling smoking or drug abuse. This bill has generated a very worthwhile debate. New Zealand First will be interested to monitor the results because it will ensure that any mother who is imprisoned with her baby will be able to continue bonding with and caring for that baby in a very controlled very secure environment with some supervision and oversight of the health and welfare of the baby. We can see that the benefits for the baby will be great. It is excellent that the baby will be able to bond with the mother. 
New Zealand First believes that this area needs to be carefully monitored so that mothers as a condition of having their babies with them have to attend parenting classes regularly if they are to continue enjoying having their child with them. The early years are very very important and many of these mothers would not have attended any parenting courses at all. This is an opportunity for this group of people to learn those very important parenting skills in a controlled environment and also for them to form a secure attachment to their child. Prison will be beneficial—unfortunately—for this group of vulnerable people with no drugs or alcohol with nutritious food with support for the mother and the baby and with well child checks being carried out which we believe is absolutely essential. With regard to those mothers who choose not to have their babies with them we say that that is their choice as well. We know that it is not compulsory. 
I was talking with my colleague Ron Mark and he reminded me that some groups of people do not necessarily agree that this scenario—a baby in prison with its mother—would benefit the child. Their argument is that a child is raised by a village and the wider whanau and that it was not unusual for the whanau to take a child from the mother when that was the best option given the mother’s lifestyle and/or drug or alcohol habits. This is a very valid argument and it reinforces the fact that a choice can be made. New Zealand First recognises that the well-being of children is absolutely paramount and that all children deserve the best possible start in life. It reminds me of a quote that we often heard from the Hon Brian Donnelly who was responsible for teaching children. He said that the future we give our children determines the future we receive. 
All of the reports we have read emphasise the advantages throughout life of having a mother and her child bonding. New Zealand First has some concerns about the separation of the mother and child when the child turns 2 years of age. It can be far more traumatic for a child to be separated from his or her mother at 2 years of age than as a baby; and as a mother I know that this separation will have to be very carefully managed for both the mother and the child. We believe that we have made a step forward but it may very well be that the age limit will need to be reviewed and even extended—and I can see that Sue Bradford actually agrees with that. 
It is unfortunate that children are the innocent and unfortunate victims in these cases. It has been mentioned previously that some young women may deliberately get pregnant prior to going to prison so that they will have an easier term in prison. Well that is definitely not a factor that any law can control in any way but it is to be hoped that if that is the case then both the child and the mother will benefit from the controlled environment they find themselves in and that the outcome will be far better than it otherwise would have been. 
We are pleased that Minister Goff has announced and ensured that there is a budget to support this legislation. We are aware that resources are needed and we understand too that there may be a brief lag between the passing of this legislation and its implementation. It is an unfortunate fact as earlier speakers have said that life is not perfect but this is an opportunity whereby some babies can have a better start in life than they might otherwise have had in some environments. We are pleased to be catching up with the rest of the world. We have had the statistics quoted to us and we are aware that we are behind in this area. 
So in conclusion I just say that New Zealand First supports this bill and it thanks Sue Bradford for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker a kia ora tatou katoa e noho nei i roto i te Whare i tenei rangi. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Deputy Speaker and to us all seated about the House today. 
] 
Unfortunately my co-leader Dr Pita Sharples has been called away but he has provided me with some words that he would have said with regard to this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. In offering up this korero I acknowledge the work that Pita has prepared for the House today. According to Dr Pita Sharples this is what he believes—and what we in the Maori Party believe I might say; I had better say that. 
I heard a story yesterday about a girl called Sally. Last summer Sally decided school was not for her. She just did not want to go. It turns out that when the class went swimming she had been put into the embarrassing situation of having to tie her shoelaces a task she was not prepared to perform. After having suffered the shame of being taunted about having a parent in prison she just did not want another hassle in her life. Teaching her to tie shoelaces had been just one of the things that slipped by as the family coped—or did not—with the situation of incarceration. 
