Volume 676 Week 86 - Thursday 6 October 2011 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 676 Week 86 - Thursday 6 October 2011 
[Volume:676;Page:21789] 
Thursday 6 October 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Future Policy 
1. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is it the Government’s plan if successful at the coming election to run the economy like they have for the last three years or to run it differently; and why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The issues for the economy will not have changed so the plan would not change if the Government was re-elected. We have been working on rebalancing the economy more towards savings and exporting and away from a reliance on debt and Government spending. A newly elected National Government would be committed to getting the Government’s books back into surplus. On the one hand there are some who say we should have slashed expenditure and on the other hand there are others who say we should have borrowed a lot more money to stimulate the economy. The Government will continue to take a sensible middle course. But I can confirm we have no plans to legalise marijuana. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does the Government plan to allow public finances to continue to in the word of Fitch Ratings “deteriorate”; if not what concrete plans does he have to improve them? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No public finances will not be allowed to continue to deteriorate except maybe in the circumstances where there was another earthquake perhaps. The earthquake has had a big impact on the Government’s finances. The plans to get back to surplus were laid out in the 2011 Budget. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does the Government plan over the next 3 years to improve the New Zealand Government’s credit rating or does the Government expect to keep it where it is or to have it deteriorate further? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We believe that if we were re-elected and continued with a sensible plan to get back to surplus and grow our capacity to earn an income from the rest of the world so that we can lift incomes here and start paying off the mountain of debt we have we would tend to have ratings agencies view us more favourably. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: What does he believe the Government has to do in the next 3 years to achieve a credit upgrade? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can tell the member what a re-elected National Government would focus on and that would be to improve the competitiveness of this economy so that we can earn more from the rest of the world to lift our incomes and create more jobs and to get the Government’s finances under control with a track back to surplus in 2 or 3 years’ time when we can start repaying debt. In terms of the rating agencies the threshold that at least one of them has set is a sustained positive current account balance. That is a huge challenge for a country that has not achieved that in the last 30 or 40 years but we are up to that challenge. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Government plan to continue to increase the current account deficit and the net international investment deficit as forecast in his 2011 Budget for the next 4 years and does the Government plan to continue to reduce real median incomes by a further 16 percent in the next 3 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government plans to continue progress on both of the figures that the member mentioned. We have made significant progress on the net international investment position; it has improved. There are some forecasts that say it will deteriorate; we just regard it as a challenge to turn that round. On the current account deficit thankfully it is half what we inherited when we became the Government just as interest rates are much lower than when we became the Government and we want to continue with that progress. 
New Zealanders’ Well-being—Government Performance over Last 3 Years 
2. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Are all New Zealanders better off after three years of his Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister)  
on behalf of the Prime Minister: I do not know the personal circumstances of every New Zealander but what I can say with absolute confidence is that the vast bulk of New Zealanders are better off certainly than they would have been under a Labour Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why should New Zealanders feel better off under his Government given the $37 billion borrowing with no growth the 56000 extra people unemployed escalating child poverty and the smallest annual increase in median wages in 11 years with people working hard but unable to get ahead? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: They do not have to feel better off. Some do but some depending on their circumstances feel the pressure of paying the bills holding their jobs and getting their debt down. We are there to do as much as we can to support those New Zealanders. In respect of their incomes the facts are that real after-tax incomes have risen not decreased. 
Hon Annette King 
: Are the rising number of children now living in poverty under his Government—up to 228000 in the last 3 years—as quoted by himself 2 weeks ago “now better off”; if so how? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The problem of the rising number of children in benefit households is a product of both the New Zealand recession which was precipitated by the bad policy of the previous Government and the global recession. Of course they are not better off being in households living on benefits instead of wages but Labour has criticised every single move this Government has made to turn round long-term welfare dependency. But we will persist—most New Zealanders want us to—and we will succeed if we are re-elected. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can he confirm there has been an increase of 21.8 percent in the number of New Zealanders now receiving a main benefit since National became the Government and has that made New Zealand better off? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Labour Party exists as I said yesterday in a funny little world that pretends the global recession never happened. Of course there are more people on benefits because we have been through one of the biggest recessions New Zealand has had in a while but our economic policy is creating more jobs and higher incomes and our welfare policy is getting alongside people supporting them encouraging them and sometimes pressurising them in order to assist them back into the workforce. Despite Labour’s relentless criticism of our positive moves on welfare we will keep going. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he stand by his comments yesterday during the questioning of the Minister of Finance on the double credit downgrade that there has been no downgrade or has it not yet registered that the verdict is in on National’s economic management and it is a “failed to achieve”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is a verdict that I suppose the voters will deliver on that economic management in a couple of months’ time and they certainly delivered a verdict on Labour’s very damaging economic management at the last election. It was quite a devastating verdict and Labour has not quite got over it. The fact is that New Zealand is in better shape now than it was in 3 years ago to withstand the most difficult global circumstances in a generation. I think it is a tribute to New Zealanders that they have shown the resilience to deal with these very difficult circumstances and we will continue to support them. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why can he do something about the TV timeslot for  
Coronation Street 
 but says that he can do nothing about the wages of the lowest paid in New Zealand like the staff who clean his office every night? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has an extraordinary range of capacities and talents. Almost everyone in New Zealand recognises that except for the Labour Party which still thinks that the former Prime Minister will drop down out of the sky back into the Prime Minister’s seat and everything will be right again. Well that is not going to happen. John Key has shown remarkable leadership skills through difficult times in New Zealand and I think he would be the first to accept that he has not fixed every problem but he has fixed quite a lot. 
Economic Programme—Foundations for More Competitive Economy 
3. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How has the Government’s economic plan over the past three years laid the foundations for a more competitive economy based on savings exports and productive investment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government had to set out to lay some foundations because the economy that we inherited was in very bad shape. It was dependent on excessive Government spending it had high levels of household debt it was providing new but unsustainable jobs and we had become less competitive with the rest of the world. We have debt under control; we have changed the incentives for people to work to save and to export; we have cut red tape; we have built infrastructure; we have raised educational standards; and we are increasingly focusing the economy on what we are good at which is trading with the rest of the world. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Since he is intent on a walk down memory lane can he confirm— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —can he confirm that in December— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because I accepted that in answering the primary question the Minister of Finance gave some attention to the matters that the Government inherited which was not absolutely necessary to answer that primary question out of courtesy rather than going as normal to the primary questioner for the first supplementary question I went to the Opposition to give the Opposition the chance to question the Minister of Finance in those circumstances. But to start the supplementary question in that way makes the Speaker look stupid for having departed from the normal practice because that is not the appropriate way to start a question and it just makes it difficult in the House. I accept that the Minister of Finance did not need to mention the economic situation that the Government inherited in answering that primary question and that is why I came to the Opposition to ask the first supplementary question. I would like a supplementary question to be asked. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister recall in December 2008 saying that he had inherited Government books that were in reasonable shape and was that because Government net debt including the assets of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund had been paid off to zero in the year preceding the election? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes Government debt was relatively low but all the forecasts showed it was about to expand in a never-ending almost geometric fashion as the accumulated mistakes and damage of the Labour Government built up over time to create damage to this economy. One of our mistakes I suppose early on was to underestimate just how much damage Labour had done to this economy. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How did the Government’s tax package last year help to tilt the economy towards savings and exports and away from excessive borrowing and property speculation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The tax package back in 2010 which had a total value of around $4 billion cut taxes on work on savings on exporting and on investment across the board and increased taxes on consumption with an increase in GST and tax on speculative property investment. This is going to have a benefit for the economy not over 1 or 2 years but we believe over 4 or 5 years because it fundamentally shifts the incentives in the economy in a way that will strengthen economic growth. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How is the Government’s multibillion-dollar infrastructure programme helping to build a more competitive economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: These are remarkably good questions. The multibillion-dollar infrastructure programme was an effort by the Government to ramp up investment—even in the midst of a recession—in New Zealand’s long-term productivity. That means we will have within a few years an upgraded electricity grid ultra-fast broadband rolled out around the country an upgraded rail network and of course we will be most of the way through a very significant roads of national significance programme. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What benefits has the Government’s wide-ranging economic programme delivered? 
Hon Annette King 
: Who wrote that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Despite answering I think over 400 questions— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I think it is; it is over 400. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —over 400 questions—and a handful of very good answers—the benefits have been wide ranging but I want to focus on just some. One benefit is that despite a recession New Zealanders have had small real income increases and I think that is a fantastic achievement. Secondly in the past year this economy has added 43000 new jobs. Thirdly our households—New Zealanders deserve congratulations on this—now have positive savings for the first time in more than a decade. 
Economy—Minister’s Statement 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that “the New Zealand ship is more seaworthy than it was three years ago” despite an extra 56000 unemployed $37 billion more debt and lower GDP per capita? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The member should cheer up a bit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I recently remonstrated with the questioner for prefacing a question with unnecessary language and now the Minister has added to difficulties by prefacing his answer with unhelpful language. It would be more helpful if he just answered the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does his 2011 Budget forecast the net international investment deficit to increase in each of 2012-13 2013-14 and 2014-15 and was this raised as a concern in the Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings downgrade reports issued last week? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the Budget does forecast some deterioration in both the current account deficit and the net international investment position. That is as I understand it driven partly by the Canterbury earthquake because there will be significant importing of materials to rebuild Christchurch and partly by a view Treasury has that New Zealand households will probably go back to their bad old habits of spending a lot more than they earn. We are a bit more optimistic that New Zealanders understand how the world has changed and understand what they need to do to improve this economy and there is a track record now that shows they are getting on with spending carefully saving more and paying off their debts. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the New Zealand Income Survey released today confirm that the median wage increase last year was just 1.9 percent and inflation was 5.3 percent implying a cut in real terms in the median wage of 3.4 percent over the last year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Every time the member uses figures in that way it confirms that he is not getting to grips with what is actually happening in the real world as opposed to in his own head. The fact is that the inflation figure is 5 percent because of the tax switch. When we take into account the impact on take-home pay of the tax changes the after-tax median income has in fact risen by about 7 percent which is higher than the rate of inflation. Real incomes have gone up. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the New Zealand Income Survey show that the real median income has fallen 6 percent after 3 years of his Government and that real median incomes for Maori and Pasifika people have fallen by 16 percent and 21 percent respectively? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In respect of the Maori and Pacific figures there must be some question marks about the plausibility of the measure if it shows that for some reason Maori who are earning income are earning 16 percent less yet the population as a whole is earning 2 or 3 percent more. In any case in the case of after-tax incomes Maori and Pacific people who are working have higher real incomes than they did 3 years ago. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister explain when in the last week he has received objective reports from Standard and Poor’s from Fitch Ratings from the Auditor-General and from the New Zealand Income Survey—all of which have shown either a downgrade or negative economic statistics—why he continues to make excuses including blaming the weather the previous Government seismic activity and the colour of people’s ties? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The fact is that whether the Labour Party likes it or not under this Government’s economic management we have been able to make considerable progress with moderate economic growth moderate growth in incomes and significant growth in new jobs. This is despite the fact that there was a world recession and an earthquake that brought damage equal to 10 percent of GDP making it the largest natural disaster proportionate to an economy. But in Labour’s parallel universe none of that occurred. As long as Labour members remain in that parallel universe voters will find it hard to vote for them because the voters live in this universe. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister confident that the structural elements of the New Zealand economy have turned round in light of the fact that over the last 2 years household lending is up farming lending is flat and business lending is down? How can the structural transformation happen in light of that basic underlying activity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A structural shift I would say is just under way. I certainly would not claim that the structure of this economy which has been locked in for the last 25 years or so would change in a couple of years. But we do need to stick to the direction of growing our ability to earn income from the rest of the world and reducing our debt. I thank the member for his sensible and insightful questioning on economic matters—a sharp contrast to other— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is just as well it is the last day of term I think or the Speaker might have to get tougher. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What has Treasury got wrong? When Treasury predicts that the current account deficit will increase to over 6 percent of GDP by 2014-15 what does the finance Minister know that Treasury does not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well it could take me all afternoon I think to outline the things I know that Treasury does not. It knows a few things that I do not and one of them is how to put together the detail of economic forecasts—that is Treasury’s forecasts. As I have said before this Government is a bit more optimistic that New Zealanders understand that the world has changed and that their economic behaviour needs to be different. We think there is ample evidence that they have changed in terms of how they see savings spending and debt. If we are re-elected as a Government I hope that the results would be better than Treasury’s forecasts. 
Amy Adams 
: What economic problems did the Government inherit from Labour? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you can anticipate the point of order. The Minister has no responsibility for Labour policy either present or past. 
Hon Simon Power 
: The question asked what the new Government inherited. That was quite different to the way it was put by Mr Cunliffe and I suggest that the Minister of Finance does have some responsibility for the state of affairs he inherited. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear briefly the Hon David Cunliffe again. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Were the question worded in terms of whether the Minister had seen reports of historical aggregates I submit that that would have been within the Standing Orders but as the question was phrased—using the word “Labour” and referring to the past policies of the current Opposition—I submit to you that it is outside the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that that is the case. It has been longstanding practice that economic Ministers because they have to deal with an economic situation inherited by a Government are entitled to report on what they have found on coming into office. It is in order for the Minister to report on what the Government inherited. But he must not ascribe to Labour any policies now or criticise any policies now. He is entitled to report on what he understands to be the situation the Government inherited. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well this Government by nature and aspiration looks forward not backward. But it does help occasionally to note those things that we inherited which were Government spending out of control an export economy on its knees a shambles of a tax system— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You rightly I think warned the Minister that in order to be within the Standing Orders—and you were giving him I think some good grace and latitude in allowing him to answer the supplementary question—he would have to avoid ascribing motivation or characterising the actions of the current Labour Opposition. To start with language like “things were out of control” is pure hyperbole— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but the current Labour Opposition was in Government at the time the Minister is describing. Therefore he is not describing anything to do with the current Labour Opposition. It would be helpful if the Minister were a little more careful with his language but he is entitled within reason to describe the situation inherited. If it is not accurate other members can question him about it. But I have been listening carefully and the Minister has not alluded in any way to current Labour policies at all—and he must not. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to your ruling on the substance of the supplementary question that was just asked I wonder whether you would consider Standing Order 371(1)(a) and (b) which basically makes it very clear that a question cannot contain arguments inferences imputations etc. etc. I argue that the entire supplementary question did exactly that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure how asking about the situation a Government inherited is making an imputation. Forgive me if there was some language in there that was making an imputation and maybe I was in error if I did not pick up language that was condemnatory of the situation. But certainly a question that asks—[ 
Interruption 
] The member must resume his seat. Maybe I should get to my feet to make it clear that the member should resume his seat. If I missed some language in the question I apologise for that but the substance of the question is in order. If I missed an implied criticism—at least a stated criticism—in the question then I apologise for that. But the fundamental question was in order. The Minister is entitled to report to the House on the economic situation inherited by the Government—any Minister is entitled to report—but he must not cross the line of ascribing to another party in the House current policies and criticising them in any way. I do not believe that the Hon Bill English has finished answering. Has he finished his answer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is a long list. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let us not make it too long please. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Housing speculation was out of control; per capita GDP was falling; finance companies were collapsing left right and centre; households were spending a lot more than they earned; and I could go on. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which of the following economic aggregates was the Minister referring to when he described the record of the previous Government as out of control: 3.4 percent unemployment the lowest in the Western World; zero net Crown debt despite his urging to provide tax cuts to people who did not need them; rising GDP every year for 9 years; fiscal surpluses every year for 9 years when he has run deficits every year for the last 3 years; or the fact that real median wages rose consistently every year under the Labour Government in contrast to the last 3 years when they have gone backwards by 6 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: One reason that both of the people who turn up to that member’s meetings do not listen to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question leaves the Minister a lot of latitude in answering and I am prepared as Speaker to give the Minister a lot of latitude in answering a question like that. But to start the answer that way is to go beyond reasonable latitude. There is plenty of latitude in just answering the question because the question asked the Minister what was out of control about a whole lot of things. I am sure the Minister has all sorts of views about what was out of control. But to criticise the questioner about the number of people attending meetings is not in order. The Minister can do better than that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Just to pick— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has flouted your rulings four times by my count today. The same lame joke that was used against me yesterday has been used against Mr Cunliffe. I seek an extra supplementary question for the Opposition in the circumstances because we seem to have no other effective remedy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will see. If the Minister ignores my ruling right now that may just happen. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I feel a need to defend you in this Mr Speaker. While you were ruling on that point of order the Minister of Finance laughed giggled and talked right through it. Should he not be listening to what you are saying instead of acting like a schoolboy? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House will come to order. I realise that it is the last day of term but the House will come to order. It will be the actions that the Speaker takes more notice of. The Minister is on notice. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Just to pick up one figure that the member used he referred to New Zealand’s low unemployment in 2008. That was the result of the previous Government’s job scheme and their job scheme was the Government. When we untangle the figures we find that almost all of that drop in unemployment was caused by growth in Government jobs. There were no new jobs in the private sector. 
Urewera Operation—Independent Police Conduct Authority Investigation 
5. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Kua whiwhi i a ia he ripoata no te Ropu Whakatika Pirihimana e pa ana ki to ratou uiui rangahau i nga raweketanga tika tangata pea a nga pirihimana i Te Urewera i te 15 o Whiringa-a-nuku 2007? 
[ 
Has she received any reports about the Independent Police Conduct Authority investigating possible violations of human rights that occurred from actions taken by the Police in the Urewera on 15 October 2007? 
] 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Police: No the Minister has not received any such report. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is it appropriate that the people involved in those actions have to wait for 4 years for the release of an Independent Police Conduct Authority report and indeed the Human Rights Commission report on violations of human rights that occurred from the actions taken by police on 15 October 2007; and what actions will she take to deal with the sad saga that continues to hang over those affected by those traumatic actions? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Human Rights Commission are completely independent bodies. Independence means that the authority makes its findings based on the facts and the law. It does not answer to the police or anyone else over those findings. In this way its independence is similar to that of a court. Those agencies are behaving responsibly and in the interest of justice by deferring the release of those reports until the matters before the courts are resolved. 
Early Childhood Education Task Force Report—Government Response 
6. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When will the Government respond to the Early Childhood Education Taskforce Report that was released on 1 June 2011? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Soon. 
Sue Moroney 
: When she made the statement on 1 July about the release of the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education report that “any proposals for major changes … will form part of the election campaign.” did she mean that the work done by officials in preparing the Government’s response to the task force would form the National Party election policy on early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will she commit to keeping all the existing subsidies at current levels for 20 hours’ early childhood education if her Government is re-elected? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I thank the member for her confidence that National will be re-elected. If there are going to be any changes to the funding system—that includes 20 hours’ early childhood education—it will take some time. I have said in this House and in public on a number of occasions that this Government supports 20 hours’ early childhood education. We have expanded it to include parent-led centres. If we saw any changes we would see 20 hours’ early childhood education retained including fee controls. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specifically about keeping all existing subsidies at current levels for 20 hours’ early childhood education. The Minister has made a statement committing to 20 hours so she is prepared to do that. My question was about existing subsidies at current levels. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member though to reflect on what she has asked. She has asked the current Minister whether this current Minister is prepared to commit a future Minister of Education following an election. The Minister in answering has indicated it sounded to me what might have been the Government’s approach to this issue. But there is no way the member can expect a Minister just prior to an election to commit to something like that when this Government may or may not be the Government after the election and this Minister may or may not be the Minister of Education after the election. So I think to ask her to commit exactly is a bit unreasonable. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she regret then promising to keep all existing subsidies for early childhood education prior to the last election but then proceeding to cut two of those subsidies causing parents’ costs to rise by nearly 12 percent in 1 year alone for early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As the Minister of Education in a John Key - led Government I am delighted that we have focused on increasing participation in early childhood education. We have increased the funding to early childhood education. We have made some changes to the funding mechanisms but we did maintain our promise to retain 20 hours to retain the subsidies and to retain the fee controls. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table the National Party’s election promise to keep existing subsidies— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Party policies are available to all members. 
Surgery Elective—Increase in Discharges over Last 3 Years 
7. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What improvement has there been for patients needing elective surgery over the last three years? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Annette King 
: Oh more good news. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —more good news. When this Government came to office elective surgery numbers had flat-lined over 9 years. In fact access had been cut. The number of operations did not keep up with population growth according to the Ministry of Health. Since 2008 elective surgery in New Zealand has grown by 22 percent. A total of 27000 extra people a year are now getting the operations they need. This is a fantastic achievement and I thank the many doctors nurses and other health professionals who have helped deliver this result. This is what happens when we focus on patients instead of on strategies plans visions missions and frameworks. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How has this huge increase in elective surgery been achieved? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This Government inherited a public health service in disarray. People were left waiting for months and months for treatment and 30000 people were culled from hospital waiting lists. This Government has put an average of $500 million a year extra into the health service 800 extra doctors and 2000 extra nurses and we have had an unwavering focus on improving services for patients in New Zealand. 
Grant Robertson 
: How much of the average $500 million the Minister is claiming that the Government put into the health system was actually reprioritised money? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government has made it very clear that we have put $1.5 billion of new money into the health service over three Budgets. It is an extraordinary investment in the most difficult of economic times. 
Minimum Wage Review—Factors Considered 
8. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What factors are taken into account in considering the minimum wage increase for New Zealand’s lowest paid workers? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Labour: The same factors will be taken into account in considering the minimum wage as have been in the past 2 years. These include changes in the labour cost index inflation wage rates general labour market activity and the wider economic environment to name a few. Also considered will be official Department of Labour advice that to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour immediately would destroy up to 6000 much-needed jobs. 