I have to admit that this bill has wreaked a little bit of havoc on our normally serene caucus. We have been literally torn apart by the complexity of associating children with prison. We all know that children who suffer the fate of losing their parent to prison feel vulnerable stigmatised and at risk. They experience the full gamut of emotions from embarrassment and shame to rebellion and anger. They live with the grief of loss. They feel the fear of the unknown unable to protect their parent who is now caged beyond prison walls. Being separated from our loved ones is sheer and utter hell. If we as parents suffer the misfortune of being kept away from our families because of the job we love just imagine how hard it is for children to be separated because of crime. 
I want to acknowledge the amazing work of PILLARS Nga PouWhakahou which goes on year after year with approximately 12000 children every year who are sentenced to separation from their imprisoned parent. Despite this PILLARS suggests that the children of prisoners remain largely invisible. PILLARS has a simple statement that sums up this bill: “Paying for crimes they did not commit.” What crime did the newborn baby born to a woman who finds herself in prison commit? What crime did the 6-month-old baby commit that rips the baby from the breast of his or her mother? What crime did the 1-year-old child commit that is punishable by separation? I think of my mokopuna and the absolute last place in the world I would wish them to be would be prison. I think of my children and if any one of them had the misfortune of being imprisoned I can but imagine the agony they would experience in being torn from their children. 
The dilemma we face with this bill concerns how one evaluates the true impact on a child of losing a parent to prison. We simply do not know. We know that since the self-care units have been established at Arohata Women’s Prison the floodgates have hardly opened. There were four women in 2004 six in 2005 and four in 2006. That is 14 in all—hardly enough to get excited over. Yet clearly the Minister of Corrections got pretty excited. The initial costings to meet peak periods of demand were estimated at approximately $19.6 million in capital expenditure and $6.5 million in annual operating expenditure. The facilities must be pretty flashy at that sort of costing. Faced with the multimillion-dollar proposal the Minister then came back and responded that the women could make do with existing accommodation. What he said was: “subject to the availability of resources.” We have all heard that before. The Minister may as well say: “No means no.” 
We in the Maori Party asked for further clarification about the financial projections for this bill. We asked whether it included medical facilities for the mothers and babies and whether the facilities were of the dormitory type individual rooms cells or independent living facilities à la flats. We asked whether there were shared flatting arrangements. We asked for details on staff numbers specialist services available and the types of rehabilitative programmes available. We did not get a response but the questions still remain. Really that is symptomatic of our collective view of this bill—the questions remain. 
If our aspirations are for children to be nurtured under the protection of their mothers would not our efforts be put to better use in promoting the increased use of community sentences? Surely it would be preferable for children to be raised in their own homes with their mothers serving home detention than to have the violent brutal prison environment inflicted upon them? We wonder what the international empirical evidence says. Will adults remember that they were born and raised in a prison for the first couple of years of their lives? Will they remember the bars the guards and the prison walls? Or will they remember being nurtured breastfed held and loved by the person who brought them into the world? Much of what shapes these formative years may well be alleviated through design and attention to detail. Many of the women’s prisons across America have taken on a major transformation in their visiting rooms. Instead of children paying for crimes they did not commit by being ushered into dark cold unattractive corridors they are playing freely in rooms decorated with Disney characters toys books and child-friendly decor. 
We can all accept that the early childhood attachments are crucial for child development but the jury is out on how best to support and promote that early bonding experience. In New York there is a correctional facility for women where their babies are allowed to stay with mum until the age of 2. At that time the child is transferred to the extended family or the State while still continuing to have the benefits of visits with mum. The research from that facility indicates that these children have a much higher chance of being healthy than if they were removed and raised in a home where the early nurturing did not take place. There is no room for absolutes and certainties. Some children are far better off being cared for by family members. Some children fare far worse through being nurtured in a home limited by poverty and economic hardship. Other children flourish in environments where there are consistent caring adults assuring them they are loved and secure. The point is that there must be opportunity for children to be nurtured to have access to support and to enjoy all the experiences that build strength and vitality. 
Is such an ideal possible in prison? The Government clearly believes so. Is it possible that a prison can provide safe abuse-free and secure environments for children to grow up in? These are just some of the many many questions our caucus has struggled with throughout the consideration of this bill. Ultimately however we know that every child born is a child born into whanau hapu and iwi. We know that those same whanau hapu and iwi must each in turn ask questions of themselves as to what is the best possible outcome for their babies their mokopuna. The bill sets in place a process by which the mother enters into a parenting arrangement. Our preference would be that these parenting arrangements are agreements with the wider whanau giving credence to the premise that our children are truly at the heart of the family. 
Finally we congratulate Sue Bradford on bringing this important issue to Parliament. Today I can tell her that we have three votes in favour. For far too long these children have been ignored in the public debate a debate that tends to focus on crime and punishment rather than the fate of dependent children. What we say is that if our way of life fails the child it fails us all. 
Koina te korero o te Takuta Pita Sharples. 
 [ 
That is what Dr Pita Sharples said 
.] 
That is an offer of congratulations to Sue from our co-leader Pita Sharples who is not here today and also on behalf of the party. On a personal note although we have some issues in respect of the whole notion about babies in prison at the end of the day we did some research and touched base with people who have been at the coalface—some who have been in that situation. They confirmed that having children in prison at an early age is far better in some ways for many but of course it depends on the individuals involved. It was a very difficult issue for us to come to grips with but at least today I can say that the Maori Party is with the member and we offer our congratulations. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe huri noa i te Whare tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Congratulations to you of the highest order and to you collectively throughout the House greetings thank you 
.] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I was not involved with the bill at the select committee so it has been fantastic to hear the contributions from all parties to the debate today. We congratulate Sue Bradford. This is a bit of a Green day today. I say well done on the very issues that drove her into Parliament. This was one issue that was of great concern to me too from my background and to hear her story shows the pragmatic grassroots approach that she has to politics that is leading her to make a difference in this House to people’s lives. 
I used to be in the maternity care profession and I recall very clearly that three issues used to concern me: firstly the age of young mothers having their babies; secondly adoption where we were party in my practice days to young babies being removed from their mothers and put into care pending the arrival of the adoptive parents; and the third issue that had a profound effect on me was when mothers who were in prison came to the maternity unit to give birth and then had to return to prison without their baby. It was something that profoundly moved me. There was that moment when the mother like every mother holds her child—with a partner there in most instances—and she wanted to invest everything to make sure that that child with her parenting would break the cycle of the life of dysfunction hopelessness and no opportunity that she had had and then we took the baby away from the mother to find a family member who would care for it while the mother returned to incarceration. 
It is great to see 20 years later that members in the House across the board are supporting this bill today. I congratulate all parties on their attitude and their contribution to this debate. 
I want to look at the number of women who are involved here—4½ percent of women who are convicted receive a prison sentence. Although we too agree that prison sentences are not the best approach for these women in this case it is the judge’s decision that they require incarceration in prison. I think that this bill now makes sure that the child is central to the family and the child’s interests are of paramount concern and that fits with the approach of the convention on human rights and the articles that we as a country are signatory to. Labour believes that every child counts and deserves the best opportunities for the best start in life. This folds in with many other initiatives that we have focused on to make sure we build strong and resilient families that can take the knocks that society will deliver to some. We are not calling them vulnerable families but some people do not share the same opportunities along life’s pathway. 
This bill goes a long way towards making sure that children start to have the bonding and attachment that will give them the resilience to endure some of the knocks they will have and towards making sure that that fierce instinct of motherhood remains in terms of attachment because mother and baby have not been separated. It is as simple as that. We know that all the indices across life including physical and mental health academic achievement social skills employment and for the children themselves the risk of offending and not being able to break that cycle themselves because of the circumstances of their birth will be dealt with by this bill. 