Darien Fenton 
: Should the review take into account the fact that the Prime Minister has admitted he could not live on the minimum wage yet Sosefina Masoe who cleans his office is struggling to support her family of four on just $13.50 an hour? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I am sure all members in the House would say that those who clean our offices work very very hard and we are certainly appreciative of that. This is one of the reasons why the Government is focusing on growing and building a strong growing economy because a strong growing economy will give all New Zealanders the opportunity to benefit in higher wages. As the member knows eight of the last nine quarters have seen growth in the New Zealand economy. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister John Key when he said yesterday that the pay of cleaners is an employment matter and has she not told him he could improve the pay of cleaners like Jaine Ikurere who cleans her office by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes she does agree with the Prime Minister as all Ministers do. What I can say is that under this Government’s stewardship the New Zealand economy has grown in eight out of the last nine quarters when the world has been experiencing the most difficult of economic times. This Government remains determined to focus on what is important and that is a strong growing economy. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she support our parliamentary cleaners being paid a minimum wage of $15 an hour; if so will she commit to increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour for all workers should her Government be re-elected? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Minister of Labour is not responsible for the pay rates that the cleaners are being paid. What the Minister of Labour is responsible for is being part of a Government that is determined to have a strong growing economy in New Zealand which means having good investment in infrastructure having lower taxes to reward people who work hard and making sure that red tape and bureaucracy are minimised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just before I call the next member the questioner did actually ask whether the Minister would commit to a $15-an-hour minimum wage and I do not believe there was much else in the question apart from referring that to a particular worker. Although the Minister may not be able to commit to that it would have been helpful to mention it in the answer. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There were two questions asked in that one question and the previous answer addressed the first question. With regard to the second matter the Minister of Labour’s view would be that a strong growing economy is very important to the New Zealand economy because that provides opportunities for workers to have higher pay rates. Right now this is a Minister of Labour who has increased the minimum wage every year and I am sure that in further considerations the Minister will be consistent. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Does the Minister accept that the fact that Parliament’s cleaners are being paid the rock-bottom minimum wage to clean the offices of those who are on high—and some on skyscraper-high—salaries demonstrates that the current bargaining arrangements are unbalanced and unfair and that the Government’s regime seems to be consistent with the Old Testament which says: “To those who have all shall be given.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No I am sure she does not agree with the tenor of that question and I am sure she also does not agree with and probably cannot put together the policy of the Labour Opposition which announced yesterday that the minimum wage should be permanently set at 60 percent of the average wage. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Will the Minister act to resolve the imbalance in the bargaining relationship between Parliament’s cleaners and Parliament because every Kiwi knows that in the contest between an individual and Parliament Parliament will win every time and that this is unfair to Parliament’s cleaners who are paid less than those who clean in schools and paid less than those who clean in hospitals; if not why will the Minister not act to fix this injustice? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Minister of Labour is not party to the discussions or the negotiations over those staff members’ wages. That member would be better off taking his concerns to the people who do the negotiations. The fact is that this Minister of Labour is focused on what will benefit all New Zealanders and that is a strong growing economy. What will put that all at risk is any potential that that failed party opposite could ever run this country again. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Does the Minister agree with Dr Martin Luther King that it is always the right time to do the right thing and agree that giving our hard-working cleaners a pay rise is the right thing to do and now is the right time to follow the Prime Minister’s lead; and will the Minister “talk to someone important enough” to see whether it can happen? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes the Minister agrees with Dr Martin Luther King. It is always the right time to do the right thing and she knows that on 26 November New Zealanders will do the right thing with the right party—and that is the party on this side of the House. 
Households Improvements—Environmental Benefits 
9. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What practical environmental improvements has this Government achieved for households? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 A total of 120000 homes have been insulated with Government support in this term of Parliament. That is four times the number in the last term. Also 26500 homes have been converted with Government support to clean heating to reduce air pollution this term. That compares with only 800 in the last term. In addition 6740 homes have been converted with Government support to solar water heating in the last term as compared with 200. This last month 28000 home televisions were recycled under a new scheme piloted by the Government. These are just four examples of successful practical programmes in which this Government is making real achievements for the environment. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What benefits have flowed on from these and other programmes for the New Zealand environment? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There have been real benefits with cleaner air fewer greenhouse gas emissions and healthier homes as well as cost savings for households from these programmes. Old dirty fires and log burners are the greatest source of air pollution. These programmes alongside the tighter fuel and vehicle standards have contributed to New Zealand in the last year having the cleanest air on record. It is also encouraging that the proportion of renewable power hit a 10-year high and that for 2 years running greenhouse gas emissions have declined when in the previous decade they had consistently gone up. This Government’s practical environmental programmes are making a real difference for New Zealand. 
Student Achievement Practitioners—Minister’s Statements 
10. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 on behalf of  
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all the statements that she made and that were made on her behalf yesterday? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did she say that the claim a suspended principal was a student achievement practitioner was completely false when Deborah Mutu gave a presentation as a student achievement practitioner to a meeting of Northland principals and Ministry of Education staff at the ministry’s offices in Whangarei on 31 August the same Deborah Mutu whom the  
Northern Advocate 
 reported in May 2008 as having been suspended from her role as principal of Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Kaikohe? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Because the  
Northern Advocate 
 was incorrect. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is she aware then that Deborah Mutu’s teacher registration has not been renewed following her suspension nor was her employment as principal reinstated? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: What I do know is that that principal has never been suspended. 
Sue Moroney 
: What information can the Minister provide to Parliament today to show that the  
Northern Advocate 
 report was in fact false when it said that she had been suspended as the principal of the Kaikohe kura? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am advised that the Ministry of Education in advertising for the student achievement practitioners—these expert advisers of whom 46 have been employed—has done extensive research into the background of the over 500 applicants who wanted to take part in this National-led initiative to support the increasing of student achievement in our schools as a result of national standards. The ministry has done extensive research and checked out the backgrounds of all the applicants and certainly has given advice to me in the last 24 hours that no one has been employed who was a suspended principal. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked specifically what information the Minister could put before Parliament. She has failed to provide any evidence— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but I think I heard the Minister say that the advice she has received from the Ministry of Education was such and such. I think advice from the Ministry of Education is evidence indeed. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Minister was in fact referring to an official document could she table that document please? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not see the Minister reading. Was the Minister reading from an official document? The Minister is saying she was not. 
Welfare Reforms—Addressing Long-term Welfare Dependency 
11. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps has the Government taken to reduce welfare dependency? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This Government believes that we can and we must continue to support people to get off welfare and into work. Under this Government during very difficult times we have had a number of successes over the past 3 years. For example nearly 10000 people are off the unemployment benefit because we introduced a simple process to make them reapply. More jobs come every week into Work and Income and more people are available for work. Under the previous Labour Government we saw many transfers between— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This question asked “What steps has the Government taken to reduce welfare dependency?”. It did not ask anything about the former Labour Government. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Sorry Mr Speaker. I was merely pointing out that we have seen fewer transfers between benefits under this Government because of our focus on making sure that we get people on to the right benefit at this time. We have seen a number of successes. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What reports has she seen that discuss welfare changes? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have seen a number of reports. I have seen reports that defend a so-called sort of job-focused record where in reality we actually saw the number of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefits more than double during a period in the 2000s. I have seen reports of work-for-the-dole schemes in drag. Meanwhile this Government of course has had more than 12000 young people going through our successful Job Ops programme and more than 90 percent of them staying in jobs. I have seen reports of a peak in numbers on the youth unemployment benefit in January 2010 and more than 10000 of them coming off since then. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table data from the New Zealand quarterly employment survey from the Parliamentary Library— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the document prepared by the Parliamentary Library? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It is. It shows that the number of people employed went up 25 percent under Labour and has declined 3.3 percent under this National Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: What sustainable evidence does the Minister have that her policies will reduce welfare dependency given that the number of people receiving the domestic purposes benefit is at a 10-year high and the cost to taxpayers has increased by nearly $200 million since she became the Minister? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What I do know about people on the domestic purposes benefit is that there are actually 15600 people on the domestic purposes benefit who are doing part-time work. Prior to our Government’s Future Focus changes this was more like just over 13000. Nearly 12000 people have gone off the domestic purposes benefit— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: We do know that a lot of them can’t put food on their table for their kids. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I know that that member is kind of angry and this might be her last question time but it is OK—it is OK. Nearly 12000 people have gone off the domestic purposes benefit into full-time work and I think that is an achievement. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Did the Minister decline the opportunity to appear on  
Back Benches 
 alongside me and Sue Bradford because— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker must be able to hear the question to be able to determine whether it is in order at all and I cannot hear the question with that kind of interjection level. Carmel Sepuloni may start again. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Did the Minister decline the opportunity to appear on  
Back Benches 
 alongside me and Sue Bradford because firstly she thinks she would be unable to effectively defend her actions in respect of welfare reform and her Government’s failure to address increasing unemployment or secondly because she knows she would be unable to? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: For 3 years I have been looking for that killer hit from Labour and I would say that I have not seen it yet. What I would say to the member is that firstly I think it is cute that she is gasping for breath and trying to get an audience by using my own profile and secondly that she might recognise that I am not a backbencher. See you next time honey. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members have had their fun. We come to question No. 12 in the name of Gareth Hughes. [ 
Interruption 
] I want to hear Gareth Hughes. [ 
Interruption 
] The Hon Annette King ought to cease interjecting. 
Fisheries Management System—Bycatch 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and I ask— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I say to the National backbench now that I must be able to hear the question. 
12. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: Does he have confidence in New Zealand’s fisheries management system in particular how it deals with bycatch? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Yes. New Zealand has an internationally recognised fisheries management system. Of course we are constantly introducing improvements. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Is it possible that the country’s favourite emperor penguin Happy Feet was killed by a trawler? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Phil Heatley in so far as the Minister has responsibility for Happy Feet. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is highly improbable because my officials had a screen of Happy Feet’s transponder next to a screen of fishing vessels’ transponders and they never came near to each other. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Given that the Minister in his response to questions for written answer identified that there were nine southern blue whiting trawlers recorded within 20 to 50 nautical miles of Happy Feet’s last known location how can he say it is highly unlikely that he was killed by a trawler? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear the Minister’s answer. It will be interesting. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I can report that when Happy Feet’s transponder turned off the nearest southern blue whiting fishing vessel was 32 kilometres away. Its fishing lines are not 32 kilometres long. 
Paul Quinn 
: Is the Minister able to advise us as to what did happen to Happy Feet? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I really want to. I have heard it said that Happy Feet may very well have become a happy meal. 
Gareth Hughes 
: To the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise that this is the last question of this parliamentary term but I still want to hear it. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Given that a southern blue whiting trawler can cover 50 nautical miles in a day—and we are talking about an incredibly long net that is almost half a kilometre wide and 75 metres high—how can the Minister claim that it is very unlikely that Happy Feet was possibly trawled by a southern blue whiting trawler? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The reason I say it is highly unlikely is that when Happy Feet’s transponder—or whatever we call it—turned off the closest vessel was 32 kilometres away. That would have meant that the vessel raced the transponder’s emission which went probably faster than—or close to—the speed of light. That is a very fast fishing vessel indeed. 
Gareth Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very good answer but it did not get to the question which was whether a trawler can cover 50 nautical miles in a day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister gave a pretty fair answer as to why he believes that the trawler could not have caught Happy Feet because of the difference in the speed of the transponder’s signal compared with a trawler’s speed. I think that is a reasonable answer to that question but the member does have some more supplementary questions to pursue the matter. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Would Happy Feet have had any chance of survival had he been captured by a southern blue whiting trawler given that the net is 400 metres wide and 75 metres high and that the vessel can trawl for 6 to 8 hours at a time? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I hate to sink the member further but unfortunately the fact is that the closest vessel to Happy Feet when the transponder went off was the  
Tangaroa 
 which was the boat that released Happy Feet. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Is the Minister concerned—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member but—[ 
Interruption 
] Colleagues please. I believe we have only a couple more questions so if we could just hold it together for that length of time. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Is the Minister concerned that a southern blue whiting fishery not only posed a possible threat to the emperor penguin Happy Feet 
but also is the fishery with the highest bycatch of New Zealand fur seals and that also captures seabirds and critically endangered sea lions? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: As I said I am reasonably convinced that a southern blue whiting vessel did not catch Happy Feet. We are always disappointed about bycatch but the industry is working very well with the Ministry of Fisheries to minimise this. 
Gareth Hughes 
: Will the Minister consider stopping the destructive practice of bottom trawling given its devastating effects on the marine environment and endangered species and the risk to our fisheries image globally and given that last week the  
Guardian 
 ran an article on New Zealand’s Hector’s dolphin that was covered prominently in the UK media? Is that a risk to our “clean green” brand? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The fishing industry has voluntarily closed one-third of New Zealand’s deep-sea space to bottom trawling. We support that move. It is one of the largest closed areas in the world which shows a responsible attitude. I support that. 
Member Vacancy 
Te Atatu Electoral District—Hon Chris Carter 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 131(a) of the Electoral Act 1993 a vacancy in the Te Atatu Electoral District having arisen in the period of six months prior to the date of the expiration of this Parliament no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that Electoral District to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Chris Joseph Carter. 
Motion agreed to. 
Urgency 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through their remaining stages of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill and the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill and the adjournment debate.  
Last week I outlined with some particularity the reasons why these bills required the urgent attention of the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be now read a second time 
. I begin by thanking my colleague Chester Borrows for his chairmanship of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the members of the committee for their work. 
The bill we debate this afternoon is a slightly modified form of the bill sent to the select committee last week. Clause 3 states the purpose of the Act which is to preserve the rights of those persons who have the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court but otherwise to state the law as it was thought to be prior to 2 September the date of the judgment in Hamed’s case. 
As is now made explicit by clause 3(d) all of the protections available under section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are left intact. Additionally clause 5 enacts that the provisions of the bill will expire 6 months from the date of commencement rather than 12 months from the date as provided by the bill at the time of its introduction. 
The term “search” is defined in clause 4. It is best expressed in broad terms. The intention is that the term applies to a search when done in connection with a search warrant or otherwise in circumstances where no search warrant is necessary or available. Although the decision of the Supreme Court does not rule on covert surveillance from outside the boundary of a particular private property it has been thought prudent to refer to that form of surveillance in the bill. 
Clause 5 is really the essence of the bill. It provides that where covert video surveillance occurs as part of or in connection with a search whether with a warrant or otherwise the search is not an unlawful search only because of that feature. 
The bill does not assert that a search with the use of covert video surveillance is always lawful. There is an argument that such a rule may have been extracted from the pre-Hamed case law. However the committee has chosen the form of the words used in clause 5 as the least possible interference with the trial rights. The bill still preserves the ability for the police to continue to use the vital tools of covert surveillance in countering serious crime. 
Clause 5A reflects a decision of the committee to make one exception to the rejection of any retrospective element in the bill. The purpose of the amendment is to preclude persons convicted on the basis of evidence to which Hamed applies from gaining an acquittal new trial or appeal for the reason only that evidence admitted at their trial was illegally obtained in terms of Hamed. 
That covers the main points of the bill as it has returned from the select committee. I will make further comments in my third reading speech. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make just a couple of points in this second reading speech on the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. I differ from the Attorney-General in that I think it is fair to say that on any objective reading of the bill it is significantly reworked as a result of the scrutiny it received in the select committee process. It is by no means accurate to say it is somewhat or slightly modified. Let us be clear about just what changes were made in the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
First the powers of law enforcement are strictly confined to what they were prior to the Hamed decision in the Supreme Court not the enormous grab for power that was represented in the Attorney-General’s first effort on this matter. There is a significant narrowing down of the definition of the term “search” a removal of the outrageous reference that first appeared to the collection of information about any place person or thing—that is the breadth of the power that would originally have been allowed under the National Government’s initial proposal. There is an express preservation of the section 21 power in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 that any search must be subject to the reasonableness criterion contained in that section. If it is not the courts will not uphold it. Again that is another protection inserted by the select committee and it would not have been there had National had its way originally. Also there is a removal of the Attorney-General’s attempt to nullify the discretion of the courts under section 30 to receive such evidence as they think fit under the Evidence Act notwithstanding the manner in which that evidence was obtained. We should leave these matters to the courts not try to interfere with them as a Parliament. 
The second most significant change wrought by and in the select committee is that the retrospective nature of the powers contained in Mr Finlayson’s original bill has been completely removed. Existing investigations and cases before the courts will be and must be untouched by this Parliament. 
The third significant change created by the select committee was to insist that the bill not apply for any longer than 6 months. The original proposal was 12 months. Parliament will have to get its skates on do what it should have done a year ago and pass the Search and Surveillance Bill which sets out powers of search and also protections for those who are subject to those powers. It is outrageous that that has not yet been done by this Parliament and by this Government. 
Finally the select committee insisted that as far as past court decisions were concerned where evidence had been admitted in good faith by a judge on the basis of good law applicable at the time those decisions should not be able to be disturbed. There are some who do not like that exercise of authority or recommendation by the select committee. They think that it should be possible to relitigate actions taken by law enforcement on the basis of an ex post facto application of the Hamed decision. I say to those people that that would be “dog law”. That would be like saying to one’s dog “Bad dog bad dog” after it had done something it did not know was wrong at the time. Either we oppose retrospective application of the law or we do not. 
In that regard I quote what a human rights commissioner said to the select committee. When asked whether existing court decisions ought to be preserved one of the human rights commissioners replied: “Well my view would be that the cases that have concluded have concluded. If the lawyers haven’t raised the point then it’s past and there would be no avenue to reopen the case. It presupposes of course behind your question that the only evidence was the video evidence. So I can’t see the Court of Appeal entertaining appeals on that basis.” So it is not in respect of that particular aspect of the recasting of the Government’s original bill any sort of offence to human rights to have protected existing court decisions in that way. 
I conclude this second reading speech by paying a tribute—but a limited tribute—to the parties in the House that like Labour were not willing to simply write the National Government the blank cheque that it sought on this legislation a couple of weeks ago. Obviously the Green Party the Maori Party and the Mana party are in that category but not Peter Dunne as was asserted in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today in its editorial. I was at a public meeting with Peter Dunne on the night of the bill’s tabling when he was quite happy to write that blank cheque to the Government so we should get the record straight on that. I pay significantly more tribute to the ACT Party for remembering its traditions and protecting civil liberties. I hope that with Mr Banks and Mr Brash in prospect as potential future MPs that tradition is not in significant danger. But I want to pay the most tribute to my Labour colleagues for respecting the traditions of limited Government. They could have chosen to leave law enforcement with no surveillance powers. That would have been the easy option and it was the one urged by the Greens the Maori Party and the Mana party. But my colleagues avoided that trap. It would have been irresponsible at the time of the largest international event New Zealand has ever hosted to leave law enforcement powerless in that respect. 
So the least-worst outcome will be achieved out of this legislation. As a result of the select committee process that the Government was required to undergo police will get only the limited powers that they formerly held for 6 months only and Parliament will be prevented from doing something constitutionally repugnant—that is legislating retrospectively. Labour stood firm and achieved that outcome and for that I express the deepest respect gratitude and thanks to my Labour colleagues on this side of the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I think it is important to note that from time to time in response to courts’ rulings the Government has to respond or Parliament has to respond in respect of law and must do so through retrospective legislation. Retrospective legislation is a type that should be applied only with the strictest of criteria. 
It is true that the initial Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill as proposed by the Government was modified somewhat through the select committee process and the Justice and Electoral Committee modified it after discussions across the parties represented in that select committee process. I am also pleased to be able to confirm that in the course of that process 438 submissions were received from the public. Twenty were heard orally and the others were received in a written form and we were able even within the narrow constraints of time to receive a departmental report in respect of those submissions. I thank those parties’ representatives who were involved in the committee for the way in which they engaged with each other. 
Bearing in mind the words of the previous speaker it is correct to note that the Green Party through its representative Keith Locke maintained its position throughout that process. I also acknowledge that although the Green Party was never going to vote or give any support for this legislation the fact is that the member engaged with the committee in the fairest possible and most reasonable way and his arguments were philosophical and never personal. It would have been good if that had been the manner whereby all parties engaged. But I am pleased with the way in which the members of the committee worked on this bill together. 
I also acknowledge the work of the Hon Rodney Hide in that committee process: the questions that he asked and the way that he too was able to engage. I have to align myself with the comments of Charles Chauvel in being a little suspicious as to whether such ACT engagement would continue past this election if we do not find Mr Hide back with us—although some of us have not given up hope on that score. 
I would like to say a thankyou once again to the committee but most of all to the members of the public who within a very short time constraint managed to put aside the duties of their day to be able to engage with the committee in a very reasonable and full way given the narrow constraints of time. I commend the bill. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to catalogue some of the areas where I was unhappy with this process. I think we came close to getting it wrong in this Parliament and we would have but for the circumstances that Charles Chauvel has already outlined which involved all of the minor parties lining up with Labour to stop National pushing through this Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill under urgency without a select committee process. 
The Supreme Court decision threw up three issues which the Government conflated. Those three issues were firstly whether the police and some other agencies needed a prospective power of surveillance which the Supreme Court found does not exist until this legislation is passed; secondly what the effect of the decision would be on prior convictions; and thirdly what the effect of the Supreme Court decision would be on illegally obtained evidence in respect of trials that are yet to take place. It was not until we got to the Justice and Electoral Committee and had input from other parties including Labour that light started to be shone on those three issues. Once we did that it was easier to cure the problem. 
I am disappointed and extremely surprised that yet again we have had a failure of Parliament’s processes in respect of the vet in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That Act requires the Attorney-General to report to Parliament when any legislation breaches it. We have adverted to this in our minority report. On this occasion we did not have a report from the Attorney-General signalling that this legislation infringed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It has taken Labour to elucidate that in our minority report. 
The Supreme Court found that the police acting without express authority in the use of surveillance devices was in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that stands as the ratio of the court’s decision. This legislation as it was introduced to the House retrospectively made that illegal evidence legal. That must—must—infringe the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions in respect of freedom from inappropriate search and surveillance. How could the Government conclude that no warning was necessary for this House? It would have highlighted to the House that care needed to be taken in respect of the retrospective application of this legislation. The select committee did get to the bottom of it but it was no thanks to any warning which was properly required under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
That is not a fault of the Attorney-General because in respect of this legislation he had delegated it to Kate Wilkinson. In fairness to her she acted on advice from the Ministry of Justice. But that is the third instance in this Parliament where in my opinion we have had poor process within the ministry and it has advised Ministers that no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet was necessary. We had it in respect of the earlier attempt to remove the unconditional right of accused persons to appear at their own defence when they wanted to. We also had it in respect of some of the provisions that would effectively abrogate part of the right of silence of defendants. In the criminal procedure legislation the defence was going to be required to disclose the nature of its defence to the prosecution. And we have had it again in respect of this legislation. I say to the Attorney-General that there is a need to review that office because these are three instances where I think complications in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act ought to have been brought to the attention of this House. 
In respect of the prospective power of the police I am disappointed with the attitude of the Greens. It is absolutely clear that the police on some occasions need the right to surveillance techniques—it is absolutely clear. The select committee was told of one example that speaks volumes which is that drug dealers who know they might be subject to listening devices close the curtains and write instructions on whiteboards. The only way the police can gather evidence in respect of that situation is through the use of cameras. That is the only way so for the Greens to deny that a prospective power is necessary for the police is quite wrong. 