Labour is proud to be part of this. We know that women carry out most of the primary caregiving responsibilities for their children. They have a stronger attachment by the mere process of carrying the child and giving birth and the strong instinct of protection of their child that gives them the natural advantage over good fathers as to attachment at birth which is quite a fierce instinct that we have. 
Women are also much more likely than men to be sole parents. They are also more likely to face greater difficulties in finding alternative caregivers for their children. The family unit is much more likely to break down when the mother is in prison than when the father is in prison. We are looking at the integrity of the family unit wrapping around the child. Of course it is so much better to have babies with their mothers in prison and we all seem to have reached that same conclusion which is really great. We need to ensure that our children do not become lost in the system and disadvantaged and victimised by it. 
I heard Te Ururoa Flavell mention prison sentencing. I absolutely agree with him that we should be looking at home detention community detention and intensive supervision. Those three new sentences came into effect as from October 2007 and that is great. I hope judges will take them into account when they are looking at sentencing women offenders who come before them in the courts. They now have new tools to change the thinking that incarceration is the best approach. 
I am really pleased too to see parenting agreements mentioned in the bill. It is about mothers learning that they may have to undertake parenting classes just like the SKIP classes we provide out in the community. Those classes are a wonderful opportunity for women to share in the collegiality of other mothers in prison to learn about the fundamentals of parenting good nutrition diet exercise and how mothers need to parent. They may never have been exposed to educational parenting programmes. 
Other things that are absolutely essential for children who are literally incarcerated with their mothers are access for the other siblings in the family and for their fathers and having a rehabilitation programme when the mother and child leave prison. It is not just about providing the right environment around these mothers while they are in prison. 
I want to make a correction in terms of the capital and operating costs—funding that has been put in place as a result of this bill. There will be eight places in Auckland and Christchurch women’s prisons at a capital cost of $2 million and $1.5 million in operating costs. The Minister has factored that into the decision in our support of this bill. I congratulate those who raised that issue. 
The other issue that is vitally important is that the children receive all their health entitlements their well child screening as they would if they were out in the community. Another aspect Labour is particularly proud of is that all newborn babies now have a hearing screening and hearing assessment. That means these children will not have barriers to learning and through that screening of newborns they will achieve educational outcomes probably better than those of their own parents. That is a great initiative. So we should remember those points about access by the family and a rehabilitation programme that we will have to wrap around the parents. 
I heard the National Party talking about poor breastfeeding rates in this country. I want to correct that for the record in  
Hansard 
. This Government has invested in a breastfeeding action plan for the country to improve breastfeeding rates and we are proud of the gradual improvement in those rates. We know that breastfeeding is where attachment and bonding between mother and child takes place and that this bonding—including with the father—is really primary to the well-being of the child into the future. 
So this is a fantastic bill and it is well done. It goes with all of those other initiatives we put in place to say that every child deserves the best opportunity in life and we in Labour believe that that is absolutely fundamental. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in the third reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill to reassure the House that United Future remains in full support of the passage of this bill. We think it makes sense at a whole lot of levels. 
If members have not taken the time to attend a Brainwave Trust conference at any stage then I recommend that they do because in doing so they will begin to understand the science of attachment that underpins what Sue Bradford has sought to achieve in her bill. The science goes like this. Although babies are born with fully mature organs albeit small ones and their brain is fully formed it is not fully wired. In the first 3 years of a child’s life one of the significant developments is that his or her brain becomes hot-wired. The Brainwave Trust goes beyond telling people just that scientific fact. It tells them that the most significant consideration in terms of the healthy wiring of a child’s brain is attachment—not just attachment to a group of nice people around the child but to significant people like the child’s mother and father. Often it even specifically mentions the role of breastfeeding and of the mother in forming that attachment. 