The other point I raise is that it is true also of the SIS. The SIS is affected by this legislation. I was disappointed that I learnt that only at the select committee. It might have been raised with some other people at briefings prior to that but it was not raised with me and it was not raised in any of the Minister’s speeches in the first reading. This legislation does not apply just to the police; it applies to other agencies. 
This legislation could have been better. As Sir Geoffrey Palmer said within a day’s drafting we could have specified that it was to be a warrant only from judges we could have listed the level of seriousness needed before the police could exercise this sort of warrant and we could have had a list of the agencies to which it applied. If we had had those things we would have greater protections than this bill provides. 
Having said that Labour is satisfied to vote for this bill because we accept that a prospective power is needed for the police. We are pleased that there is not retrospectivity in respect of the trials yet to take place and we think it is appropriate that we not reopen convictions that have previously been entered. We will be supporting this legislation with those reservations. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was not going to give another speech in this House after my valedictory last Wednesday but I have finally been persuaded by the argument that because I was the Green representative on the Justice and Electoral Committee hearing the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill I do have a duty to speak on the committee’s report back to the House. 
The Greens support most of the changes that the select committee made to the original bill—those that were for the better—but we still cannot support the bill. We particularly thank those who submitted to the committee who inspired many of the changes for the better. I must congratulate the 438 people and organisations who submitted written submissions and the 20 who spoke before the committee—all in the 2 days after the bill was tabled in the House. This level of concern—almost all submissions opposed the bill—is another reason why this bill should not have been rushed through this House in a week. What we are making here is rushed law which is bad law and also unnecessary law. Here is a temporary measures bill in an area where there is no demonstrated need for temporary measures; it is legislation in search of a real problem. It also threatens the rule of law. 
The rule of law requires us to respect the law. This is a sorry saga of disrespect for the law and the courts. First the police in the Operation Eight case deliberately broke the law by putting a video camera on private land and not trying to get a warrant to do that because as the Chief Justice said they knew they could not lawfully get one. When ruling on that case the Supreme Court on 2 September said that the use of covert video surveillance involving trespass is unlawful. As a result the charges against 13 of the Operation Eight defendants were dismissed. That upset the Government but instead of accepting the verdict it is rushing through a bill to override the general impact of that judgment and also to make the new law retrospective. The Government then scaremongered by claiming that all kinds of investigations and court cases would be affected but when I and others interrogated that fact at the select committee it was found to be incorrect. 
Rodney Harrison QC said that if there were court cases where the police had been using search warrants to authorise camera surveillance involving trespass those cases would have come to the attention of criminal lawyers and he doubted that the police had been doing that. The Law Commission thought that there had been “one or two” court cases that dealt with trespassory video surveillance. 
It is common sense that most surveillance cameras have been the ones used to check the comings and goings to and from a property through cameras in the street or with permission cameras used from a neighbouring property. None of those cameras were ruled unlawful by the September Supreme Court decision. Of course their operation would have had to meet the test of reasonableness meaning that they did not in the circumstances unreasonably intrude on the privacy of people as guaranteed by section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
So what was the video surveillance bill all about? Whether or not there was any conscious intention it was about the State flexing its muscles particularly against the courts. The Supreme Court clarified the law in a way that the Government did not like so what was the Government’s response? To simply change the law immediately. The Government seems quite happy that this bill will give a range of State agencies with search powers—the police the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Customs Service the Department of Internal Affairs etc.—pretty much untrammelled powers to use covert video surveillance. 
If the surveillance is over-the-fence surveillance a warrant will not be required; if it involves trespass there needs to be a warrant—except that the warrant does not need to specify that there would be any surveillance just that the property will be searched. All of those State agencies are now able to leave a hidden camera behind after their search. Yes there has been a concession in that some of the retrospectivity in the bill has been removed and that is good. The bill no longer blankly validates all video surveillance done in the past. All the arguments from the police etc. about the practical need for retrospectivity collapsed. But it is still bad and unacceptable to the Greens that the revised bill gives free rein to use video surveillance to a range of State agencies for 6 months into the future. 
To make matters worse a new bad retrospective clause has been added—that is clause 5A—which denies a convicted person the right to use in their appeal the fact following the Supreme Court decision that covert video surveillance involving trespass is unlawful. This is constitutionally repugnant being contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act sections 21 to 28 inclusive which deal with search and seizure and the rights of accused persons. It is a fundamental principle of law that people engaged in court proceedings have the right to access the law as it applied at the time of the alleged offence. I will be moving an amendment to delete clause 5A. If my amendment fails then the application of this retrospective clause could easily be challenged at the United Nations Human Rights Committee as in contravention to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which prohibits such retrospectivity. 
Let us be clear: the Supreme Court ruled that covert video surveillance involving trespass is unlawful now and has been unlawful in the past. The court was clarifying the law not making new law; only Parliament can make new law. I say this because there has been a lot of talk from the Government about the Supreme Court changing the law as previously understood or in respect of common law. That is not correct. The New Zealand Law Society’s submission to the committee agreed with the Law Commission’s 2007 paper  
Search and Surveillance Powers 
 saying: “The paper correctly assumes (in accordance with the previously decided case law) that covert camera surveillance which involves trespass to land will be regarded as unlawful conduct …”. 
National and Labour members say the Law Society is out of date and that there were subsequently “three Court of Appeal decisions that we are advised affirmed the lawful use of such surveillance.” That is trespassory surveillance. Respected lawyer Steven Price said that two of these three cases  
R v Gardiner 
 and  
R v Fraser  
were not about trespassory surveillance at all. So Labour and National are relying solely on the Court of Appeal Operation Eight ruling which was overturned by the Supreme Court. That National and Labour could get this so wrong is another reason why it is such a travesty of parliamentary process to so abbreviate the select committee scrutiny of this bill and rush it through Parliament. The Supreme Court decision was not some rogue decision that Parliament had to overrule in haste as we are doing today to the discredit of Parliament; it was a perfectly just decision. 
Let us look at the fundamental substantive issue in all of this for the people of New Zealand. That is in simple terms do we want to give a range of State agencies the right to enter our homes and without us knowing put a camera in our living room or bedroom that can record and transmit our most intimate family activities? Do we want such a camera put covertly in a company boardroom? The police in their submission indicated that they had already done this even though there have been no reports of such a case coming to court. The Greens say now as we did in the select committee report back on the Search and Surveillance Bill that putting a covert camera in someone’s house or office is a step too far. It is not justified by the perhaps one or two extra criminals it might catch. 
The Greens do allow for covert video surveillance without trespass. I note to the two previous Labour speakers that the Greens do allow for covert video surveillance without trespass—say to monitor people entering a house where P is being produced—but it has to have all the controls that are in the Search and Surveillance Bill on special surveillance warrants report-back procedures tapes being subsequently destroyed and after the fact people being told that they have been under surveillance. None of these controls are in the Video Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. Why not simply wait until February when the now fine-tuned Search and Surveillance Bill with all its controls will be debated in Parliament? Thank you. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I believe that this bill the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill shows our Parliament working at its best. I think we should take a minute to respect our Parliament and the work it has done on behalf of the people of New Zealand in this regard. In my 15 years here—short as they have been—this has been in my view Parliament at its very best under very pressured circumstances. 
First I congratulate the Minister in charge of the bill the Attorney-General. Such is our constitution and system of Government that a select committee can never get on and do its business freely unless a Minister is prepared to allow it and to accept the recommendations of the select committee. I thank the Minister for that. 
Second of all I congratulate the Justice and Electoral Committee. The critical part of getting this bill right and satisfactory was getting it to the select committee where the advice that officials were providing could be contested by members of the public and by people with expertise and where members outside the executive could scrutinise it. Without the work of that select committee we certainly would not have had an improved bill that is satisfactory like the one we have today. 
I particularly thank all the submitters particularly the lawyers—and they were high-priced lawyers. They take a lot of stick from members of the public and from politicians but there they were on their own time in the best interests of justice for all taking time out of their weekend and their day to come to Parliament in what might have been a forlorn hope of making a submission about what the law should be. Certainly they changed my thinking and I believe the committee’s thinking on this bill and they greatly improved it. So I pay tribute to all those who made a submission to the select committee. 
I believe that Chester Borrows did an outstanding job chairing that select committee. I am sounding a bit twee in my dotage but what was interesting to me was that under the pressure of time all members of the select committee decided to work really in the best interests of getting the result. Amazingly there was not much difference amongst all of us about what we were trying to achieve. I thank the members for that. 
I had not worked with Charles Chauvel before and I have to say that it was a huge delight and privilege to work with Charles on this bill. I found him to be a man of some remarkable intelligence. He also interested me because he did not play the “Opposition card”; he actually worked in the committee to achieve a result. I think it is very easy in Opposition to just be in opposition. But actually Charles was prepared with Labour to step up and see that there was a problem and to work with Government members and the select committee to get a result. 
It would be very remiss of me not to acknowledge Keith Locke my colleague and his opposition to the bill. It is very easy to sit in this Parliament and pick on the party and the individual that stand aside from the rest. But I believe it is the party and the individual that stand aside from the rest that give us the best insight into what we are doing and why we are doing it. I think it is quite marvellous that Keith Locke has ended his week and his last day in Parliament exactly—exactly—as he started. I congratulate him on that. Thank you. 
Amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I seek leave for all the provisions of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 and 2 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I listened very carefully to what Mr Locke said and there are just two matters I want to bring to his attention that may allay some of his fears. 
The first point relates to clause 3(d). Although strictly speaking from a legal point of view the subclause was not needed it has been inserted to emphasise to those reading and dealing with this legislation that section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is unaffected. That is very very important. 
The second point relates to what he said about the breadth of clause 5. I will emphasise certain words in clause 5(2) and it is important to read them. The use of this type of surveillance “does not of itself render the search unlawful.” Of course I acknowledge that when the preliminary consultation exposure draft went out for consultation there were the words “or unreasonable” in there. Those were deleted at the time the bill was introduced. It is important to emphasise those words “does not of itself” because it could be unlawful on other grounds. It could also be unreasonable depending on the circumstances. So to take a particular hypothetical there might be a prosecution body that commences this type of surveillance for an offence that clearly does not warrant that degree of intrusive surveillance and it could be challenged on section 30 of the Evidence Act grounds at some stage as being unreasonable. It is very important—and I hope this helps the member—that that unreasonableness limb is there and that in appropriate circumstances even if this type of surveillance is not of itself unlawful it may still be unreasonable. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I thank the Attorney-General for his comments. I appreciate that the reference to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been put in the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill in clause 3(d) but I think that it is still in conflict with clause 5A which I have tabled an amendment to omit. 
The way I read clause 5A it is in direct contravention to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because the fundamental principles as I indicated in my initial speech were that people have to be tried found guilty and conduct their appeals etc. on the law as it applied at the time. In relation to covert video surveillance involving trespass the Supreme Court has indicated that that was unlawful at the time and unlawful in any previous trial. 
So if for example just as a hypothetical example the entire evidence against somebody who was convicted or the absolutely primary evidence even was on the basis of covert video surveillance involving trespass now that the Supreme Court has ruled this year that somebody who was convicted say a couple of years ago on that basis could come back for an appeal potentially—they might not succeed and there are all the other issues involved in appeals—we should not as a Parliament rule out their right to apply the law applying at the time. This is against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and people like Tony Ellis in their written and oral submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee did indicate this. 
Tony Ellis has taken appeals to the UN Human Rights Committee. I think he won three of them on such similar substantive legal grounds where the New Zealand jurisdiction seems to be at odds with international law. So I think I was right to put in my speech that we could potentially face a challenge at the international bodies if somebody had an appeal denied on that basis. 
I take the other point the Attorney-General made about clause 5(2) that the surveillance does not in and of itself render a search unlawful. It is similar to the point I made in my speech. I emphasise—and Charles Chauvel and David Parker are wrong here—that the Green Party is not against covert video surveillance with the proper controls. The whole issue today with this bill is what the Supreme Court dealt with which is covert video surveillance involving trespass not without trespass. 
I totally agree and I said so in my speech and it is quite clear that if the police or any agency engage in covert video surveillance without trespass then they are still subject to a test—which they might succeed on or might not—about whether that was reasonable in terms of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
We had instances of this in the select committee. If the camera is in the street and it is just keeping an eye on someone’s front gate covert but checking who is going to and from a P lab that would not be considered unreasonable in most cases. They would get away with it. If the camera was high up in a tree on a neighbouring property and people thought they were in a private space and it was focused through their bedroom window or on the backyard and they were doing naughty things in their backyard or whatever it would be considered unreasonable and may be ruled out by the court. 
That is why I said that this bill is a bill looking for a problem—because 99 percent of the surveillance that the police are doing now is covert video surveillance without trespass subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and subject to the reasonableness criterion. Even the material collected unlawfully is still subject to section 30 of the Evidence Act and usually it can be included if the crime has been serious enough. There are all of these fall-back positions in the existing law without this bill. We do not actually need this particular bill. 
The other thing—and this came up at the select committee; the Criminal Bar Association made the point in particular—is that in most cases the case does not turn on the video evidence. There might be a little bit of video evidence or photographic evidence or whatever but it turns on all sorts of other things. All I am saying is that the police have so many fall-back positions when prosecuting a case even when they are using unlawful evidence that is trespassory evidence. They have section 30 of the Evidence Act that can rule the evidence in they have the reasonableness side of it as long as they cover that and also they have a whole pile of other evidence. 
It is probable in my opinion that most of the covert video surveillance without trespass is just working out who is involved in a P lab or whatever. Then they have piles of other evidence including all the evidence they now get rightly or wrongly from intercepting electronic communications and texts. If we look at the Operation Eight case there were masses of electronic interception and other forms of surveillance material that they presumably were trying to hang their case on in certain cases. 
The Supreme Court’s decision in Operation Eight is an interesting illustration in that the Supreme Court allowed the use of section 30 of the Evidence Act and said that yes the evidence collected against the four remaining on the organised criminal group charge was collected unlawfully but the court would allow that case to continue because it found the organised criminal group charge and the other charges as sufficiently serious enough. That is why I say it is very hard to argue for this. I think it is important because of the conflict between the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provision in the Act and the fact that under clause 5A of this bill a person cannot use the fact that evidence found on him or her was illegally collected—that is covert video surveillance involving trespass—in an appeal. That is quite unjust and I think it will come under quite a bit of criticism from the law profession because it is a retrospective provision that is generally unacceptable. It is in conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Generally the Supreme Court is our highest court and we should not treat its decisions lightly. It does not have quite the strength of the US Supreme Court. If one wants to overthrow a US Supreme Court decision one has to have a two-thirds majority in two Houses and all kinds of things. Things like its abortion decision back in 1973 still stand because even though there was quite a big religious right and all the rest of it they cannot overturn that decision. 
It is not respecting the Supreme Court when we see the police deliberately breaking the law as the Chief Justice said in the Operation Eight case. They do not get any penalty whatsoever so then a certain disrespect for the law is generated. Some of the submissions particularly I think from Tony Ellis in quoting learned judges and what not on that say that it creates a disrespect for the law when the State breaks the law and there is no penalty. Then the law changes and some retrospectivity is put in there. 
It is true that in the system we have Parliament is supreme but we must always guard the sanctity or whatever we want to call it of the judicial system and the court system particularly of the Supreme Court. I think rushing this legislation through is not achieving that. 
I also wanted to talk a bit about the extension of these powers beyond the police. That has been too little covered both in the political debate and in the media. I went through the search powers of various other agencies that have search powers such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Department of Internal Affairs the Commerce Commission the Customs Service etc. and all of these agencies for the next 6 months until we deal with the Search and Surveillance Bill will have these powers to leave covert video cameras on private property. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 In speaking to the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill I want to first acknowledge the incredible act of democracy demonstrated by the fact that 438 submissions were received in the space of 24 hours. This bill was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee last Tuesday 27 September and a day later submissions closed. Our appreciation as a House must be expressed to those ordinary New Zealanders who made considerable efforts to provide comments despite the difficulties associated with rushed legislation. 
A common theme throughout many of the submissions was to draw on the advice and counsel of Dean Knight who suggests that claims about the implications of the ruling for other cases are overstated. Mr Knight’s view is that although the Government claims there may be about 40 current cases that will be prejudiced by the ruling the Supreme Court’s decision is relatively nuanced and will allow for the admission of unlawfully obtained evidence in serious cases. In the purpose expressed in clause 3 of this bill we read that the legislation is required “(b) to provide a temporary period that will enable Parliament to address … the matters raised in the decision regarding the lawful and appropriate use of video camera surveillance as part of law enforcement;”. And although the bill itself does not mention the current cases the threat of these cases certainly looms large through the framework of the bill. 
I want to bring to the Committee the expert view of barrister Tavake Barron Afeaki who urged Parliament to consider that the voice of reason must resound. In his email he made some extremely salient points which I wish to lay on the floor for further debate. I quote: “The presumption of innocence must remain for those who are entitled to it and it is not for the police and politicians alone without the independence of the judiciary overseeing the process to merely deem that the 40 cases before courts and 50 current investigations are justified in having law-breaking surveillance. The law should be certain and the police should get it right when they exercise the powers we the electorate give them.” 
I think these points are really critical and I am in full agreement with Mr Afeaki that injustice is the price of making laws that break laws. I remind the Committee of some statements made earlier in the debates this week around public confidence and trust in the police. If two out of three victims will not go to the police then surely we have a problem. 
I return again to the words of Mr Afeaki to place on record another interpretation that might fit within the purpose statement of this bill. “Police powers should be used for serious crimes: nasty evil violent acts; P dealers real gangs robbers murderers and rapists not for stifling political dissent by Maori political activists greenies animal rights people and the like.” 
The law already has safeguards which the operation and Supreme Court judgment demonstrate. Mr Key in his initial comments on this new law made the broad claim that if the Government could not get the numbers that would mean there would be some serious criminals who would not be brought to justice. I think it is really disturbing to note that the initial thought was not about developing a workable solution to a problem but more akin to a crude ultimatum: all other parties would have to support ramming through the legislation or they would be soft on crime. I have to conclude that this legislation is politicking by both National and Labour to create a perception for voters that they are actually acting in the interests of the electorate by putting up this legislation. The Maori Party says that is absolutely blatantly untrue and we continue to oppose this bill at every step that we can. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I will just continue explaining how the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill covers a whole lot of Government agencies that have search powers—well beyond what most New Zealanders think this bill is about: just the police. 
For instance fisheries officers have search powers. The chief executive according to the law can grant powers to an honorary fisheries officer—not even a full-time person it seems. This fisheries officer can wander along to a registrar or perhaps talk to a deputy registrar who probably is not an expert in the area of fisheries who just ticks off something. Then this fisheries officer can as part of a search enter a private dwelling and leave a covert video camera. That is what this law allows. 
The Department of Internal Affairs can get search warrants for a whole lot of things. The first one I came across was search warrants for people engaged in email spam. An officer of the department can go along to a registrar get a search warrant and go inside a building and leave a video camera looking presumably at the computer screen of an alleged offender etc. Gambling inspectors can go into presumably some gambling institution with a search warrant and leave a video camera there. Implementing liquor by-laws is another area of the law that allows for an officer to go inside a liquor establishment and leave a covert video camera there. 
The Commerce Commission has search powers under the Fair Trading Act. Its officers can go into a shop and leave a covert video camera there. The shop owner does not know about it. Of course other agencies concerned with white-collar crime could leave covert video cameras all over boardrooms. In fact when the Search and Surveillance Bill first came up it was actually the big company lawyers who really got stuck in because they themselves were worried about covert video cameras being put in boardrooms. There is also the Customs Service. Its officers have to get a District Court judge to give them a search warrant. They have quite significant search powers and they can put video cameras wherever they like so all of this is quite dangerous. 
I went through all the consideration of the Search and Surveillance Bill on the Justice and Electoral Committee representing the Greens. The whole thing started off with the 2007 Law Commission report which said in black and white that that form of surveillance was unlawful. It was all a bit unclear about video surveillance in general; the only thing that was clearly unlawful was trespassory covert video surveillance. The commission said to the Government—Labour at the time—to get its skates on and develop a bill. Labour did and presented it to Parliament in 2008. Then for 2 years the select committee under the fine chairpersonship of Chester Borrows really scrutinised it. There were two sets of public submissions and all sorts of changes. The Law Commission made submissions particularly Warren Young who came to the recent select committee process very critical of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill—he played a huge role in the thing. So everyone knew that there was a big issue that it was unlawful and that there were not a lot of these so-called subsequent court cases. In fact there was only one subsequent court case the Court of Appeal case on Operation Eight. 
In these 2 years of select committee hearings the police were there. Presumably they were taking notes and were not just treating it as a day away from the office. They knew precisely that the Law Commission had said it was unlawful—the select committee was dealing with it partly and significantly because covert video surveillance involving trespass was unlawful—and there was all the interchange that went on. 
The select committee reported back last November and the whole thing has just been sitting there awaiting its second reading for all that time. The Government knew as early as May this year when according to Steven Price in one of his blog posts over the last day it got a bath—that is the term he used—in the Supreme Court hearings on this unlawfulness thing. The Government knew from May precisely that the Supreme Court was likely—or there was certainly a fair chance—to rule in its latest September ruling that covert video surveillance involving trespass was unlawful. So it was not as if people did not know what the hell was going on. 
It just surprises me now that previous to September people thought it was common law that anything was lawful etc. when we had all of that evidence and all of that argument over from 2007 a 4-year period. Even on the court cases it was really only a short period of time from the Court of Appeal ruling on I think 19 November 2010 until the Government was in Steven Price’s words given a bath at the Supreme Court in May 2011. It was only for that 6-month period that the Government thought it had a chance at all. All of the other evidence was the other way. 
There was a lot of confusion about what the police were actually doing. There was all this talk about 40 or 50 cases but when it came down to it at the select committee the police said there were 13 investigations under way involving covert video surveillance and the bulk of those were in public places. They were not even sure that any of them involved trespass and that any of them therefore were illegal. The Supreme Court had ruled that only covert video surveillance involving trespass was illegal. But there was no clear indication that there were any current police cases of that type. 