This bill ensures that babies born to women who are serving time in prison are not themselves disadvantaged by the imprisonment of their mothers but are able to access all that a baby needs in order for attachment to occur. That makes huge and perfect sense. I am pleased to hear other members of Parliament talk about the need for resourcing to be provided for the implementation of this legislation and we are happy to hear that the Government has allocated some funding. I guess over time we shall see whether it is enough; I suspect it will not be. But certainly we would support the ongoing resourcing of this initiative as it is rolled out because we think it has a huge potential to do a huge amount of good. 
We have a couple of other concerns that we think need to be considered beyond the passage of this bill. For instance it is unclear how access for dads who want to be actively involved in their babies’ lives is to be organised—whether it is to be a case-by-case issue worked out with the prison service and the father. And taking that principle to the extended family of grandparents aunts uncles brothers and sisters it is unclear how we can make sure that an attachment is being facilitated for the mum while also considering what is happening for other family members and in particular for the father. United Future would like to continue to monitor that area in order to ensure there is an equitable approach for the sake of the child. 
The other issue—which I think others have mentioned—we would like to signal an interest in is the better use of alternatives to prison. Surely if a mother is deemed to be safe and able to care for a small baby then do we not raise at the same time a question as to whether imprisonment is the best response to dealing with her breach of the law? We understand there would need to be some flexibility but because allowing these women to keep their babies is to be based on the fact that they are safe to do so then I think that raises a whole lot of other questions that we would welcome some discussion on beyond the passage of this bill. “Home detention” “community-based sentencing” and “intensive supervision” are all words that are being bandied around. They all have merit. They are all part of a range of options that could be considered and United Future would like to put on the record our support for further investigation of those options for mothers who find themselves in this situation. 
We are very pleased to see the provisions in the bill around parenting agreements. Yes the mother is responsible for the care of her child while the child is in prison with her. However alternative caregivers have to be identified to meet the needs of the child if there is an emergency or if another placement is required. The chief executive is required to ensure that the mother participates in parenting education programmes. The health and well-being of the mother and child are to be monitored treatment is to be offered in a timely way should it be needed and the mother must agree to participate in treatment or counselling if there is an identified mental health problem or a substance abuse issue. A whole lot of very positive things and conditions are included for a mother who has her baby housed in prison with her. I think those are very sensible practical things. 
One of the concerns that United Future has had about prisoners is the fact that often we do much less than we should around the treatment and reintegration of all prisoners back into society. I think personally that the good fruit from this initiative is yet to be realised. I think that although our primary concern must be the good of the child—and what this bill proposes is good for the child—beyond that initial goal is the potential for some very fine outcomes to be achieved in terms of women being fully reintegrated back into society and moving on in a positive direction in their lives motivated by their love for and the bonding they have with the child. For that reason United Future is extremely pleased to see this initiative. We congratulate the sponsor of the bill and we are very pleased to support its third reading. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. I congratulate not only Sue Bradford on having some forethought in bringing the bill before the House but also the members of Parliament—the whole 121 of us—who got in behind this bill and made the decision to support it because I am quite sure that if we looked across the country and took advice from every man and his dog who tends to have a view on these things we would find that support was not unanimous. I am pleased to see that on this particular occasion the information laid before members of Parliament has won through in some good sense around this particular issue. Although a number of us were lobbied by people outside who were saying: “What are you doing? This is crazy stuff. A prison is no place for a baby.” there was unanimous resolve across the House that in certain circumstances prison is the best place for certain babies. 
We have only to look at the demographics of those people who go to jail to realise the wisdom behind the position that every party in this House has taken in respect of this bill. The mothers of children who grow up and go to prison have several hallmarks in common. They often have several children by the time they are 20 usually to multiple partners. The mothers of children who grow up and go to jail usually leave school with few or no qualifications they usually have their baby when they are very young they are usually employed in low-wage jobs or are on a benefit they usually have had no significant family care or engagement they are usually dependent on alcohol or some other drugs and they are usually tobacco smokers—and if we can identify the father he usually comes from within that same demographic too. That means that the vast majority of the people who end up in jail fall into the category of people who do not have those home supports or the ability or potential to readily succeed. 
Another point that must be made very strongly is that the whole purpose of this bill is to give paramountcy to the child and not to the mother. So those people who look baldly at this legislation and say that women will run off and get pregnant—or they use that colloquial term “fall pregnant”—however they manage to do that in order to have a softer time in jail are nuts because women will not. And if the mothers were of that mind then they would become pregnant in any event and would probably be in the category I have outlined earlier many many times. 
We need to look at our role as a society in order to take responsibility and to do the best we can by the child and the mother in circumstances where we are able to actually effect some purpose. There needs to be some discussion and understanding of the drivers that see young mothers in jail in the first place. Although we would love to be in a position to wind back the clock and to put in the education or safeguards that would prevent young people going to jail this provision is not exclusive. Just because we have this provision—and thank God that we do and that it will soon be implemented—does not mean that we do not do the other things around education or have those other societal fixes that need to be put into effect early. 
There is a real tension to the argument between the paramountcy of the child’s interest and consideration of the community-based sentence. I notice for instance that the Minister and other speakers talked about our ability now to enact home-based sentences and home detention is one of those sentences. I really hope that the cart does not get put before the horse in respect of these sentencing options. I do not believe having seen a lot of homes where prisoners come from including a lot of homes with young babies—the children of female offenders—that home detention will be the best option in every case in any event. 
The words of Dr Pita Sharples were related very well to us by his whip Te Ururoa Flavell in respect of children in prison. That speech asked whether the child would remember being raised in prison. Well I wonder whether a child of the same age maybe under 2 years old is able to remember everything that went on at home and how positive that experience was. For instance if a mum who fitted within the demographics I outlined at the beginning of my contribution lives in a house that is cold and damp a house that is shared by many other adults or a house where alcohol abuse or drug-taking happens on a frequent basis will the child remember that? Will the child benefit from remembering that as his or her first home life experience? 
Will the child remember growing up in a house with few toys where little interest is taken in the child and where not a heck of a lot of reading to the child is done or other parenting skills are displayed? 
When we really look at this situation we have to ask whether home detention is the best option for a person required to be sentenced for some other crime. For instance would it not be far more appropriate for the mother of a young child to be placed in a mother and baby unit within a prison—that is in a flatting situation—where carers are alongside prison officers living with that mother where parenting skills are taught on a daily basis and where the precursor for a mother having her baby in prison is that a parenting agreement is signed? In that situation the child’s interests are paramount and come first and a written contract negates drug-taking and other negative behaviours. The baby will be raised—albeit within a prison—in a warm environment with soft blankets with care and attention in a drug-free environment and with regular feeds. There will be access to regular medical checks like well child checks. The certainties that go with a regime that accepts the paramountcy of the child’s interests are right there as a key. 
I do not believe that that regime is available in some homes especially in the homes of those who end up going to jail. We have heard today for instance of the tragic death of a policeman in South Auckland and at the centre of that home which is now cordoned off by the police was a young mum and a 5-month-old child in circumstances where some offenders are living within that house. But as I say at the core of the situation is a 5-month-old baby. 
You know we cannot dictate in virtually every situation around this country where our babies live but we know that these babies are our babies. They are not brown babies or yellow babies or brindled babies; they are our babies. And it is our role as representatives in this House—people in a privileged position—to put the security of the most vulnerable in our society right at the forefront of all we do. 
I am proud to be part of the National Party which has supported this legislation all the way through. Once again I thank the sponsor of the bill and I say that I appreciate the support that has come from across the House on this very crucial issue. Thank you. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 12.25 p.m. (Thursday)