As I said this bill is legislation that has been looking for a problem and there is no reason at all why we could not have gone for another 6 months under the present system. The police would have been—should have been—happy. They could just continue on with what they were doing and go before the court on the reasonableness criterion under the Evidence Act. If they had a problem and if there were a serious P case they could use section 30 of the Evidence Act to rule in illegally obtained evidence etc. It just somewhat amazes me that we got as far as this on such a rushed bill. 
I said in my second reading speech that it was wonderful the way everyone responded at the select committee process. Lawyers all of a sudden stayed up all night and came hung-over with tiredness the next morning just to put the case. There does seem to be quite a consensus amongst all of the leading lights in the country in the legal community that showed up that there were so many things wrong with the bill. Some of them have been addressed and I thank the committee for that but several of them have not. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I will start with the notion of police impropriety within the context of the rule of law. Clause 5 of the very brief Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill deals with the “Temporary continuation of lawfulness of certain uses of video camera surveillance”. I am fascinated by the use of legislation to create lawfulness for agencies that are charged with implementing and monitoring the law in the first place. The starting place for all criminal law is to protect the rights of an individual against the State lest the individual become oppressed. That is why one does not allow Parliament to take away a person’s rights lightly which is why there are real restrictions on the police in the way of search warrants. With this new bill we now have before us provisions that “The use of covert video camera surveillance as part of or in connection with a search does not of itself render the search unlawful.” 
I refer to an article by Dean Knight entitled “Elephants and the Law” which tells us that although the Supreme Court did not rule that the police acted with bad faith the majority indicated that the police’s attitude to the unlawfulness of the covert surveillance was at best reckless and perhaps deliberate. 
I will read from the actual ruling of the Chief Justice in paragraph 73 of the Urewera case of  
R v Hamed 
: “In circumstances where the police officer in charge of the inquiry knew that there was no authority to be obtained for such filmed surveillance the deliberate unlawfulness of the police conduct in the covert filming maintained over many entries and over a period of some 10 months is destructive of an effective and credible system of justice.” 
Justice Blanchard went even further in describing this deliberate unlawfulness and the detail around the activities which served to destroy the credibility and effectiveness of the system of justice: “Despite being aware that they lacked statutory authority for the surveillance they proceeded without taking legal advice which they had plenty of time to obtain. Having failed to get advice the police cannot rely on the fact that they were operating in circumstances of legal uncertainty and argue that they should be cut some slack. Their conduct was reckless in the sense that they took the risk that it might be found to be unlawful.” 
No one can read through those words—failure to get advice reckless risk deliberate unlawfulness—without a sense of horror that we are not talking about criminals. They are not those whom society should fear; these are the very agents of the State who are meant to uphold the rule of law. 
I cannot ignore the findings of a PricewaterhouseCoopers report released in February last year that found that the police had made little progress in implementing Dame Margaret Bazley’s findings. PricewaterhouseCoopers referred to the in-house engagement survey that confirmed that 67 percent of police employees are ambivalent about their job and 16 percent are completely disengaged. I do not know exactly— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I just remind the member that you must be more succinct. Although you can refer to the case you must keep it within the confines of what this bill is. I ask the member to come back. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I am pointing out that this bill is making lawful what was unlawful and we cannot have that. We cannot allow that. We cannot have Parliament make lawful something that was unlawful. Where do our constitutional rights stand? 
I go back to what the police were doing; they were ambivalent and disengaged. The Maori Party does not want people with that sort of attitude having prospective surveillance powers let alone police officers who promote one another who cover for one another and who allow sexual predators to prosper. This Parliament cannot let the New Zealand Police continue in the way that it is. The Maori Party for one is prepared to do something about it. We have— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I just remind the member. I mentioned before that you must come back. There is a very narrow scope to this bill and although you can refer to the case remembering that it is still before the courts we must be very careful that we just stay within the scope of what this bill is about. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I make the point that this bill should not be making lawful that which was unlawful. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
: 
 I have to say first of all that I am disappointed with Mr Chauvel’s position on this. I am absolutely convinced that if Labour was not involved in this whole case he would be the first to condemn this legislation the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. The fact that the Tuhoe raids were conducted in Labour’s time is the reason it wants to get out from under this as quickly as National does right now but that is no reason to support the legislation which I suspect Mr Chauvel knows and I know Mr Finlayson knows is flying in the face of justice particularly in terms of the way in which the bill has been brought to the House. 
This bill gives extraordinary powers not just to the police—this is not just about the police any more—but to the Inland Revenue Department the Department of Internal Affairs fisheries officers and the Commerce Commission. I can think of innumerable families in and around where I live who are likely to wake up with a camera in their house. If they ask the police they will not tell them anything. There is no obligation on the police to tell them that there is a camera in their house. There is no obligation on the police to tell them that there is a camera on the marae. There is no obligation on the police to tell them that there may be a camera in the toilet block just in case somebody might be going around there and smoking a bit of dope. 
This is terrible legislation. It enables those State agencies to invade the privacy of citizens without having to go before a judge with proof of a good reason for doing so. We already know that information has been gathered in the past and it has been gathered illegally and used to destroy political careers in this country in the past. I know too for example of a very high-profile politician of very recent years—very recent months—who was caught during surveillance of a woman as part of a P investigation. It was not the politician under surveillance but this woman as part of a P operation. She was having an affair with a very high-profile politician. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Not that high-profile—Michael Laws. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: No no. Just because Rodney is leaving it does not mean it is him. But these sorts of things can happen. Where does this sort of thing stop? And there is the fact that it is retrospective legislation. You know retrospective law is bad law. I have heard that on numerous occasions from law lecturers and lawyers. In fact every submission from lawyers and legal organisations civil rights organisations and individuals on this legislation has said “Don’t do it.” In fact I understand that the only ones who support it are the police. There has to be something wrong with legislation if the only people who support it are the police—and of course National and Labour. 
This kind of retrospective legislation contravenes basic human rights and legitimises the illegal behaviour of the State and its agencies. Just because Labour got caught out on this in the Tuhoe raids and because National is getting hung out with it because of the decision of the Supreme Court that is no reason to race through special legislation. There is nothing that is currently going on that means it could not wait. The police might say that there will be problems with the trials of 40 to 50 serious criminals but it is one thing to say that and another thing to prove it. If they are not prepared to put the information on the table then we should not be foolish enough to just accept it. And there was the indecent haste with which the whole select committee process went through. It was indecent. The select committee process allows the public to have their say on the lawmaking process and in this case I just heard the previous speaker Rahui Katene talk about how many submitters the Justice and Electoral Committee managed to cram in in just 1 day. On legislation as important and fundamental to our human rights as this bill is there should have been far far more time to consider it. I suspect that the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General knows this and I know that Mr Chauvel agrees with that. 
The select committee process also allows politicians to consider bills in a more relaxed environment but in a compressed time frame that is never going to happen. The good thing about a decent select committee process is that it minimises the chance of having knee-jerk legislation like this bill which comes about as a specific response to a particular event. The Supreme Court nailed it. Really we should have asked what action we are taking against the police. But no all we are going to do is grant the police more powers. A good select committee process is fundamental to good lawmaking and a weak select committee is really an insult to the people and to the parliamentary process. 
Is there not something wrong with legislation when every lawyer whom Mr Finlayson knows and Mr Chauvel knows opposes it? The Law Society opposes it the Criminal Bar Association opposes it all of the civil society organisations oppose it and hundreds of individuals oppose it and they had only a day to put in their submissions. How they even got a chance to read the bill I do not know. But hundreds opposed it and they made comments about how New Zealanders need confidence that the principle that public authorities can do only what they are authorised to do under law should continue to apply. In fact instead of restricting the police’s ability to do certain things we are not only granting them extra powers but also granting everybody else those powers. 
There are doubts about whether those promoting this bill understand that it compromises the right to be free from unreasonable covert surveillance by the State. One of our genuine freedoms has to be that we can wake up in our own bed and know that there is not some bloody camera watching. I am not saying that that will happen to everybody but Mr Finlayson knows a lot of the people whom I know in the north and he knows of some of the discussions around land and how to go about acquiring land and whether there need to be steps taken to acquire that land which may not necessarily always be within the law and that they will be reason for the police to surveil them. I know of people who march to Waitangi every year and who are likely now to have given the police the reason to stick a camera in their rooms. I know that at the Waimanoni Marae the Mahimaru marae and a whole range of maraes people discuss these kinds of activities. They will now be open ground for the police to put in cameras. 
This bill is a serious violation of our human rights. We do not have a Privy Council to oversee the Government’s actions or an Upper House to monitor legislation like this. We do not even have a written constitution. And the first time the Supreme Court comes up with something like this the Government instead of standing back and taking a breath along with the support of the main Opposition just goes bang and rides roughshod right over the top. 
This bill is an overreaction and is designed to be used in conjunction with the enormous resources that have been given to the police and the SIS since 2001 to protect us from so-called terrorism. But we are not a terrorist target except for the French bombing of the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 of course. The scary thing is that we have a history—I know this to be true—of passing laws for one purpose and then using them against those who dissent. The charge of breach of the peace which I have been arrested for on numerous occasions was introduced originally to justify giving police the power to stop gangs intimidating people but has been used more against protestors arrested at Waitangi and elsewhere than against gangs. Trespass orders were sold as a way to help farmers keep unwanted hunters off their land but have been used willy-nilly ever since by police against protestors. This new bill is being sold as a means to catch really bad criminals but I guarantee—and I think the Minister knows this is true—that it will end up being used to monitor and suppress dissent. 
Freedom from surveillance is the right to be left alone. The police abuse of the law regarding surveillance should be punished not rewarded. This bill is getting pushed through while our whole nation’s attention is being diverted by the rugby. The bill is an expansion of the power of the State that New Zealanders would not support. It legalises illegal police activity. It grants powers to police instead of charging them for their illegal actions. It is a breach of human rights. It is being rushed through Parliament without proper debate. It will impact directly on Maori activists beneficiary rights activists unions environmentalists and I am sad to say ordinary New Zealanders. Mana opposes it and more intelligent members of this House do so as well. Kia ora tatou. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 5A be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Mana 1. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 15 Noes 105. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 and 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Mana 1. 
Clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 and 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 105 Noes 15. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be now read a third time 
. I endorse what Mr Hide said; I think this bill is the result of political parties working together to find a solution to a problem. It is not the result of any one individual it is not the result of any one party; it is the work of Parliament. The sequence of events leading to this third reading goes something like this. On 2 September the Supreme Court gave its judgment in the Hamed case. It was suppressed so applications needed to be made so that suppression orders could be varied. The decision to lift suppression on most of the judgment was finally issued on Thursday 15 September 3 weeks ago today. From that point the Government worked as fast as possible to find a solution to the problem. After a week of consultation by me when the House was in adjournment a paper went to Cabinet on Monday 26 September. The bill was introduced on 27 September and was reported back on 3 October. This afternoon this Parliament will hopefully have solved the problem in the 3 weeks since the judgment was unsuppressed. 
Some have suggested that the Government has moved too fast to fix the problem. I reject the submissions of some of those who said that this Parliament is “the fastest lawmaker in the West.” If members want an example of fast lawmaking they need only look at the Westminster Parliament which in July this year passed the Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011. That bill was a legislative response to a problem presented by a court decision that changed a longstanding law concerning aspects of bail. The legislation reversed the judgment. It started and completed its Commons stages on Thursday 7 July. It also had its first reading in the House of Lords on 7 July. It passed all these stages with the support of the Conservative Party the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Its effect was fully retrospective; it was not a temporary measure. That is not what is happening here; this is a temporary measure. I believe it is an example of Parliament working well and I endorse the excellent editorial in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today in that regard. From the time the judgment was unsuppressed we have approached this situation with an open mind. I have tried to include the other political parties and groups in discussions. I acknowledge the assistance of the Acting Leader of the House who gave me tremendous assistance to ensure that this bill could finally go to a select committee. 
There are a number of members in this House who deserve credit for getting us to the point we are at this afternoon. First I acknowledge my colleague Chester Borrows and thank him for his chairmanship of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I also acknowledge Keith Locke and Te Ururoa Flavell two members for whom I have enormous personal respect. Both Mr Locke and Mr Flavell have been troubled by this bill and it is apparent that their parties will not vote for it today. They are both principled members of this House who have engaged in arguments on policy. Neither is interested in self-promotion and I say to Mr Locke that I shall miss his contribution in this House very much. I thank my colleague the Hon Peter Dunne the member for Ohariu. As it turns out I met him a number of times after the decision was released. I valued his advice and contribution particularly on the sunset provisions. 
I also thank my colleague the Hon Rodney Hide. He is another principled member of this House. From the outset it was clear he had problems with the bill. He was prepared to support it to a select committee. His first reading speech I thought was very sincere and eloquent and it rightly received a lot of praise. He played a very constructive role in the select committee and I thank him for it. Like the Criminal Procedure Bill which passed the other day the bill we are debating is testament to his tenacity and his intellectual input. I acknowledge and endorse his generous comments about the Law Society and other individual submitters like Associate Professor Andrew Geddis of Otago University. 
I thank the Hon David Parker who in all my dealings with him for example on legislation concerning the foreshore and seabed and on this sort of bill shows himself to be entirely trustworthy. I think he is a genuine parliamentarian. At an early stage he recognised the importance of the situation that faced the Government and this Parliament. I believe that Mr Parker is a tough principled opponent who always maintains personal confidences and observes parliamentary conventions. I think he is wrong on section 7 but as he said on the section 7 report that task was assigned to my colleague Kate Wilkinson and the report concluded that section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was not engaged. 
The bill we debate today is to all intents and purposes the bill sent to the select committee. The difference is that certain elements of retrospectivity have been removed. I say “elements” because I do not see how the barring of appeals from people already convicted can be anything other than having a retrospective element although I do say to Mr Locke that it could also be categorised as a legislative stay of proceedings for a period. The Search and Surveillance Bill does not contain those provisions so it will have to be looked at again when the new Parliament is convened; that may give him some comfort. The important point is that this is not a new bill as I emphasise; it is not a victory for any one political party. As I said I agree with Mr Hide that it is a bill that is a product of this Parliament—it is a credit to this House. I was pleased that the evidence submitted supported the Government’s original contention that elements of the Search and Surveillance Bill could not be plucked out in some kind of hotchpotch fashion and rearranged into some new scheme. That idea was never going to fly. I think everyone now recognises that those complexities were too large. 
In conclusion I thank all those officials for their hard work on the bill. I particularly acknowledge John Pike general counsel at Crown Law and Elizabeth Grant of the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their hard work and effort on the bill. I believe that they are examples of the first-class public servants we have and it is right and proper that their efforts are recorded in  
Hansard 
. As is now tolerably clear—and again I am sure this will give Mr Locke some comfort—it will be the task of the new Parliament to pass the search and surveillance legislation into law. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 We are where we are in respect of this Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. I am somewhat disappointed that despite the attempt of the Attorney-General just now to reach a degree of graciousness he could not simply have picked up the phone and sought a bit of cross-party consensus on the legislation itself. It was very difficult to get a copy of the original bill that was considered by the House in first reading speeches in order to analyse the changes that had occurred between the publication of the consultation draft and the introduction of the legislation. 
None the less as I said in my earlier speech I am very pleased that Labour working on this occasion with the ACT Party was able to force the Attorney-General into agreeing to a select committee process. It would have been completely unacceptable if this legislation had not had at least some public input into it and it is pleasing that it was possible to override his instincts against the rule of law and the Standing Orders on that count. 
It is incumbent I think on me to thank the Office of the Clerk for the drafting assistance I had from its staff and in particular from Tim Workman. We have heard a reference to a “hotchpotch” solution concerning warrants that “was never going to fly”. Well the Office of the Clerk and I did our best to do the Attorney-General’s job for him on that point. Unfortunately he is right in the sense that in the time available to the House—and this is not a matter in which anybody should take pleasure; it is a matter for regret—it was not possible to put in proper controls around the sorts of powers the police ought to have. 
That tells us all that it is absolutely a matter of priority that the next Parliament should pass the Search and Surveillance Bill so that enforcement agencies have clear powers and also clear controls on those powers. As I have said previously it is a terrible indictment on members opposite that that legislation has languished on the Order Paper for a year in the face of a bipartisan offer of support because those members have preferred to pursue window-dressing options in the law and order and justice sphere rather than get on and protect New Zealanders in the way they ought to protect them. 
Having said those necessary preliminary words I turn to one or two things that were said in the Committee stage of the debate. I think the first thing I am bound to address is the contention by Mr Locke a member for whom I have great respect that Labour and National simply have the same position on the lawfulness of trespassory search and surveillance. I have to say to Mr Locke that that suggestion is beneath him. He knows that it is not right and he knows that it is not right because Labour set out in our minority report what our position on trespassory search and surveillance was. It was not clear as to the lawfulness or otherwise of such surveillance. We said: “There has been much discussion about whether covert video camera surveillance is lawful. Labour members think the fairest summary of the position is that while it had generally been considered permissible an influential body of opinion had been growing prior to the Hamed decision that covert video camera surveillance had an unsatisfactory legal footing. This is because in many cases it was not positively authorised by any statute or rule of law—it was simply not prohibited. This view is reinforced by the Law Commission report and its call for a statutory basis for the activity which we hope will be provided as soon as possible with the prompt passage in acceptable form of the Search and Surveillance Bill.” That is very clearly and on the record Labour’s position on this matter. 
We heard David Parker describe earlier the evidence that was heard at the Justice and Electoral Committee as to why some form of temporary fix was required in the interests of justice in order to go forward. He referred to the position where some quite serious offending around the drug-dealing activities of organised crime has to be dealt with by trespassory video surveillance despite Mr Locke’s contention. 
That position is that very sophisticated criminals have got into the habit of not using telephones or talking to one another about what they are doing. They write what they are doing and what needs to be done on whiteboards for one another and that is how they communicate messages. Well I guess they do that with the curtains drawn I tell Mr Locke which is why there is—I agree with him—not a wide case but a case none the less subject to section 21 and subject to section 30 for some of this type of activity to be required in rare cases. 
That is why Labour has taken what we think is the responsible position: do not prohibit it outright do not leave a legal lacuna lend some credibility and some legal authority to activity in the most serious cases and try to put checks and balances in while restricting the whole temporary fix to 6 months. I am very satisfied that that is the responsible position to have taken. 
I just want to say one other word on the speeches that we heard in the Committee stage. I listened carefully as I always do to Rahui Katene and I was embarrassed to hear her speech because she was speaking quite clearly on an earlier draft of the bill not the bill that has come back from the select committee. If she actually read the bill—and she is legally trained—she would realise that significant changes have been made to it that answer the criticisms that she dealt with in her speech. 
Again Hone Harawira who is somebody for whom I have a lot of respect just got it wrong in his speech. He said for example that the lawyers had all come along and made criticisms of the bill. Well he needs to realise that the Law Society and Mr Knight for example have both said that the changes the select committee made to the legislation are very positive and actually satisfy most of the concerns that were raised. Let us just remember that those changes were made at the behest of the select committee and in the face of what would have been opposition to a select committee process by Christopher Finlayson. 
My two final words are these. It is quite right that the House’s activity is disrespectful of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. This Parliament in a future session will have to address that issue. We have a Supreme Court now. We do not have judges in England to run to if we get things wrong. But we have to accept that a corollary of that is that generally speaking the law as it is declared by the Supreme Court is the law. It is not for us to pick and choose how the law should work. 
So we have to look at equipping the Supreme Court with appropriate powers for the exercise of their authority. In Canada for example the Supreme Court can declare the law in a certain way and then it can suspend the law for a certain period of time to allow the executive or the legislature to bring the necessary legal technicalities into line. We have never given the Supreme Court that particular express authority. 
I personally believe that it has that authority at common law and I am sad that the Attorney-General is not willing to send Crown lawyers over the road into the Supreme Court to ask them to exercise authority in that way because he is concerned about what other parts of Pandora’s box he might open. But if we are not to invite the Supreme Court to find inherent jurisdiction and to be more flexible about the way it applies remedies we have to legislate to give it those powers. 
My final word is this. It has to be time for us to think about entrenching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We cannot continue to go through these exercises that discredit the way in which the rule of law is observed in New Zealand. Certainly for my part and the part of my colleagues on this side of the House we are very clear that that needs to be very firmly on the legislative agenda. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the next member I wish to correct the record. The votes on the amendment in the name of Keith Locke and that the provisions of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be agreed to were incorrectly announced as Noes 115 Ayes 15 and Ayes 105 Noes 15 respectively. The correct result on the Locke amendment is Ayes 14 Noes 105 and on the main question Ayes 105 Noes 14. The record will be corrected in both cases. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I am very sad; I seem to have lost one vote in that correction. I will go home very sad. 
I think this has been a very intelligent debate on the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill and I commend all the members who have spoken for addressing the issues in a very good way. I thank Chester Borrows Rodney Hide Chris Finlayson and Charles Chauvel for their comments about me and this being my last afternoon in Parliament. I also agree with the  
New Zealand Herald 
 editorial even though I did not entirely agree—it was a bit too positive about the resulting bill. But I think it did highlight a point about the importance of MMP in resolving issues in this House and the role that smaller parties play in resolving those issues. I think that all of the parties represented including the Green Party made some contribution to the positive changes that happened in relation to the bill. 
I did a bit of arithmetic about how the 12 months could be changed to 6 months. I might not have been the only one doing the arithmetic but I think it all helped to shorten the time frame of this particular bill. I thank Christopher Finlayson for reminding me and us here that the bill lasts for 6 months so the question of appeal rights being not available because of clause 5A—unfortunately my amendment to omit it went down in the vote—lasts for only 6 months. 
I will make one or two more general points. I made some points about what could happen with agencies—the fisheries ministry the Commerce Commission the Customs Service etc. etc.—leaving covert video cameras as a result of exercising search warrants on private property and Hone Harawira talked about the possibility of video cameras on marae and all the rest of it. That might seem a bit extreme and one might think it would never happen. I think that reflects a problem we have in some of the debate in this Parliament in terms of two things. 
First I say that a lot of MPs get emails from people who are quite paranoid already and think that people are spying on them following them and all the rest of it. I think that response in terms of the number of such emails would increase if we give State agencies the power to put covert video cameras in private houses or private offices so that would be a downside. 
The other side to it is that often we think in terms of our current Government and the political character of our current Government. When Labour was in Government I often used to get: “Oh Helen Clark would never do that.” in response to my criticisms of some increase in State powers. I said that the issue was not whether Helen Clark would do it; the issue was whether a more repressive Government say a Muldoon-type Government or whatever would do it. Similarly it is not a question of whether a John Key Government would do it; it is a question of whether a more repressive Government might do it. So we always must frame laws with the idea that some nastier Government might come into office and use these laws in a more repressive way. 
I think one of the reasons why in Europe there is quite a consciousness—possibly a stronger consciousness—of civil liberties is that they have been through some quite repressive government situations and they hold on jealously to their human rights and have European human rights courts and all kinds of things. I take Chris Finlayson’s point that stuff can go through the British Parliament pretty quickly as well but I think we have to bear that in mind much more. Tony Ellis talked about international law and the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the human rights cases he had taken and won there. When he said that a case relating to this bill could go before the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the basis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights he was trying to look at our law—and I think that is useful; Tony Ellis is a respected lawyer—in an international context. 
This relates to what Charles Chauvel just said: it may be true that there are some criminals who write things on whiteboards and escape the attention of the law because of it and they might be serious criminals but the fundamental issue that we have to always bear in mind is that the protection of civil liberties—and keeping the State out of people’s bedrooms and offices with its video cameras is part of it—does mean some guilty people some criminals some serious criminals go free. But it is a balance. It is a balance of the rights one applies to the total population which might diminish to some extent the powers the police and other State agencies have but that is the balance we should have in a free and democratic society. I appeal to future parliaments to really look closely at that balance and where it should lie. 
There was a reference by Charles Chauvel about entrenching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I constructed a member’s bill with the help of various members of this House from other parties—I am very pleased they engaged in that process with me—to try to strengthen the section 7 process of checking legislation and strengthen up the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the judicial system. The bill has languished because there have not been many members’ bill ballots if any for several months so my bill did not come out into the public space to the extent that I would have liked. I invite any other member of this House to pick it up and carry it in either its present or an amended form in the next Parliament. 
I think the fact that we have had such a discussion of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act around this bill is very valuable. I appreciate what Chris Finlayson said about there being a bill of rights clause in this particular bill. I look forward to the next Parliament really taking up these issues in a serious way. Thank you. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a third reading call on the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill and to have been a member on the Justice and Electoral Committee. The contributions to this debate from the first reading to now have been thoughtful and a lot of issues of principle have been brought to the House to consider. 
That is not to mention at the outset the issue of retrospective law change. When this bill was introduced I said in this House that as a parliamentarian I found it difficult to entertain retrospective law changes because I believed that the threshold was quite high and that we should err on the side of caution when we make any consideration of that sort. When this bill was introduced with the wider ambit of retrospective law change I had a big pause and thought no we need to think further about this. 
My colleagues Charles Chauvel and David Parker have both outlined the Search and Surveillance Bill as being the broader framework by which search and surveillance powers could be better addressed in an ideal world. That bill has been delayed for far too long in this House. 
I say from my perspective in the time I was Minister of Customs in the last Government that the search and surveillance powers of border agencies need to be far more sophisticated than many lay people will ever know. It is not about just domestic crime; it is about the international crime networks that New Zealand must be in a position to respond to. When we were considering the prospective powers of police to utilise covert video surveillance we were very clear on the Labour benches that they need those types of powers going forward to ensure that they can enforce the law as it is intended to be in order to keep our communities and our citizens safe. We were very clear about the prospective powers of the police going forward. 
Again at the first reading we raised the issues of civil liberties. Whenever one ascribes powers to the police they must be balanced with protections for the public. We were very mindful that the bill was somewhat lopsided ascribing powers to the police without adequate protections for the public. That matter had to be considered somewhat through the select committee process. I am glad that we had that process. 
The other issue we needed to question was the Government’s claim at the time it introduced this bill that 40 or 50 cases would simply lapse or have to be released as a result of these changes not going through. Well in fact when we got to the select committee and heard submissions from the New Zealand Law Society the police and some legal experts what they were saying was that provisions within the existing law could deal with those types of issues. They all urged us to reconsider retrospective changes which did not need to be applied to these particular cases. 
One of the benefits that I had from the expertise that came to the select committee was to understand the nature of the difference for those people who have already been convicted and are currently serving time. We gained greater clarity as a result of the select committee process to make clear that those cases should be left alone and that they should remain untouched and be treated as the law was understood to have applied prior to 2 September. 
This is a temporary fix. I am glad that the time has been shortened from 12 months to 6 months. It does put urgency on the next Parliament to pass the Search and Surveillance Bill. No matter who is on the Government benches the general public needs to know that that bill has already gone through a full and comprehensive select committee process. It has some support across the House and it addresses this issue of balance of interest between the public good and powers ascribed to enforcement agencies but also it is very prescriptive as to which enforcement agencies should have certain powers. I regret that in the solution that has been agreed to by the House today the warranting method of ascribing powers to the police for covert video surveillance was not able to be achieved but this was somewhat offset against shortening the time for this temporary measure to go forward. 
There was nothing more compelling for me in the select committee than two lots of evidence. The first bit of evidence was from the legal profession and it affirmed in my view the view that Labour took at the very outset with this bill that there must be a strong balance between the rights of citizens and the rights of the police that that balance must be made clear and that retrospective law change is not a solution in this particular instance. The second compelling bit of evidence was from a member of the public who was caught up as a third party to covert video surveillance. She spoke quite evocatively about the emotional stress and pressure of being in that situation. Again that reaffirmed to me the caution that we as parliamentarians should have when we are considering these types of measures and that we need to consider the civil liberties of individuals and society at large whenever we are addressing the question of more powers for those who are required to enforce the law in order to keep our communities and society safe. 
I thank the clerk of the committee the Parliamentary Counsel Office Crown Law and my colleagues Charles Chauvel and David Parker for the thoughtful contributions they made at the select committee. I certainly thank all those submitters who in a short time frame made submissions to the select committee.  
My last comment is really to the Maori Party. Given the legal expertise the Maori Party has I urge its members to look at the changes to the bill and at some of the recommendations of the select committee which I think got to a reasonable way forward to ensure that we have a safe society that the police can carry out lawful activities and that we have been very clear as legislators to ascribe the types of powers that the police should have for the short period before we pass the Search and Surveillance Bill. Kia ora koutou.  
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill cuts to the core of some deeply held concerns within our community around transparency accountability trust and corruption. This legislation has been put forward by the National Government with Labour and ACT’s support. It asks us to suspend the law temporarily to condone an unlawful act by the police and then to add fuel to the fire by introducing legislation to make the unlawful lawful. We believe that there has been politicking by both larger parties to create a perception for voters that they are tackling the tough issues that they will not be soft on crime and that they are making their mark. If they thought it was such a problem they would have dealt with it earlier when the Law Commission raised it and when the courts previously raised it. Why wait 3 months or even less before the election to raise it? Why wait until the last week that Parliament is sitting to bring in this bill to deal with that issue? The question we have to ask is what sort of justice system we have if the upholder of the law is allowed to break the law and get away with it. If the police want to forge relationships with the community then breaking the law—and the Government then introducing new law to make those breaches lawful—is not the way to achieve public trust and confidence. 
I cannot help but think that when we are thinking about public trust and confidence in the police we are walking through some very treacherous waters at this time. Although the Government has been at pains to say that this bill is not about Tuhoe the people of Tuhoe are the silent ones sitting through this debate. Their experiences cannot and must not be forgotten. 
In this third reading I will focus on one thing and one thing only: corruption. The Maori Party wants to sound out a loud warning against corruption. In doing so my colleague Dr Pita Sharples has already announced that the Maori Party will be taking a stand against corruption in the upcoming election. As a Parliament we cannot allow for corruption in our police no matter how loud the Police Association screams for it. The police are supposed to be protecting our citizens not running roughshod over the law. They are supposed to be stopping criminals not acting like criminals. Make no mistake as much as some want to deny it the trust that New Zealanders have in the police is tenuous at best; more accurately it is fragile. Yes some want to hide that fact. Well it is time to call out the open secret not because we want to undermine the police—quite the opposite—but because we want to be able to expect a lot more from them. 
It is time to say that there is an elephant in the room and that elephant’s name is a police force that is at the tipping point of corruption. We ignore it at our peril. Look beyond the spin; look at their own documents. What we will find is that full trust and confidence in the police is at an all-time low. Only 28 percent of New Zealanders have full trust and confidence in the New Zealand police. We also find that for those people who have contact with the police not criminals but victims the confidence rating declines. That is right. We all want to believe that the police are a force for good but when we actually need them and have experience of them we are confronted with the reality that causes our confidence to decline. 
If we want more evidence we can look at the most recent crime survey the New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2009 which reminds us again that only one out of every three victims reports a crime to the police. Why is that? The survey says it is because victims are too ashamed or embarrassed to go to the police. That is right; the worst sorts of criminals—sexual predators—are going free because according to the Government’s own survey the police could not or would not do anything to help. If the police are not embarrassed by that then they should be embarrassed by the fact that the women who were brave enough to speak to Dame Margaret Bazley about police cover-ups in relation to sexual assault allegations have not been apologised to by this Government and have not received any compensation. 
We cannot let declining trust and confidence in the police impact any more on the social fabric of New Zealand society than it already has. Whether it is the women who spoke up against police sexual aggression and cover-ups whether it is the 500-odd cases of child abuse in the Wellington region alone that were not investigated whether it is the few bad apples and the people who cover for them that erodes the public’s trust and confidence or whether it is the people of Tuhoe who were terrorised by the State on that fearful and dark day the Maori Party will not be party to any legislation that further compromises the fragile trust and confidence that New Zealanders have in their police force. We will be part of the solution; not the problem. 
The starting point for us is that the Supreme Court cannot be bent or dictated to by expediency. Absolute vigilance must be taken and a proper informed debate needs to happen unless there is a truly exceptional reason not to do so. All criminal law must protect the rights of an individual against the State lest the individual becomes oppressed. That is why one does not allow Parliament to take away a person’s rights lightly and it is why there are real restrictions on the police in the way of search warrants. The Hamed decision made it clear that covert video surveillance that involves trespass is unlawful. We are a rule-of-law society and we cannot retrospectively criminalise what is not criminal. Let the courts decide. They have much more experience and more ability than Parliament to decide these things. 
We do of course appreciate the move that the Minister has made to remove the retrospective application that was introduced in the original form of the bill. We were utterly opposed to the initial intention to make the law retrospective. It is an outright constitutional challenge a mechanism to flout our constitutional rights and ignore the responsibilities of Government to protect and uphold the law. The judicial process itself already has sufficient checks and balances in place to determine the lawfulness of evidence obtained by the use of covert video camera surveillance under section 30 of the Evidence Act. 
I come back to the focus of my korero. Corruption constitutes a major obstacle to democracy and the rule of law. The police lose their legitimacy when they misuse power for organisational advantage. For those members in this House who may think we are overstating the facts let me finish by drawing their attention to the most recent global survey by Transparency International. In that survey 73 percent of New Zealanders said that corruption had increased over the past 3 years. Those same New Zealanders regarded political parties as the most corrupt. The least corrupt were the military then teachers then judges then the non-governmental organisation sector then the police. A close reading of the data says something that should worry us all. Only 10 percent of people surveyed did not think that the New Zealand police were corrupt. Everyone else thought the New Zealand police came between somewhat corrupt and extremely corrupt. 
The Maori Party will not support any legislation that further undermines people’s trust in the political or judicial system its institutions and its leadership. We do not support this bill. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I think that some of the misrepresentations of the legislation by the last speaker Rahui Katene are regrettable. With respect to her she should know better. Her irresponsible conduct is one of the things that undermines public confidence in our important democratic institutions. Labour is already on record and in fact I am on record in the first reading of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill as saying that I too was dissatisfied with some of the police conduct in respect of the Tuhoe raids. They were wrong. I still think there is a need for us to scrutinise whether it was right to have black-suited men with high-powered rifles crawling over school buses. I thought that was an overreaction by the State. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sure the member is aware of something that is sub judice. I want the member to talk in principle without referring to the level of specifics he is getting into. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I was referring to things that were on the news and I was not held up in the first reading debate. I do not need to take it any further but with respect— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: It is a different rule for the media. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —I am quite entitled to say what I have said. For the member of the Maori Party to then go on to suggest that this legislation is making the unlawful lawful is not correct. What is actually being done here is the giving of a prospective power legally as this Parliament is entitled to do. 
I take issue also with something Mr Locke said. I have considerable respect for Mr Locke and I wish him well in his retirement but to use the example of Europe as if it is some reason that New Zealand law enforcement officers ought not to have a prospective power of surveillance appropriately prescribed is plain wrong. I would be surprised if there is one country in Europe where the police or the security agency does not have a power of covert surveillance albeit with judicial— 
Keith Locke 
: With trespass. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Trespass; getting a warrant and going into someone’s house or into business premises and putting in a video camera to surveil people who are alleged to be conducting very serious crimes. I am sure that those powers are held in just about every European country. To suggest that the European experience is a reason why New Zealand ought not to have appropriately prescribed powers for our police and security agency is wrong. 
I refer to something the Attorney-General said. He took a flick at my colleague Charles Chauvel. I have to give credit to Charles Chauvel for having actually put the welly in. He did more work on this bill than anyone else in this House—and that is giving due respect to the attention it was paid by those in minor parties including Rodney Hide. It was Charles Chauvel who stayed up to 3 a.m. to draft a Supplementary Order Paper that listed powers for the police appropriately prescribed requiring a warrant having a minimum level of seriousness of offence and prescribing a list of agencies to which the legislation applied. 
I do not accept what the Attorney-General said—that there was an impossible attempt to lift powers from the Search and Surveillance Bill. Yes it is true that Sir Geoffrey Palmer says the Search and Surveillance Bill powers could not be lifted holus-bolus because there are things like training regimes and reporting regimes. Well we did not have to lift those provisions. The Parliamentary Counsel Office had no other drafting on its books Parliament is about to rise there was no other legislation required to be drafted and this was the most important constitutional issue to arise. In a matter of days the office could have done the appropriate drafting of the legislation—which was quite simple and which Charles Chauvel had done the bulk of anyway—to list that agencies had to get a warrant the warrant had to be from a judge there had to be a minimum level of seriousness of offending before agencies got it and there had to be a list of agencies to which it applied. If that list was short and it missed out an agency those people could get a warrant through the police if it were a serious matter. 
So this legislation is not as good as it could have been. It is better than it was. It does leave to the courts the exercise of their discretion with illegally obtained evidence and I trust them to exercise that discretion wisely. We have given that discretion so that they have the ability to exercise it if necessary. 
I am not going to say anything else. I think it is unfortunate that we have not passed the Search and Surveillance Bill. I have a suspicion that the reason it has not been passed is the three conditions Labour raised. One is that we need to constrain the powers which are currently too broad of the Serious Fraud Office which has at times abused those powers. Given that we are giving examination order powers under the Search and Surveillance Bill that override the right to silence that should be more prescribed. We also need to be clear about press freedoms. I have a suspicion that the intention of the Government is to ignore those three reasonable conditions and try to whack the bill through after the election. I invite the media to watch this space in respect of that because I can see no other reason why we have not had a response to the letter I sent on behalf of Labour a year ago. With those reservations I am happy to record that Labour is supporting this bill. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I will take just a short call hopefully on the third reading of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. If the bill did what Ms Katene said and Mr Locke alleged I for one would not be voting for it. In fact the bill does no such thing. Previous to 1996 it will be remembered that MPs were not allowed to read speeches and I think that was a much better system. Those speeches have clearly been prepared before the Justice and Electoral Committee did its work and changed the bill; it is a substantially different bill we are talking about. 
Let me make just a couple of things clear. Firstly there is no retrospectivity in this legislation which is actually what was so upsetting to everyone bar for one point—that no one who currently has a conviction can use  
R v Hamed 
 as the basis of an appeal. I think that is a bit egregious but we made that decision on the basis that the submitters were very clear it would not affect anyone and in a way we were trying to quieten down our caucuses who were alarmed that that was the case. So in a way no harm has been done and we actually had a bit of comfort. I would make the point also that the legislation is for 6 months only. 
Secondly and this is the critical bit there is no retrospectivity for anyone in the system. I think that is a very very important achievement of this Parliament and indeed for the Attorney-General and for the executive. It would be shocking if we think about it to be before the courts the Supreme Court makes a decision and then Parliament comes along and retrospectively denies someone their rights and in fact their defence of criminal charges. Parliament has done no such thing with this legislation. Thirdly it is only going forward that this legislation applies to beyond that point made about those with a conviction. So it is entirely prospective and the Supreme Court decision stands. 
It is perfectly correct that Parliament makes the law. What it has done with this law is make a fix. The reason for that was there were a lot of dangers in running around trying to produce a warrantable procedure in a couple of days. We were likely to make more mischief than we actually saved. So essentially what we have done is codify the practice that was in place and allow it to go forward—confident by the way that no cases that are before the courts will fall over. If one or two do actually that is correct because the evidence was obtained unlawfully and improperly. And those cases should fall over because that was the law at the time the evidence was collected—clearly. 
Going forward we have to thank Chester Borrows for this. We were quite happy I believe that the police could get an ordinary search warrant and have video surveillance powers under that warrant for 6 months. I am going to lay this on Chester: it was Chester Borrows ex-policeman prominent lawyer and fantastic MP for Whanganui who suggested—and I was not up on the practicalities and I ask members to understand that this was moving pretty fast—that if the police were going to carry out surveillance they would need to put it in their application for a warrant and it would be noted on the warrant. That is a huge advance over our situation. 
It is not the case as I think Mr Locke suggested that people can just go along and get an everyday warrant and then undertake covert surveillance. They will not be able to do that in their application to the District Court. They will have to say they are applying for a search warrant and that they will be doing video surveillance. I think that is a very very important feature and I thank Chester Borrows for that suggestion. 
On over-the-wall surveillance—and I think Keith Locke accepts this—subject to section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act people can actually do over-the-wall surveillance because if they are out on the street they can film and that is what will continue. Crown Law wrote to all of the agencies and said people could not do that. This law makes clear that people can do that but members should understand—and again this is Parliament—that it is only for 6 months because there is not one member of this Parliament who thinks the present situation is satisfactory. We have a patch we have a fix-up it is there for 6 months and in 6 months this Parliament will have to come back and fix it. I think that is a great result and I am a bit sorry that Mr Locke and the Maori Party—and I understand that Maori Party members were not at the select committee—have actually given speeches on an earlier version of the bill. Thank you very much. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand National 57; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 4; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill be now read a second time 
. Many New Zealanders will be surprised that there is actually a second piece of legislation that has been going under urgency of the House in the last couple of weeks. The focus has been on the legislation that was passed just a moment ago. 
The Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill will set in place a responsible and affordable framework to resolve the sleepover issues for employers and employees in the health and disability sector and potentially for other employees and employers funded by the Crown. This results from a 2007 action that was taken and the Government has worked with employers and employee representatives to resolve the matter. The bill strikes the right balance for employees employers and the Crown. It will mean that services for vulnerable people will continue to be delivered overnight while setting in place progressive improvements in pay towards the minimum wage for employees who do sleepovers. It is a fair deal and it is one that the Government was pleased to support. 
The bill implements an agreement between the Crown IDEA Services Timata Hou Ltd and the Service and Food Workers Union to settle wage claims for employees who sleep overnight at their workplaces while on duty. The bill makes provision for the payment of back wages to the eligible employees of IDEA Services and Timata Hou who have previously worked sleepovers as well as providing a sustainable platform for phasing in the minimum wage. The parties to this settlement were supportive of the bill in their submissions to the Health Committee. In addition to implementing the settlement between the Crown IDEA Services Ltd Timata Hou Ltd and the Service and Food Workers Union the bill also establishes a framework for the settlement of other sleepover claims from other health and disability employers funded through Vote Health such as Spectrum Care Healthcare New Zealand Ltd and potentially other sectors funded by the Crown. It will allow for this through an Order in Council mechanism. 
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the chair of the Health Committee Dr Paul Hutchison who has undertaken that role for 3 years. I do not think a Minister of Health could have had a better select committee chairperson over that 3-year period. I thank committee members for their work on this bill. The committee has worked across the table and across parties to ensure that this legislation supports the continuation of vital services for some of the most vulnerable people in our community and at the same time it has secured progressive improvements in pay towards the minimum wage for people working sleepovers. I think the committee’s thoughtful consideration of this bill and its work with submitters and officials will mean that the bill once enacted will be fit for purpose and a credit to the parties and members of this the forty-ninth Parliament who support it. The select committee has unanimously recommended a number of useful amendments that taken together will improve the operation of the bill. The Government supports the amendments as put forward by the committee and we certainly commend them to the House. 
Thank you to all of those members who have contributed to this legislation. The intention is to make sure that the most vulnerable people in our community and their families will continue to have the certainty to know that these services can be provided and at the same time the workers and those who have had a claim registered will not only have a settlement but will know that they can move towards the minimum wage over the next couple of financial years. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 This is one of the rare moments in the House over the last 3 years where I can genuinely say it is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of a Government bill. The Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill fixes what has been a very long-running injustice. I acknowledge again the hard work and commitment of the workers in the sector and the unions—the Service and Food Workers Union and the Public Service Association (PSA)—who have been relentless in their determination to see this issue to a just conclusion. 
The settlement represents a 4-year struggle. Sure it started in 2007 but there have been three court cases plus the threat of yet another court case. It has required the patience of thousands of workers who have been waiting a very long time for the issue to be resolved around their work on so-called sleepovers which was confirmed 4 years ago by the Employment Relations Authority as being work requiring payment of the minimum wage. 
I also acknowledge the role of IHC. It employs 6500 people half of whom do sleepovers and it has been faced with a huge liability to the extent that it was placed in statutory management. IHC told the Health Committee that it was pleased with the settlement along with the Service and Food Workers Union and the PSA. What people may not know about this bill is that it provides for a staged progression of payments for sleepovers with the full minimum wage payment due on 1 July 2013 but IHC is funding the difference so that the workers can get to full minimum wage by Christmas 2012. It has agreed to fund that difference. The unions told the select committee that IDEA Services had dealt truthfully and honestly with them and they described it as a magnificent organisation. I endorse those comments. 
I also recognise the Government’s role in this settlement. It is doing the decent thing by legislating for this at the eleventh hour. The enactment of this legislation means that these workers will get their back-pay before Christmas. 
I repeat that the bill represents a significant concession from the unions and union members. They are not getting the full entitlements that the court awarded to them. They have agreed to forgo those entitlements in the interests of moving on and in the interests of the sector and the people they care for. One of the things that the unions were very clear about during the select committee process was telling the members that although the unions were pleased with the settlement they really want to move on now because there is unfinished business in the sector. They are interested in the long-term future of the sector and getting the settlement behind them means that the other issues that have been brought to light during this whole process of their battle over their entitlement to be paid the minimum wage will now come to the fore. 
This is a low-wage sector. The workers who work in it are some of the poorest people in New Zealand and are among some of the most invisible. It is primarily a job done by women and it demonstrates the issues around pay inequity that we have in New Zealand with occupational segregation. The PSA told us about the workers who work for Spectrum Care. Spectrum Care is another disability services provider which grew out of the old Mangere hospital when we used to have residential care. Spectrum Care workers interestingly used to be paid the same as psychiatric nurses. They used to be paid the same as psychiatric nurses but during the years of labour market deregulation their wages have fallen further and further behind. 
The workers are very highly skilled and dedicated but there is no formal recognition of their skills. There are no mandatory competencies required for the job and because it is a low-wage sector there has been an increasing reliance on poor migrants to do the job just as there is in aged care because the job is unattractive to New Zealanders. It is tough demanding work and we should not underestimate the amount of personal commitment and sheer love that goes into this work nor should we take it for granted. 
As the Minister of Health has mentioned not only IDEA Services workers will benefit from this bill. There is provision for an extension to other health and disability providers and potentially to other sectors funded by the Crown. 
I am pleased that we are debating this bill and that it is the last piece of business before the adjournment debate and before Parliament rises. It is something to celebrate. I celebrate for the members of the union who have battled long and hard. They have faced down a very expensive court process and have had the odds stacked against them. I celebrate for the people they care for—and they care for them genuinely with love. This is one of the great moments in this Parliament. It is a good way to end this parliamentary term. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Just noting the time I seek leave for the House to sit beyond 6 p.m. this evening to complete the business outlined in the urgency motion. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a very short call on the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill. It is important to emphasise that the three parties that were involved with this settlement all worked in good faith and that the Minister of Health the Hon Tony Ryall worked particularly skilfully to facilitate this happening. It is also important to say the Health Committee worked extremely well in collaborating in a positive way to bring about some amendments to ensure that this bill was as good as it could possibly be. I emphasise also the very fact that if this had not come to be it would have meant the insolvency of provider organisations and therefore the disruption of services to thousands of very very vulnerable people. 
The select committee heard three oral submissions and there were also two other submissions: one from Business New Zealand and the other from the Employers’ Chamber of Commerce Central. IDEA Services pointed out that it was keen to get out of statutory management that it would cost it $33 million and that it would have to borrow for this. It pointed out that this was something it wanted to see as a long-term solution and that the training of carers would be a very important issue for the future. It also pointed out that it catered for something like 250000 sleepovers per year and it mentioned that for 95 percent of that time the carers were asleep which is very important in regard to the court decisions. But I did want to make the point that John Ryall of the Service and Food Workers Union made the comment— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No relation. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: —he is not related to Tony Ryall—that the carers were very passionate and dedicated about helping the disabled to lead an ordinary life as was pointed out by Darien Fenton. His colleague Peter Cranney noted that one of the carers who was asked during the court case why he did not leave his job with the very poor wages he was paid said he did not leave because he knew the disruption that would happen to that household might last for up to 2 years. That really encapsulates the passion and dedication with which those carers do their jobs. He mentioned that IDEA Services was a magnificent organisation. 
With that this bill legislates a practical solution to a very difficult situation. It is worth celebrating. It is indeed a very positive bill on which to end the year. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I will be brief in this call. I really just want to echo the positive comments that have been made by my colleague Darien Fenton and also by members on the other side of the House. This is a great day not only for the workers in the health and disability sector but for the people whom they look after. This work as Dr Hutchison has just alluded to is not work—previous to now anyway—that has been done for the money; it has been done because those workers are dedicated to looking after vulnerable New Zealanders. 
One thing I would say is that the phrase that has been associated with the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill is the sleepover case. I have been uncomfortable with that term right throughout because the people involved are at work. They are working they are doing important things and they are dealing often with difficult situations: seizures people who need to be toileted people who need to be looked after in the middle of the night. That is work; it is not a sleepover. The workers concerned deserve to be paid the minimum wage if not more—certainly more actually—than that. What this settlement does is acknowledge that it is work that it is work involving some of the most vulnerable members of our community and that it is undertaken by some of the lowest-paid members of our community. 
The fact that we can come together as a Parliament on this settlement is excellent. I do believe that the threat of ongoing court action the worry and the concern that the Government was not going to back a settlement took its toll on the workers involved but they stuck at it. We have had some very unfortunate things said in this House about unions by members on the other side during this 3-year term. I believe that this settlement is a victory for the workers for the vulnerable people they look after and for IDEA Services and their humanity and the sense of dignity they see in the people whom they look after. But also it is a victory for the union movement for sticking to their guns and making sure that they advocated on behalf of their members. I believe it to be a victory all round. 
The Health Committee made some minor changes but they are ones that I believe will assist this bill to be implemented. The possibility exists for extension into other parts of the health and disability sector and other sectors. We have facilitated a process for that. I am grateful for the fact that we stand here at the end of the parliamentary sitting knowing that some of the lowest-paid workers in New Zealand will be receiving before Christmas back-pay and on going through to the end of 2012 they will finally get what they deserve for the excellent work they did. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave for all the provisions of the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill to be taken as one question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. The question now is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part. Is any member seeking the call? I shall put the question. 
Clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 and 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill be now read a third time 
. I would like to thank members for their contribution to the second reading debate and their support of the bill in the Committee stage and I acknowledge the generosity and the goodwill of spirit not only on behalf of the unions but also on behalf of the employers who are also making a contribution to the back-pay here. I also thank the officials from the Ministry of Health and the Department of Labour who worked very speedily and swiftly in order to get the good piece of legislation before the Parliament very quickly. With the passing of this legislation we will then be able to process those claims and be in a position to ensure that people’s rights under this legislation are realised as soon as they can be. Finally Mr Deputy Speaker thank you very much and I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and other members all the very best for the next 7 weeks. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I start by thanking the officials and the Health Committee for their very speedy work and also those involved in the negotiations and in the drafting of the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill. I am thankful for the way in which the process was conducted. I know of course that the unions were involved and were very pleased and checked off any changes that the select committee made or suggested as well. So I think it was a good process even if it was very short. I appreciate the hard work that went into this. 
This bill is about respect. It is about respecting the work that is done in this very very difficult sector—a sector that is very very hard to work in. It is also about respecting the people who are being cared for in the community who we all say should stay there and should be able to live as normal a life as possible. It is about respecting as my colleague Grant Robertson said the role of unions and the absolutely wonderful and constructive role they played in reaching this settlement. As I said before they have made a significant concession. They have not taken this to the wire. It could have gone to the Supreme Court as was being proposed and wasted more time and money. They have made a concession. They have been very pragmatic and as they said their interest now is to see things in the sector move forward. They want to see proper competencies required proper training proper skills and proper pay. Even though the settlement has been reached for minimum wage for sleepovers it is still a low-paid sector. There are still issues to be resolved. 
This bill is about respecting the roles but if we are to give the workers and the people cared for proper respect there are other issues we will have to deal with in the next Parliament. I hope that we are able to do that in the spirit in which consideration of this bill has been conducted. 
Finally Mr Deputy Speaker I wish you a very interesting time over the next 6 weeks. I say to all members of the House those returning and those who are not that we will see you on the campaign trail. Thank you. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill which rights a wrong. We have supported this bill throughout its passage and are pleased to continue to do that. It feels much more wholesome to be involved in supporting a bill that implements a Court of Appeal decision rather than earlier this afternoon when we saw a bill overturning a Supreme Court decision. 
My colleague Catherine Delahunty who sat in on the select committee on this matter observed that she was very pleased to experience a sense of unity and common purpose amongst the Government the unions and the key employer IDEA Services in this case. She reflected that other than for the matter of some minor technical changes the goodwill towards this legislation passing in a timely fashion was reflected in the sense that there was a sense of realism and an emergent sense of mutual respect in place of the rather unfortunate denial that was evident in earlier sessions when some question was posed as to whether the night-shift work was actually work at all. Of course we know that it is work and these people are absolutely entitled to at least the minimum wage and in fact probably considerably more than that. 
It is true of course that the money—the cash—is important to these workers but equally important to them is the question of training setting some core competencies developing mandatory competencies and for that to be an ongoing process. This is not unskilled work. This is important; it is about looking after the needs of people who are vulnerable people who are in need of care on a 24-hour basis and it is very desirable that that should go ahead. 
It has been noted that not only will the union members who fought so hard benefit from this but also it is to be hoped that it will perhaps be a lesson and perhaps will reveal to those workers who are not yet members of the appropriate union that there is real value in joining the unions. There was a single gentleman a Mr Phillip Dickson and to his great credit he initiated this process but clearly it was a matter of collective bargaining. It was the power of the collective represented by the Service and Food Workers Union and the Public Service Association that actually brought this to fruition. Again that clearly represents the importance of unionising particularly in workplaces that are low-paid where individuals have very little power and where the power of the collective has been a very important phenomenon to ensure that they get justice in this case. 
Clearly as I have said the issue does not simply reflect that these people will finally be acknowledged for the skills and the compassion that they bring to this task. The amount of money per hour that these people have been paid is an amount of money that in this day and age the average 10-year-old would be underwhelmed by if offered that amount to do a simple household task. Bringing this into line over time with the minimum wage—and a minimum wage that we would sincerely hope and advocate will be raised to a more appropriate level; ultimately two-thirds of the average wage—will be a much more satisfactory outcome. 
With those brief words I will simply close by saying that we are pleased that this is being completed in a timely fashion. We wish all the best to those people who are continuing to do this very difficult and demanding work and we wish them well. Kia ora koutou. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 In this debate on the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill I want to make two brief points. The first one is that in this debate over sleepovers one of the key points that I think has been overlooked is that these people who are asleep at night carry responsibility. There are lots of people in this world in New Zealand who get paid fabulous salaries not because of the work they do but because of the responsibility they carry. The people who are in charge of these rest homes and these homes at night carry the responsibility for all of the people who are in them. If we think about responsibility and the responsibility for the care of those people and having to carry that responsibility the amount of money they are paid is inadequate. 
The second point I make is that this is historical. This House has to look in the future at legislation and support mechanisms that pay people in this sort of category of work a wage that is appropriate. A wage of $13.50 an hour is simply inadequate recompense for the amount of work these people do. The personal care the personal chores they have to do for people in their homes and in these particular establishments is incredibly personal and very direct. I do not think there would be anybody in this House who would want to have to clean up the sorts of messes and take care of the responsibility for the things that these people do at all no matter how much they were paid. We expect these people in our community to do this for a measly $13.57 an hour. I think that is wrong. I have never agreed with it this House should never agree with it and we should put in place mechanisms to ensure that these people are paid appropriately and funded. So the challenge for this Parliament is to do right by these people in the future. We should tidy up the past but we need to do things for these people in the future. 
My last point is on my behalf to say thank you to the Speaker and all those who have supported this House through the last 3 years. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am really pleased to stand to speak on the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill this afternoon. This afternoon in the House has been a game of two halves. The first half involved legislation that we were appalled to see passed under urgency and lacking the due consideration it required for the public to engage with it and understand the full implications of the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill. But the second half—this bill—is a completely different story. 
This bill signals the successful resolution of a longstanding claim concerning about 5700 of the country’s lowest-paid workers. It is a story about counting the value of the dedicated commitment so many of these workers have made to making life just that much easier for the people they are supporting. The bill enacts the commitment of Cabinet to raise sleepover rates for disability support workers from the current IHC rates of $34 a night to the minimum wage of $13 an hour over the next 15 months. The Maori Party is proud of our Minister Tariana Turia for the work she has done alongside the Minister of Health to get this deal through. 
In many ways this has been described as a landmark deal—a $100 million opportunity to pay these unsung heroes the minimum wage for overnight sleepover shifts from Christmas next year. The deal includes back-pay from July 2005 of half the difference between what workers were paid and the minimum wage applying at the time—up to $70000 in some cases for some workers. It is a wonderful early Christmas present and I am proud to be part of a Parliament that will enable this legislation to pass. 
I have a personal association with the sleepover issue. One of my sons spent 5 years supporting young people with intellectual disabilities in a respite home. He would take on the night shifts over the weekend and he and one other worker would base themselves at the residence and prepare for come what may. Often those nights with the rangatahi were challenging to say the least. It was not at all uncommon for the inhabitants to somehow escape the house in various states of undress and embark on a long walk to town along the nearby railway tracks. When my son finally caught up with the absconders inevitably it was something of an ordeal to persuade them to come back home and to stay home for the rest of the night. 
The other thing of note from this time was that often once the residents were fed showered toileted and put to bed for the night the real work would actually begin. Soiled clothes and linen would be washed bathrooms would be scrubbed the house would be brought back to a semblance of order and paperwork would be done. This was not just a one-off occurrence; working with young people with intellectual disabilities was a challenge. Often there would be an incident that would require the workers to be intensively involved in providing supervision support management and quality of care. 
Yet here is the rub: between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. my son and his co-workers would receive the princely sum of about $34 as the sleepover rate. That equates to about $3.80 an hour which is barely the price of a bottle of milk. Such a pitiful payment fails to reflect the importance of appropriate and responsible care being available for some of our most vulnerable citizens. It also fails to take into account the fact that the work that is undertaken during the time when presumably one is meant to be asleep is arduous back-breaking work. It is physical work. Workers were not allowed to leave the premises in that time; they were to stay on site and be available for any eventuality. It is not simply a matter of curling up on the bed for a good sleep and hoping that everyone else will do the same—far from it. 
Frequently it requires a level of compassion understanding and sensitivity that will ensure the appropriate and respectful care of the people the workers are responsible for looking after. As my son put it it requires a heart. He also told me that the management and the staff he worked with were wonderful people. They were committed they were kind and they were dedicated to meeting the needs of those in the residence. But when it came down to it $34 is a pittance for the work the skill and the humanity required to exercise these roles. I wanted to tell that story today because sometimes I think we speak to legislation with generic terms like “employer” “employee” “the health and disability sector” and “minimum wage” and we forget about the human dimension to the situation. 
I congratulate IDEA Services Ltd Timata Hou Services and the Service and Food Workers Union for their perseverance in doing what they can to improve the conditions for those providing such vital services for vulnerable people overnight. I acknowledge too the submissions made to the Health Committee by the Service and Food Workers Union—Nga Ringa Tota—the Public Service Association and IDEA Services Ltd. I recognise the effort of Business New Zealand and the Employers’ Chambers of Commerce Central in taking up the opportunity to present a submission even under such dire circumstances and time frame. But at the end of the day although the Government the unions and the providers have come to the party our greatest accolades must be reserved for those who work sleepovers— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Who wrote this? Just table it. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: —and the difference they make to the lives of the many people they support. 
The Maori Party unlike that member over there is very much a supporter of the view put forward by Mahatma Gandhi who said “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” We believe that the moral test of any society is how the most vulnerable members fare and in this regard we wholeheartedly endorse the Sleepover Wages (Settlement) Bill to provide certainty for employers employees and the Government to establish a sustainable pathway to improve the pay for thousands of employees who undertake this vital work and most of all to ensure continuity of care for those who will benefit the most from the impact of this legislation—the people who require the support of others to stay overnight. 
Bill read a third time. 
Adjournment 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That the House do now adjourn until Tuesday 25 October 2011. 
 For the benefit of members I will just explain the date in the motion. The dissolution of the Parliament will occur at 11 a.m. on 20 October so this motion incorporates the notional date of 25 October making it clear that the House will not meet again prior to the election. An adjournment motion cannot bring a session of Parliament to an end; a session can be terminated only by the Governor-General and this will be done by proclamation on 20 October. 
Mr Speaker as we wind towards the end of the year on behalf of National I acknowledge you and your valiant attempt to make this a place of facts with more facts and less politics. I guess that history will judge as to how sustainable that has to be knowing your persistence and focus; you are one of the few people who could have sustained it as long as you have. 
I take this opportunity also to acknowledge the parliamentary staff and Beehive staff. The incident in the House yesterday highlighted that there are a lot of people around here who do not look as if they are needed until they are needed. Then they are really needed. I thank them particularly the security staff. I thank the parliamentary staff for the way they handled that incident. Also I acknowledge at the end of this parliamentary term their professionalism and helpfulness in the transition to a new Government. It is a huge job and our ability to get up and running as a Government was in no small part due to the staff of Parliament and the Beehive and their neutrality and commitment to ensuring that whoever is in Government is offered as much support as possible. 
I also take the opportunity to thank our own staff of the National Party caucus and Cabinet. I hope they have enjoyed as much as I have the opportunity to work in a very well-led high-functioning team of people with a strong common sense of purpose and impressive unity through some reasonably testing times. In that context on behalf of my caucus I acknowledge colleagues of ours who have departed and are departing. I refer to Pansy Wong and Richard Worth who both left during the term and also to Sandra Goudie for her passionate advocacy. She showed that one can disagree with someone strongly but in good humour. I thank Georgina te Heuheu for her calm and deep wisdom particularly in the late 1990s when she first came into Parliament and played a critical role for the then National - New Zealand First coalition. Wayne Mapp in many respects is very much underestimated. He started a revolution in our defence forces without anyone really noticing. To my good friend and colleague Simon Power it is a pleasure to see you once again striding across the parliamentary carpet. You have proven yourself to be an outstanding legislator and probably the best in a long time. I thank you for your personal encouragement. I think in this year we should acknowledge also Allan Peachey who announced yesterday his departure from the Parliament. It is not the best of circumstances in which to do that. He is a man from whom one learns the value of strong and unerring conviction. I think the mention of these colleagues indicates there is no one who comes into this Parliament or to a caucus from whom we cannot learn in the early stage of their career or later on. 
There is another group of New Zealanders whom I think we should acknowledge today and they are the people of Christchurch. They have had to put up with the most dreadful of circumstances. On any given day of course what is going on in Christchurch now is not spectacular except the days when there are large shakes but day after day after day they have to put up with the grinding discomforts and uncertainties of a city whose way of life has been fundamentally affected by the earthquake. The uncertainties are in terms of not knowing what will happen for their families for their workplaces and for their homes. We acknowledge the resilience that they have shown. 
I also want to take the opportunity to acknowledge those parts of the Public Service that have been involved with the earthquake. I mean the Public Service in the broadest of definitions—not only the emergency services which have been involved in the major events but also the policy and technical people. We have seen a willingness a professionalism and a work ethic from those public servants that has enabled the Government to deal with very complex issues that we have not had to deal with before. Some of those people I know have worked extremely hard all of this year day after day through weekends month after month. In that context I acknowledge the person who has shown them the leadership to do that and that is our colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I think it was quite telling that despite the inevitable criticism of someone who takes the assertive approach that Gerry takes at times the people of Christchurch believe that the Government has done a pretty good job of managing a difficult situation and certainly there is no doubt when working with Gerry that the common good of that community is what drives the relentless energy that he has focused on these difficult problems. 
That resilience that we have seen from the Christchurch people and those who have gathered around the recovery of Christchurch I think is simply a more intense version of the resilience we have seen from New Zealanders. It is reflected in the wider community. I acknowledge today on behalf of the Government the way that our families our businesses and our organisations have adapted to a difficult set of economic circumstances with a resolute will a healthy pragmatism and a positive view of the future. That is not to say they have found things easy but I think that those who have been around politics for a while might want to reflect on the fact that we have had less complaining from New Zealanders in these circumstances than I can recall at almost any time and certainly less than in any previous recession. 
In some ways we are reaping the benefits of having been an open economy for 25 years. People are less inclined now to wait for the Government to solve their problems and more inclined to roll up their sleeves. That is in no small part due to the leadership provided by John Key as Prime Minister of New Zealand in tough times. He is the most relentlessly positive person whom I have ever worked with. He sometimes needs that positivity calmed down a bit but the people of New Zealand have responded very well to a leadership for the times. He has made pragmatic and balanced judgments that have been reflected in the Government’s economic and social policy through this term. He has a willingness to get on and make the decisions that need to be made. I think the progress the Government has made in social policy areas has been less remarked on but will turn out to be as important as its economic policy. 
As we head into one of the more peculiar election periods we have had because of the Rugby World Cup we wish the All Blacks well. We know they will show the same resilience in the face of adversity as the rest of New Zealand has. The election period will be a contest between looking forward and looking back—I do not think there is much doubt about that. It will be between a National Government that is looking ahead to a better New Zealand a brighter future driven by the aspiration that New Zealanders have shown and a Labour Party still looking back with nostalgia to its time in Government. Its billboards are a bit unusual. They cannot even say “Vote Labour”. They cannot even say “Vote Labour”. They cannot even put their leader on them. It will be a contest between a National Party with not just a belief in itself but a belief in New Zealand and a Labour Party that has lost any self-belief and in my view for very good reason. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 Today I am taking the Leader of the Opposition’s traditional call in this debate because he has joined the Prime Minister at the funeral of Lance Corporal Leon Smith. I know that people in this House will be feeling for his family today. 
Too often as members of Parliament we get to this time of the year and we have a lot to say. We often leave the thankyous to last and we try to cram them in with a minute to go and we forget a lot of people. So I will start with the people we want to thank: our staff and the staff in this building. I start with a thankyou to you Mr Speaker and to your staff particularly Beryl and Roland. I think you have served us well in the last 3 years. But I have not always agreed with you Mr Speaker and funnily enough you have not always agreed with me. But I have figured out who has won the argument over the last 3 years. I wish you and Alexandra well over the months ahead. 
I thank the Clerk’s Office the Hansard reporters the library staff and especially our wonderful messengers—you are always cheerful you are helpful you are friendly and you even play along with the little game I play every day when I ask for a drop of gin to be put into my glass. I do not drink and that is yet to happen so Mr Speaker do not worry. 
I also thank the Bellamy’s staff. I particularly thank the education officers in this Parliament who are so wonderful at giving young people who come here an amazing experience learning about how this place works and the history of it. Today I remember Pat Siemonek one of the education officers who passed away in the last few weeks. I also acknowledge our security staff. They serve us well and they are very well-liked. Today I also remember Peter Stevenson who passed away just a few weeks ago who served in this House for over 17 years. 
I acknowledge the brave security officer who yesterday helped to prevent what could have been a tragedy. He was not only injured himself but he stopped the person who was attempting to jump from being injured and probably saved several of my colleagues from injury who were unaware of what was happening above them. I visited him last night at the emergency department—and I will have a chat to Tony Ryall a little later about how it is working! But I have to say that he was still as cheerful as ever. 
I thank our research unit our policy unit our media unit in the leader’s office and particularly my own staff Emma and Lloyd. Finally I thank the cleaners who come in here at midnight to clean up after us earning about $13 an hour. 
It seemed to me that that was a really good place to start in summing up the 3 years of a National Government—to give it a score card on how it has done over the last 3 years to see if it has met its national standards. I have measured it by three main measures: are we better off; are there more jobs; and does it have a plan to manage the economy? [ 
Interruption 
] Excellent—oh I am so pleased those members opposite are excited by this report card! I will take them back just 3 years to what was promised to New Zealand at that time. We were told there would be a brighter future. We are still told there will be an even brighter future—it is on the never-never. We were told they were going to do everything and give everything that Labour did and more but wait particularly for the people in “Struggle Street”. You know the people who were in McGehan Close where the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—went down took the hand of little Aroha went in front of the television cameras and said: “These are the people who are going to be better off when we become the Government.” 
Well I have to tell members opposite who got a bit excited that they have not achieved the national standard on this. I can tell them why: the minimum wage this year went up by 25c an hour while the Prime Minister gained himself $1000 a week more. In fact the median wage in this past year has had the smallest increase in 11 years—well behind an inflation rate of 5.3 percent. But Mr Key said we cannot increase the minimum wage because we will lose jobs. Well I have to say that there is absolutely no evidence for that and that he is totally out of touch with what is happening out there. He is hurting the very people he said that he would help. He said: “I can’t interfere in the cleaners’ wages but I can interfere on what time  
Coronation Street 
 will be on television.” He is a big man for  
Coronation Street 
 but not for cleaners’ wages. 
I have to say to Bill English whom I have listened to week after week say that everybody is better off that the people of New Zealand do not believe that. It does not matter how much he says it; it does not make it true. Prices are outstripping wages people are working harder than ever and they are not getting ahead. We need only to look at the Otago University study that recently said that it cost an Auckland family mum and dad and two teenage kids about $300 a week for their basic food bill. The median wage for them is $529 a week. That does not leave much does it? It does not leave much for rent power clothes petrol and so on. 
What about the tax cuts that were going to make it all better? We were all going to feel better off. Well those who were given tax cuts already had the most. In 3 years of a National Government we have seen the widening of the gap between those who are rich and those who are poor. The 150 wealthiest New Zealanders have $7 billion in their wealth although the minimum wage has been reduced in real terms by $16.80 a week. What has that led to? Members should go and visit the food banks and the Salvation Army. They should go around New Zealand and talk to real people and they will see what has happened to many of them. 
Do we have more jobs? Let us go over that. In 2010 we were promised 170000 more jobs. We were promised 170000 more jobs in 2010 and that was after the global financial crisis was over—but we got fewer jobs. Then we were promised 170000 new jobs in 2011 and that was after the global financial crisis was over—and we got fewer jobs than we had before. In 1 month—the last month—we have lost 800 jobs from places like the Department of Conservation Tangiwai Mill Canterbury Leather Housing New Zealand Corporation The Warehouse the wood-processing industry and Alliance Group meatworks. It reminded me of a headline I saw in the  
New Zealand Herald  
in January 1993 which said: “Welcome to benefitville coming to your town soon.” I have to tell members it is happening again. There are marginalised communities industries in retreat lost jobs and lost wages. All the while the number of people on the main benefits has gone up by 21.8 percent in the 3 years under this National Government. This is the brighter future that was promised.  
What about the economy and the plan? I would leave it up to the rating agencies to give the Government the rating on that. There have been two downgrades the first in 13 years. I think Bill English was there the last time. That is how much they think of him. We were told it was very important that we did not have a downgrade. We were told that in 2009 and in 2011 National said it would be disastrous but now that it has happened it does not really matter and we are going to muddle our way through. National members have blamed it on everything and everybody—the global financial crisis the weather the earthquakes the bureaucrats and the beneficiaries. They never look at themselves in the mirror. I say to National that every one of the statistics we have now is under its watch. It is time it took some responsibility for what is happening out there and for what are the results of the policies that National put in place.  
This Government has borrowed $37 billion for no growth. We have 56000 more unemployed and National is too timid to tackle the real policies this country needs. National is too timid to put in place what we need in this country. I can tell members that this Labour Party is not timid. We will be out there at this election giving people a forward plan that is a plan and not some sort of made-up pulled together mishmash of policies that is taking this country nowhere. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party. I started 2011 by saying that I was looking forward to this election year as an opportunity to put the Green Party’s positive vision for Aotearoa before the nation. Throughout 2011 in good times and in bad the Green Party has sought to move beyond the blame game and to present positive solutions and alternatives to the difficult issues our country faces. 
New Zealand is a great country. We in the Greens love it and we want to make it even better. I want a fair future where care workers on night shifts get paid the legal minimum wage for doing the important work of looking after our disabled sick and elderly. I am glad this Parliament has resolved this issue this afternoon. I want a future where all our children can enjoy our country and swim in our rivers because they are clean and free of pollution. I want a future where we live in warm insulated houses that use 100 percent renewable energy and are built by Kiwis who have ridden the wave of the clean green economy. We will deliver this future by doing things differently and by making the transition to the clean green smart Green economy. This is what New Zealanders deserve and that is what the Greens will deliver. 
The recent double downgrade by Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings is actually a vote of no confidence in the Government’s management of the economy. In this term of Parliament the Government has unfortunately made some poor economic decisions and the credit downgrade has been part of the result. The Minister of Finance has done a good job in many respects but there are many decisions that we have not agreed with in terms of economic management. 
More important aside from dealing with the economic challenges of today we believe that the Government has not delivered a plan that seizes the economic opportunities of tomorrow particularly in the space of the smart Green economy. The Greens have produced such a plan and we look forward to the election campaign and to debating it. Our pragmatic economic strategy would transition the New Zealand economy to maximise our biggest natural advantage: our clean green reputation and expertise. 
We will ramp up the Heat Smart home insulation programme ensuring that it is rolled out to a further 200000 homes over the next 3 years employing 4000 people. We will retain State ownership of our State-owned enterprises while creating the right incentives for them to partner with cleantech entrepreneurs in the private sector—that is the kind of partnership we want—and develop renewable energy solutions we can patent and export abroad. 
Renewable energy is actually one of New Zealand’s most promising export potentials. With the right incentives in place we can be a player in the global market in renewable energy solutions creating thousands of good green jobs and significant export income. Through a mix of Government procurement policies tax incentives start-up funding and a billion-dollar boost to research and development we will support small to medium sized enterprises to step up and drive new job creation in the cleantech sector. That is what we are looking forward to. This is a realistic and achievable plan and it is about our country’s future. 
Our rivers and lakes are part of what makes New Zealand such a great place to be. Healthy rivers are also essential to our economy but our rivers and lakes are under threat and we have not really seriously started the process of cleaning them up. Half of our monitored lakes and rivers are unsafe for swimming in and about one-third of our lakes are unhealthy. Two-thirds of our freshwater fish are at risk of or threatened with extinction which is a terrible legacy to pass on to our children. It is not something that the Green Party is willing to pass on to the next generation. 
We will implement robust standards for clean water that set limits to the amount of water that can be taken from rivers and lakes and to the pollution going into them. This will include a minimum standard for intensive agricultural practice. Perhaps one of the most difficult problems our country faces in terms of an environmental issue is diffuse pollution. The Green Party is one of the few parties that has the courage to grasp that particular nettle. We will also use price signals to incentivise the efficient use of water by putting a fair price on its commercial use. That is another thing that this Parliament has not grasped. The revenue raised from such a price can be used to begin the clean-up project. This is a plan that is good for our economy and for our environment. 
The first victims of an unequal society and an unfair economy are children: 270000 children live in poverty in New Zealand—that is one in four Kiwi kids. International research puts the cost of not acting to address child poverty at around 3 percent of GDP per year and that is something that we have not got on top of in this Parliament. Bringing kids out of poverty is a priority for the Greens and it makes economic sense as well as humanitarian sense. We would make Working for Families work for every low-income family. We would incorporate what is now called the in-work tax credit into the family tax credit and extend it to our poorest households—those who are on benefits. That would give an extra $60 a week to some of the poorest families in New Zealand. We would also provide better support to sole parents and beneficiaries. Instead of pushing away the ladder of opportunity as we have seen in this term of Parliament the Green Party would make sure that there is a ladder of opportunity so that people can get an education. 
We would make sure our rental properties are warm and healthy for kids because 375000 kids live in cold damp houses and that is not good enough. It makes them sick. We would create insulation standards for rental properties to ensure that there are warm healthy homes for thousands of children so they do not get sick from living in cold houses. 
We would also raise the minimum wage. It is almost impossible to make ends meet on the minimum wage. It has been tragic that this term of Parliament has not seen a big increase in the minimum wage. It needs to go up to $15 an hour immediately to help working parents provide the basics for their children. If we do not provide the basics for the next generation we can hardly expect them to support us. 
Everything I have talked about today will not happen however if MMP is not retained in the upcoming referendum. MMP has delivered genuine change and has made a real difference. One-third of our MPs are now women there are more Maori in Parliament and our democracy is now more representative of the people of New Zealand. MMP has delivered some good ideas like Kiwibank paid parental leave and the home insulation scheme which is on track to make 180000 homes warm dry and healthy. In this election MMP is especially important. Smaller parties can act as an important constraint on unpopular policies such as the sale of State assets. I am looking forward to voting to keep MMP. 
I am proud of what the Greens have achieved this parliamentary term—working both with and against the Government. We have stopped the mining in national parks working alongside the broader Green movement. We have pressured the Government to set up the office of Disability Rights Commissioner and the High Hazards Unit for mining. We took on the other political parties to make public MPs’ expenses and perks and we won that battle. 
We have also found some common ground with the Government this term and have worked with it on the formal memorandum of understanding between the Green Party and the National Government. Our biggest achievement together is the home insulation scheme. We have made more than 100000 homes warm and dry through better insulation and more efficient heating creating 2000 jobs in the process. We have also secured funding to clean up the Tui Mine and to trial pest control and we have worked with the Government on the New Zealand Cycle Trail which is a great initiative. We have also broken the 20-year deadlock on natural health products regulation and developed legislation that was passed unanimously at its first reading. We acknowledge working with the Government on those particular projects which we think are great projects. 
Mr Speaker I thank you for your role in this parliamentary term. From the Green Party’s point of view your intervention in question time has been great and we think it has made a real difference to improving our democracy. We thank all of the staff of Parliament. I will not go through and list everyone but we could not do our jobs without all of the staff in Parliament. I also acknowledge the retiring Green MPs Sue Kedgley and Keith Locke who have made a huge contribution over a number of parliamentary terms. 
For a decade now the Greens have shown that we can make change as an independent party in Parliament. The next Parliament we hope will be an opportunity for more Green change. Our vision is for a New Zealand that is richer in things that matter: strong communities a beautiful environment and a clean green economy that works for everyone. I believe that New Zealand can be this country and that we can lead the change to a better world. We are looking forward to making that happen. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It was a proud day in November 2008 when ACT not only returned to Parliament with an increased number of five MPs but also for the first time entered into a confidence and supply agreement with National. That agreement changed the Government and if it had not been for the people of Epsom and those who gave their party vote to ACT we may well still have a Labour Government. 
Since then ACT has played a vital role in supporting National in all of the policy initiatives that it campaigned on at the last election. However we have held the Government to account when we have needed to. To see this one only has to look at the events of the last week. The Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill and the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill have been passed in a significantly different form from the way they were initially promoted to the ACT Party. For these reasons alone the ACT Party not only deserves to be represented but also must be represented in Parliament in even greater numbers. 
It was very pleasing then to see in the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning the editorial that acknowledged the vital role that ACT has played in this Parliament. ACT however is perhaps better known as campaigning for a stronger economy and a more prosperous New Zealand. We believe that the income gap between New Zealand and Australia can be closed and that there is much that this Government could do to achieve that. Sadly National has lacked the courage to implement the recommendations of the 2025 Taskforce chaired by the now ACT leader Don Brash. The results of that are seen in the ever-growing public debt and the double credit downgrade we have experienced this week. 
National has been good at misrepresenting ACT’s position as wanting to slash public spending but the truth is that there was a massive blowout in public spending over the last 4 years of the Labour Government. If the expenditure had been held just to 2005 levels as a percentage of GDP New Zealand would have considerably less debt our exporters would be more competitive our current account more balanced and our incomes higher. Despite this ACT has achieved much in Government. We forced labour market reform so that the 90-day trial period is now extended to all employers so that young and high-risk entrants have even greater employment opportunities. It remains a scandal however that National was not prepared to reverse Labour’s abolition of youth rates which it opposed so strongly in Opposition. Both National and Labour have directly contributed to the unemployment of many thousands of young New Zealanders and we think that is a disgrace particularly when there are MPs in this House who should know better. We have also negotiated with National to open the ACC workplace account to competition and we have established the Productivity Commission. ACT’s Regulatory Standards Bill and the Spending Cap (People’s Veto) Bill are now at a select committee and will if passed into law revolutionise financial governance in New Zealand. 
I pay tribute to Rodney Hide who has served in this Parliament and served the people of New Zealand for 15 years. He is a formidable debater with a great political instinct and has an excellent knowledge of public policy. In winning Epsom in 2005 Rodney achieved one of the biggest political upsets in our generation and he and his staff have continued to serve the people of Epsom unstintingly for the last 6 years. Over that time it has become folklore that National conceded that seat to ACT. Nothing could be further from the truth. ACT took that seat from National and I was proudly one of over 200 volunteers who took part in that campaign. Rodney took David Garrett me and later Hilary Calvert under his wing when we first arrived in Parliament in order to teach us parliamentary process and the art of a good question. That contribution continued right up until last week when Rodney argued strongly in caucus that the video surveillance bill should be referred to a select committee. The benefits of that wisdom were obvious from the debate in Parliament this afternoon. 
I also acknowledge my colleague Heather Roy who has served in this Parliament for 9 years and who also played a vital role in ACT’s 2005 Epsom victory. Heather’s achievements have included her member’s bill opening up voluntary student membership and the Aspire Scholarships that she achieved as Associate Minister of Education. 
I also acknowledge my former colleague David Garrett who was the driving force behind ACT’s three-strikes legislation which has made our streets safer from serious repeat violent offenders. I have told David many times since he left Parliament that there will be people alive in years to come who otherwise would have been murdered or seriously maimed but for his legislation. David Garrett has everything to be proud of. 
I thank Hilary Calvert who came into Parliament at a difficult time and was thrown in the deep end for her support and her wisdom. In particular I acknowledge the time and effort she put in to listening to submissions on the Criminal Procedure Bill. 
To Sir Roger Douglas I owe a great deal of gratitude. When Roger Douglas came knocking on my door early in 2008 asking me to stand for ACT I rejected him. I was not prepared to make the sacrifice and pay the personal cost of standing for Parliament. He subsequently convinced me to stand. I am here today and I am very proud that I made that decision. Just under 2 weeks ago I announced that I would not be seeking re-election to Parliament on ACT’s party list. I will be standing in the electorate seat of Tamaki; however my sole objective will be to campaign for the ACT Party and the party vote. As a consequence this is likely to be my final speech to this House as a parliamentarian. From the first time I arrived I have felt incredibly privileged to have been elected an MP. As I say I am greatly indebted to Sir Roger Douglas for that. I have been very lucky to have experienced all that I have. 
During my first 20 months I served as a backbencher on Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Commerce Committee. I am particularly proud that I was able to force the Commerce Committee inquiry into finance company collapses. The way that some of those who have lost money have been treated by the legal system given what would appear to be fraudulent actions on the part of some finance company directors deeply concerns me. Just as Simon Power spoke yesterday of being deeply moved by his meeting with the Elliott family I too have been moved in my meetings with some of those who have lost their homes and their savings. As a small consolation it was great to assist in achieving the revised ANZ-ING settlement. 
I have also served on special select committees overseeing Auckland’s governance the super-city the emissions trading review and the electoral law and I was pleased to be treated hospitably by Tau Henare during my term as a member of the Maori Affairs Committee when reviewing the marine and coastal bill. 
In April 2009 I was proud to travel with Mr Speaker on the Speaker’s tour of Viet Nam and Japan and to meet with the President of Viet Nam and the then Prime Minister of Japan. In August 2010 I was elected deputy leader of ACT and appointed Minister of Consumer Affairs and Associate Minister of Commerce. I thank the Prime Minister for his confidence in me in appointing me to those positions at that particular time. I was able to continue the work of the Hon Heather Roy and the work she did on reviewing consumer law and the Consumer Law Reform Bill now sits on Parliament’s Order Paper. In May of this year I was elected parliamentary leader of the ACT Party and resigned my portfolios to allow myself more time to concentrate on ACT’s election campaign. 
Like other members of this Parliament I pay tribute to all of the staff who contribute to the smooth running of Parliament. Finally to the present and past staff of my former school Otahuhu College I say kia tamatane. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 E te Mana Korero tena koe. Ka huri ki a ratou nga rangatira kua ngaro ki aitua i tenei tau kaore au i te pirangi kia mahue atu tetahi. No reira ko taku ke he tautoko i nga poroporoaki ki nga rangatira i hinga i tenei tau. He tangi atu ki nga iwi kua pangia e aitua e te hunga kua ngaro atu i tenei tau haere atu ra. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. I turn now to them the esteemed who passed away this year and I do not want to leave anyone out. But I do so endorse the farewell tributes accorded to the revered who fell during the year. I mourn the tribes who were affected by death and say to those who died this year farewell. 
] 
I start this adjournment debate speech by referring to the memories of our beloved leaders who have left our midst over the term of this Parliament. We are bereft of their existence but richer for the difference they made to our lives. We have always believed that the most important role for the Maori Party is to be the very best advocates we can. Our legitimacy comes from the voices of the people. Our influence is through the wisdom of their lived experience. As we come to the end of the forty-ninth Parliament we pay tribute to all those people who have gifted us with their ideas who gave feedback by Twitter or Facebook who attended policy hui who kept the ahi ka warm. They are the life and soul of our party and every email every phone call and every letter is appreciated. 
The relationship agreement we signed on 16 November 2008 has been upheld and we are proud that every milestone has been achieved. We believe that the Maori Party offers Aotearoa a better way forward. The party continues to show the nation that there is a reasoned path down which we all can walk and that Maori values will enhance and not detract from the aspirations we might hold as a nation. The poll results released just last Sunday provided a resounding confirmation of our decision to sit at the table of government and our determination to do the very best for our people. Over half of the 1000 people polled between 19 August and 20 September reported that the Maori Party has represented Maori well and accepted that compromise was worthwhile to ensure that they had a seat at the Cabinet table. This was a massive result which reiterates our political stance that we seek influence with integrity. We seek to be potential-driven to seize every opportunity to advance the aspirations of our people and to consistently represent the independent voice of Maori in politics. 
Our coalition agreement has brought with it a raft of significant policy gains that have brought resourcing directly into our communities. We achieved a historic reversal of the previous Government’s decision not to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and we have been proud to advance Maori activism within the Government and at the Cabinet table. 
The hallmark of our contribution to the nation over this last 3 years has of course been Whanau Ora. From the constitutional review and the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act our focus has always been to create policies that focus on who we are where we are heading and what we can do for ourselves not what we can expect from others. Whanau Ora is the ultimate reflection of that commitment to invest in our people and I am not talking just about the $164 million appropriated. We now have 25 provider collectives in place involving 158 health and social service providers nationwide that have been working collaboratively to deliver the innovative approach to engage with families. 
Most important of all we have sensed a new faith and confidence in the capacity of our whanau to be self-determining and that is incredibly rewarding. The constitutional review is a sign of a bold Government prepared to open itself up for debate about what constitutes our national identity. It will be revolutionary for this nation to really engage about what the promise of the Treaty holds for our generations and those to come. I am greatly looking forward to taking part in this debate in the next Parliament. 
The third major milestone achievement is the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. I place on record our appreciation to Chris Finlayson for a sterling effort in getting this legislation on the book. I believe that the full extent of this legislation is yet to be realised but it is certainly hinted at in the preamble of that Act which says: “This Act takes account of the intrinsic inherited rights of iwi hapu and whanau derived in accordance with tikanga and based on their connection with the foreshore and seabed and on the principle of manaakitanga.” We have seen that same respect for tikanga for kaitiakitanga and for kaupapa influence many other aspects of the legislative agenda. I think in particular of the establishment of the new Environmental Protection Authority the work advanced across aquaculture and the ground-breaking reform introduced by my colleague Dr Pita Sharples in Te Paepae Motuhake the revitalisation of te reo. 
Tariana Turia often uses a catchphrase “culture counts” and it has been pleasing to see that expressed in the initiative of Tataiako cultural competencies for all teachers; the evolution of Whare Oranga Ake in the corrections system; and the $20 million allocated for health innovations. 
Of course this term has not been without its challenges. I will never to the end of my days forget the dramatic chaos and crisis that we have endured over this last year in particular. The disaster of the Pike River tragedy will for ever shake my memories as MP for Te Tai Tonga. The ongoing and tumultuous upheaval associated with the Otautahi earthquakes threatened our sense of security. It literally threw our world asunder. But out of the liquefaction arose a remarkable sense of resilience—a courage and community spirit that has moved us all. I acknowledge my co-leaders for enabling me to have the honour of this last address to bring with me the voices of the unsung heroes of Te Tai Tonga who have taught Aotearoa so much. 
The shared Maori sector strategy coordinated by Ngai Tahu has been inspirational in its breadth and I place on record my admiration for the way in which iwi throughout the motu came together to support the people. In many respects this is the whanau ora approach in action when our collective passion is galvanised for the greater good. We have as a party tried to encourage that spirit of collaboration to focus on our strengths. It can be the blueprint of how we can treat others and still retain our cultural integrity. 
We have applied that approach to the leadership Tariana Turia has demonstrated in tobacco reform by increasing tobacco excise banning tobacco displays confronting the Third World diseases of poverty such as rheumatic fever investing in bariatric surgery and insulating over 6000 homes in low-income areas. We have sought to put our best foot forward: to advance our economic development to invest over $100 million in Maori education and to showcase our talents on the Rugby World Cup stage. 
But perhaps one of the greatest strengths of the Maori Party during the term of this Government has been to neutralise and buffer the Government against the ACT Party. At every Cabinet and ministerial meeting and at every caucus the members of the Maori Party have provided the Government with the ability not to be held to ransom by an aggressive right-wing agenda. I am proud of the policy gains we have been able to achieve for Maori and for New Zealand and the issues we have placed on the table. My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell brought to the table the Public Works (Offer Back of and Compensation for Acquired Land) Amendment Bill living by our commitment that “not one acre more” will be taken. 
I am rapt that other parties have followed my lead in pioneering the call for GST to be removed from food and for a cross-party accord to eliminate child poverty and accelerate well-being. What we have not achieved now we will take up on our return. 
Finally I thank the amazing people who make our jobs here so easy from you Mr Speaker to our fabulous dedicated staff the library team the Hansard Office the Office of the Clerk the Table Office the security team the cleaning staff Copperfields the messengers the telephonists the people who keep the Beehive buzzing and of course our Prime Minister. And as all of us here know we would be nothing without our families. The Maori Party’s reason for being is to advance every opportunity and aspiration of our whanau. We can do that only because of the endless sacrifice and commitment of our partners our children and our mokopuna. Our last word is to them. Ki o matou taua poua tuakana tuahine tamariki mokopuna o matou whanau nei ra te mihi aroha te mihi mahana ki a koutou mo te awhi mo te tautoko i a matou te Pati Maori. 
[ 
To our elderly men and womenfolk elder brothers and sisters children grandchildren and families our affectionate and warm acknowledgments for embracing and supporting us the Maori Party. 
] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Huri rauna tena tatou katoa. E te Whare hoi ano hai korero tuatahi me mihi atu ki a ratou te hunga kua w’eturangitia hoi ano ratou ki a ratou tatou ano ki a tatou e nohonoho nei. Me mihi atu ki a koe e te tuahine Georgina e mutu ana koe i o mahi i roto i a tatou i tenei o nga Whare. Hoki mahara atu ki te wa tuatahi i uru mai au ki roto i tenei Paremata ko koe tetahi wa matou tino hoa hakoa kei tetahi pati atu kei reira koe. No reira nga mihi atu ki a koe e hoki ano ki to kainga ki tera o nga mauiui i roto i to whare. No reira mihi atu ki a koe. 
Ki a Mita ano hoki e mutu ana i ona mahi i roto i a matou e hoki tika ana ki tona kainga e hapai i nga mahi i reira; huri rauna ki a tatou ano ra e oku whanaunga e oku iti me te rahi koe ano hoki Hekia tatou katoa e nga Maori tena koutou huri rauna kia ora tatou katoa. 
Me te mihi anoki ki te Ropu Kakariki he hapai nei i ahau mai i taku tu motuhake hei reo motuhake mo Te Tai Tokerau tae noa ki taku mahi hei rangatira mo te Ropu o Mana me mihi atu ki a koutou mo ena tino tautoko tena koutou kia ora tatou. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all throughout. To you the House the first thing is to pay a tribute to those who have passed away by stating: let them the dead remain there amongst themselves and we seated about here remain here amongst ourselves. I pay a tribute to you Georgina sister colleague as you end your work here amongst us in this one of the Houses of Parliament. I recall the first time I entered this Parliament you became a real mate to us. Even though you were of another party you were always there for us. So my tributes to you as you return home once more and to the sick ones in your household. I salute you.  
Acknowledgments to you as well Mita finishing up his work amongst us here and heading directly to his home area to help out in the work there; to us as well my kinfolk throughout my meek and my mighty—to you as well Hekia—to all of us Maori ones salutations to you collectively throughout and to us all. 
I acknowledge the Green Party as well for helping me along when I became an independent member for Te Tai Tokerau and also in my role as leader of Mana. I really appreciate you and that genuine support of yours. Thank you collectively and all of us. 
] 
As we bring this final sitting of Parliament to a close I want to leave us all with some pointers as to just who Mana really is and what sort of world it is that we seek for members’ mokopuna and for mine. 
For Mana the defining issue for this election must be the elimination of poverty and the reclaiming of our ability to manage our own world. When the 1 percent at the top end of this country has more wealth than the 60 percent at the bottom end then it is time for change and not simply tweaking around the edges but real change. 
When 1 percent of our country can hold the rest of the country to ransom by virtue of their economic power and wealth then it is time the 90 percent-ers stood up and fought back. When 150 people can make $7 billion while 250000 of our kids are living in poverty then we need to say “Stop”—not just for a cup of tea break not for a pause but to turn round this bus before people start dying of starvation and our kids start rioting. 
When the Government flogs off our assets just to pay for our crippling overseas debt of $300 million a week while cutting benefits to its own citizens who are in desperate need then I think it is time to acknowledge that the Government has got its priorities all wrong. 
To nobody’s great surprise Mana will not be chasing votes from the wealthy or the corporates for under the guidance of this National - Maori Party - ACT Government those sectors have done obscenely well and do not need the help of anybody else. Neither will we be chasing the votes from the rednecks that the bumbling stumbling ACT Party seeks because we seek a world where the Treaty of Waitangi enables all children of Aotearoa to grow and to flourish in a positive and inspiring world. 
Mana is here because the Maori Party betrayed the people who put it into power and because Labour long ago abandoned its role as defender of the working class and champion of the poor. On behalf of Mana I say that it is time to refocus our priorities to take control of our economy to put Papatuanuku before profits to put the rights of New Zealanders ahead of the revenue streams of big business to change our tax regime so that rich people pay their proper share and to redistribute the wealth of the nation so that everybody enjoys the benefits of living in the best country in the world. 
Mana will be Maori-led and Maori-focused. It recognises Te Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the constitutional basis of our country and we will fight for genuine constitutional change to make that a reality rather than have the limp constitutional review agreed to by the Maori Party. 
Mana says that what is good for Maori will also be good for Aotearoa. Because of that Mana will also stand for an Aotearoa where everyone—Maori Pasifika Pakeha Asian or anyone else—has the chance for a decent life. Mana will trial a lot of its policies in Maori communities because we want to make sure that they can make them work. Then we will transfer the same opportunities to Pasifika and other communities to help them lift themselves to where they truly belong—together—in taking our country forward. 
Mana says: “Feed the kids” is our first priority as a nation and 250000 children living below the poverty line is an indictment on our whole society. We call on voters to reject all those parties that will not make that simple issue a No. 1 priority. Mana would provide free meals in all decile 1 to 4 schools now and for all schools next year. 
Mana wants a special grant of $1000 for everyone earning less than $30000 to be paid out at Christmas whether or not they are in work or on a benefit. And why not? We give tax breaks to the rich why not a meal break for the poor? Mana wants a minimum wage of $15 an hour by April next year not in 2014 or in any other year. We have the money to pay for it. Those who deserve it should have it now—no excuses. 
Mana wants free education for all all the way up to tertiary level. Making our kids pay for their future means that the first thing they do when the ink dries on their diploma is check out the cheapest flights to Australia. Free education is important to our nation because investing in our kids is an investment in our own future. 
Mana would abolish GST altogether not tweak it for fresh fruit and veges like Labour would nor vote to increase it like the Maori Party but abolish a tax on the poor that was introduced by Labour and increased by National. 
Mana opposes National’s plan to increase unemployment and Labour’s refusal to fight for employment for all. Mana calls for a programme of full employment based on figures from the Council of Trade Unions which tells us that if the Government took back the tax cuts it gave to the 1 percent last year we could take everybody off the unemployment register today and give them a job tomorrow at 40 hours a week and $15 an hour. Poor people do not want to wait around for the kind of long-term sustainable employment that does not exist; they want jobs now. 
The free-marketers have been in charge for the last 30 years and all we got was an increase in long-term unemployment an ever-growing underclass the loss of much of the nation’s assets and a skyrocketing national debt. No thanks. They have had their turn and all they have done is rob us blind. It is time for a national jobs programme; jobs for everyone who can work: in our schools in our hospitals and on our marae creating work where everybody can add value to their communities. 
Mana recognises that we have a massive shortage of housing for people in need. We know that families are living in cars sheds and garages right across this country. We condemn National’s recent decision to kick families out of State houses because if they are on the minimum wage they are making too much money. We condemn Labour’s silence on the issue. Mana wants 20000 new State houses built over the next 2 years to address this critical shortage and to help people get jobs right across the country in the housing sector. 
Mana says let us be big enough to pay for what we promised: abolish GST and introduce the “Hone Heke tax” on all financial transactions. A levy of just 1 percent on current financial transactions would nearly double our current tax revenue giving extra funding for health education and social welfare; money for research and development and economic growth; and substantially more for Treaty settlements beyond the miserable 3 percent that both National and Labour have given us to date. 
Mana wants a world where our kids are healthy where going to school is something to look forward to where there are jobs to aspire to and where families are strong. Mana wants a world where workers have a real say in the economy that they are key players in where communities control their own development and where iwi can respond effectively to the needs of their people. 
We want a world where all New Zealanders can speak Maori as well as they speak English where our Pacific cousins are treated like the family they genuinely are and not the slave labour that we bring in to do the jobs nobody else will do where our country is the jewel in the Pacific that we like to brag about and where everyone feels that Aotearoa is a country to be genuinely proud of. We have the money to pay for it we have the people to make it happen and we have the best country in the world bar none. All we need is the courage to say: “Stop. Turn round. Go back and get the kids and start rebuilding our world from there.” 
In closing let me extend my best wishes to many people: to the All Blacks of course for all the scrutiny they have had to face and the expectation that they bear for all New Zealanders. Everyone in this House wishes them well in their quest. While I am on it I extend my best wishes to Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu for challenging the racism that we all know is at the heart of the mean-spirited attitude of the International Rugby Board; and to Maori people throughout Aotearoa may the next 6 weeks in the run-up to the election be a journey of hope and a drive for a new world. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 We come to the end of the forty-ninth Parliament. Mr Speaker I begin by paying tribute to your skills and capabilities in directing our proceedings over the past 3 years. This House is fortunate to have had you in the Chair. In this adjournment debate I offer some reflections on the nature of our institution. My comments are taken from those I advanced in the Standing Orders debate and also advanced by my colleague Sue Kedgley in her valedictory. 
In the Standing Orders debate I said that the main problem we face is the poor regard the public has of us as members. Refining the procedural dimension of our institution through amendments to the Standing Orders is not in itself enough to solve this problem; something bigger is required. Let me expand on that. We as citizens are accustomed to hearing complaints about the shortcomings of our Parliament and we as members are accustomed to offering explanation if not exculpation of the way things are done here. So even as MPs we are conflicted about the way the House functions. I am not the only one on these benches who cringes at the behaviour here acutely aware of the public in the gallery watching in various states of horror and disbelief. I do not feel proud when our children look down upon us both literally and figuratively. 
We buttress ourselves against public scorn with two beliefs. The first is that the Standing Orders can keep us adequately tamed. The second is that our behaviour is a necessary by-product of free debate. Both beliefs are half-wrong so we continuously delude ourselves addicted to our own belief systems. The procedural rules that govern our parliamentary interaction go some way to maintaining order but they will not meet the true requirement of far-reaching change if there is no strong motivation. To date we have tinkered at the margins. We do that because of a fallacious understanding of the nature of democratic debate. We members of Parliament hold our various political views deeply along with the values that underpin them. We are often passionate about what we believe so the debating chamber should be a robust place for the free and vigorous exchange of ideas. But a robust debate must be a healthy one. A healthy one excludes personal attacks. It excludes insinuations of deception. It excludes offensive words. Clapping and cheering are counter-productive to the democratic process; they drown out what is being said. They banish any semblance of reasoned debate. They thwart clarity of thinking. They ignite passions that drive behaviour sufficiently unedifying as to turn the public away. If that is what we want in the name of democracy so be it but let us not delude ourselves that we know better than the public about the democratic process. 
If we are serious about parliamentary reform we must proceed beyond the Standing Orders and we must think out of the box. Let me identify three areas where fundamental reform might be considered. One is structure the second is balance and the third is accessibility. The structure of our Parliament itself needs to be reconsidered. There are several reasons why our debate often degenerates into near farce. Primarily it is because of the nature of the adversarial system of political interaction that we celebrate in the West. As our means of checks and balances and to deter tyranny we divide into political parties and compete for power through the ballot. That naturally sets up multiple adversarial relationships. The adversarial character of our body politic can be exacerbated or it can be moderated. In the Westminster system we exacerbate it by means of our physical arrangements in the Chamber. This dignified Chamber is characterised by undignified contributions and it still reflects a two-party system. Even today the leadership of the two main parties face off directly across from each other separated theoretically by the width of two swords. The confrontational nature of the arena is palpable. It evokes gladiatorial combat of ancient times. The layout of the Chamber physically visually and psychically encourages the opposing front benches to trade salvoes and the cross-bench parties to look on—largely observers—and to comment. 
So the nature of debate in the House is twofold. The debate between the two main parties deteriorates into a deafening slanging match then a third party intervenes and the tension and the decibel level diminish. The difference is qualitative. We saw this just yesterday in the general debate. The childish taunts over the future outcome of the forthcoming election were followed by a thoughtful intervention on this occasion by the Maori Party. Whether it is the Maori Party the ACT Party or the Greens—all with different values and views—the nature and style of the debate change. The contention is made that the debate is robust and vigorous because members feel deeply about their convictions. This is wrong. All members cherish their principles but the ACT Party the Maori Party and the Green Party advance their views in reasoned tones. The two main parties often do not. This is not a criticism of individuals or of parties; it is a criticism of the system we have devised. The structure is wrong. 
When I worked in New York I had occasion to visit many parliaments and congresses around the world. I must have visited 30 or 40. I came to sense the ambience that would characterise a National Assembly giving rise to different dynamics in the political process. The best were those configured in a hemispherical layout with the benches structured in a semicircle all looking towards the centre. There at the centre was the Speaker and there also would the member proceed down to look back at colleagues and address them. It is perhaps no surprise that the hemispherical as opposed to the confrontational layouts of Parliament tend to be non - Anglo-Saxon. Many though not all are recent democracies. My suggestion is that it is time we gave thought to the structure of our Parliament and the effect it has on the conduct of members. 
The second issue is balance. Not only does New Zealand have a Westminster system but it is unicameral. So the adversarial nature of the single Chamber stands in starker relief than might otherwise be. An upper Chamber may have its own tensions but it is usually less adversarial. One way of modifying this might be to use the Legislative Council Chamber more than is currently the case. That elegant Chamber is underutilised. Our parliamentary process would be enhanced if we used the Legislative Council Chamber for cross-party discussion that searches for consensus among parties rather than difference and highlights the common ground rather than the divisions. We could easily identify issues that underpin legislation before the House and generate a dialogue occasionally off the record identifying in an informal setting the scope for flexibility that might not be present in the Chamber itself. 
Accessibility is the third issue. The essence of democracy is the open and honest way in which members as representatives of the people are accessible to them. As a small country it is relatively easy in New Zealand to ensure openness and accessibility for the public. But we need to ensure that this does not deteriorate with the pressures of modern political life. The Greens are concerned about the possibility of paid lobbying intruding into the parliamentary process in New Zealand. We are assured that there is no such lobbying in this Parliament. Then we are told that certain individuals are afforded security clearance to gain access on the grounds of frequency of visits. So perhaps it is a matter of definition. Either way the litmus test will be the level of transparency. We believe that open discussion on this matter is in itself a test of the integrity of the political process and this is essential to the public interest. 
These are our areas of concern. We do not believe that it is fruitful for them to be explored from within. No body—legal medical financial legislative—can govern itself on an enduring basis through guardianship of its own rules. We need an independent review of Parliament not one undertaken by members of members for members. The functioning of Parliament and the integrity of the process can be judged objectively and with insight only by the people whom the institution is designed to serve. The public must be given the opportunity of judging the nature and functioning of this New Zealand Parliament. I suggest that an independent review be undertaken sometime during the fiftieth Parliament on the nature and functioning of our Parliament. The soft cadence of democracy in this land deserves no less. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My colleagues we come to the end of the forty-ninth Parliament. It has been a busy one. You have sat for 1650 hours approximately which is 150 hours more than the forty-eighth Parliament. I must say though that a quarter of those hours were under urgency and I hope that the proposals to amend our Standing Orders adopted by this House will facilitate less reliance on the use of urgency to advance the legislative programme in the future. Only two members’ bills received the Royal assent and I again hope that the proposals in the Standing Orders amendments will just help the House see and consider a few more members’ bills than that. It was three in the forty-eighth Parliament so the decline in those numbers is not recent. The busiest select committee of the House during this last term was the Finance and Expenditure Committee closely followed by the Commerce Committee in terms of reports presented to this House. But the big change from the forty-eighth to the forty-ninth Parliament in the statistics was in questions for written answer. They went up by 40 percent to 73181 which is becoming quite a load on Ministers’ offices. I am sure the Opposition would say however that that means they are a very hard-working Opposition. Interestingly despite 17 fewer sitting days more oral questions were asked reflecting I think positively on the practice of allowing question time to take place even during urgency. But enough of figures my colleagues! 
My thanks to you all for the kind comments that so many of you have made about those who support us here in this place—from the cleaners to the committee clerks from our loyal Chamber and gallery officers to our librarians. I will not mention the entire list for fear of leaving some out but I just want you to know how much we value you all; you all help to create the special character of this place and we are very much indebted to you. I do however thank the security team and in particular Dennis Laplanche. Our thanks go to Dennis for his speedy and courageous actions yesterday that saved what could have been an unthinkable outcome. Our best wishes go to Dennis for his speedy and full recovery. 
My colleagues this term our nation has had to cope with the twin tragedies of Pike River and the Canterbury earthquakes. I thank Geoff Thorn and the Parliamentary Service team and our electorate agent staff who have been involved in all of that for the support they have provided to our colleagues in this House in helping them to continue serving their constituents through these tragic circumstances. I thank those involved in that big effort because it was a huge effort. 
This House is very fortunate to have as our Clerk Mary Harris. The clear thinking of her incisive mind is something I have valued hugely. Mary it has been a privilege to work with you and your gem of an executive assistant Andie Lindsay. 
I thank the members of the Standing Orders Committee the Hon Simon Power the Hon Trevor Mallard the Hon Rick Barker Chris Tremain Dr Kennedy Graham the Hon John Boscawen Te Ururoa Flavell the Hon Peter Dunne the Hon Jim Anderton and of course those who also served on the committee Lindsay Tisch my Deputy Speaker and Chris Hipkins. I think you guys did a superb job and I really do believe that the new Standing Orders should help this House progress legislation in the future more effectively and in a more measured way and provide for improved public input and scrutiny of legislation that passes through this House. 
Undoubtedly the proposed changes to the Standing Orders will add some new responsibilities for the Business Committee and I congratulate that committee too on the growing effectiveness that I believe it has exhibited this term. In particular I thank the Acting Leader of the House the Hon Simon Power and the shadow Leader of the House the Hon Trevor Mallard. I believe both of you have provided outstanding leadership to the Business Committee. But I also thank the other members of the Business Committee. It has been great working with you and I think you have done a great job. 
To my Deputy Speaker and my presiding officer team Lindsay Tisch does an extraordinary job. I do not have to worry at all about the rosters about the chairing of the House at all. Lindsay just handles all of that in an absolutely efficient way. I have not lost one second’s sleep over it in my 3 years as Speaker and at times I have observed that Lindsay himself has spent fairly significant hours in the Chair. To my Assistant Speakers Eric Roy and H V Ross Robertson they have done a great job too in maintaining the kind of style I wanted to see come to the Chair of the House. I am deeply indebted to my presiding officer team. 
To my own office team my thanks. To our kaumatua Rose White-Tahuparae she is an amazing kaumatua for us. She and her colleagues do a wonderful job in organising the protocol and ceremonial occasions that make us all feel so proud when people visit this Parliament. To my Serjeant-at-Arms Brent Smith thank you Brent and also to my own office staff Roland here Trish and Beryl my Senior Private Secretary who is now in her 26th year of continuously looking after me. I do not know Beryl what kind of perverse thing it is that keeps you doing that but I am so indebted to Beryl for that. I must say that she is pretty efficient. I say to Ministers in the House that she has run the Speaker’s office this term on less than 50 percent of the cost of the Speaker’s office during the previous term. There is a challenge for Ministers in running Minister’s offices to see whether they can emulate that. 
My colleagues during this term we have had some memorable moments such as saying goodbye to Sir Anand and Lady Susan Satyanand and of course swearing in our new Governor-General Lieutenant General The Rt Hon Sir Jerry Mateparae. We have had the first address to this House by a visiting Prime Minister the Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard. It was a very special occasion. We have had some significant legislation during the term: the Auckland super-city and the Canterbury earthquake legislation were very important legislation. If we count debating hours there has also been something to do with the Royal Society that must have been important legislation given the hours that were put into debating it in this House. 
We have also had though some wonderfully humorous moments. I will never forget the response of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to the attractive invitation from the Hon David Parker for Mr Brownlee to explore the natural delights of the South Island back country alone with Mr Parker. It was an exquisite response in this House an exquisite repartee and one of the moments that one never forgets. Probably the moment when I do not know why I lost control so much was when my colleague—I think he is still here—the Hon Tau Henare interjected something to do with someone called Linda Lovelace. You my colleagues seemed to understand what that meant; I had no idea what he was talking about! The Speaker could not possibly have had any idea of what the Hon Tau Henare was on about! But even to today’s consideration of the possible horrible fate of Happy Feet they are all moments that bring a lighter touch to this House. To me it is important that among the important and serious business we conduct we do maintain at all times the best possible humour. 
In recent days we have heard some wonderful valedictories. To those of you my colleagues retiring my best wishes go with you as you reclaim your lives. To those of you heading out to face the voters good luck to all of you. As Speaker I have kind of developed a fondness of all of you and I wish you all the very best as you face the voters. My colleagues you have treated me as Speaker with extraordinary courtesy these last 3 years and I am humbled by that. It has been a special privilege to serve as your Speaker in this forty-ninth Parliament. Go well I thank you all and go the mighty All Blacks. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.