Volume 614 Week 44 - Tuesday 2 December 2003 
Volume 614 Week 44 - Tuesday 2 December 2003 
[Volume:614;Page:10271] 
Tuesday 2 December 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
President of the Bundestag Federal Republic of Germany 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Wolfgang Thierse President of the Bundestag Federal Republic of Germany accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
His Excellency Mr Wolfgang Thierse accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Points of Order 
References to Matters Awaiting Judicial Decision 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A question that we took to the Clerk’s Office this morning was dismissed as being outside the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders referred to in this case were Standing Orders 112 and 113. We accept that those Standing Orders are fairly clear. Therefore we would like some guidance from you about how we can raise in the House matters that have come into the public arena and are of concern but that have no material bearing on the outcome of a case whatsoever. It seems a little unfair to us that the media are able to speculate about what is meant by a statement made by a judge—or for that matter by a prosecuting police officer—but that we are not able to pursue in Parliament the information that lies behind that statement. If it is just an issue of reference being made to a case in a question then we would appreciate knowing that. But we are most concerned that our opportunities to find out more about circumstances that have nothing to do with the actions of the person being prosecuted or frankly with the outcome of the case are being cut off in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising that point of order. He has done so in a responsible way. I will have a look at that and come back to him with a ruling. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 20 November 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the last sitting day of the last sitting week I asked a question of the Minister of Health about whether she had seen any reports on widening the window of eligibility for breast screening tests. In her answer she outlined that she had had reports illustrating the effect of widening the eligibility of women for tests from the age of 64 to that of 70 years. I accept that the Minister made a genuine mistake. I understand that she has had reports about the importance of widening that window from the age of 50 years down to 40 years and I think that she has inadvertently misled the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that that is up to the Minister; it is nothing to do with me. The Minister if she wants to make a statement can most certainly do so or the member can take other action. But it is not up to me to intervene in this area. 
Questions to Ministers 
Refugees and Immigrants—Employment 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What percentage of refugees and immigrants have obtained paid employment within 6 months of arriving in New Zealand since the election of the Labour Government in 1999? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Information is not collected on the basis that the member’s question supposes. However information from the household labour force survey indicates that in the year to June 2003 half of the working-age people who were not born in New Zealand but who had been in New Zealand for less than 2 years were in the labour force and over 88 percent of those people were in employment. I should also note that migrants are not eligible for the unemployment benefit until they have been in New Zealand for 2 years. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth is that information not collected given the constant defence by his colleagues the Minister of Immigration and himself of the mess that is going on in respect of immigration in this country which led him to say: “Around 50 percent of job seekers overall leave the unemployment benefit within 6 months of registering. However amongst migrant and refugee clients that figure is around 15 percent.” In other words 85 percent of our migrant and refugee job seekers are in danger of becoming long-term unemployed so what are they doing here and why are we paying for them? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Unfortunately the report that the member is referring to was from  
Morning Report 
 on Radio New Zealand and they forgot to put the word “if” in which they did later on. This is what my speech actually said: “If a migrant or refugee client comes on to the unemployment benefit”—that is if they do—“they face an 85 percent chance of still being on that benefit after 6 months compared with a 50 percent chance if they are New Zealand - born.” That picture has to be balanced against the fact that as at 31 October— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not referring to anything that was said on  
Morning Report 
; I am referring to the Minister’s comments made at the meeting for the launch of the Auckland Metropolitan Migrant and Refugee Strategy at the Work and Income regional office in Ellerslie. They were his comments and those are direct quotes. Now would he get back to telling me why 85 percent of our migrant and refugee job seekers are in danger of becoming long-term unemployed—his words—what are they are doing here and why are we the taxpayers of New Zealand paying for them? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is confirming that what he said was not exactly what was reported. He is perfectly entitled to do that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the ruling I have made Mr Peters— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well you are wrong Mr Speaker with respect— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may raise a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am quoting from the Minister’s speech and he is not entitled to go to some other interview that he might have had debunk his own words from the speech I quoted and claim that I am wrong. I am referring to a speech he made. I have given him the exact quote I want an answer and I want you to tell him to give me an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Maharey speaking to the point of order. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am happy to answer the question again. I was clarifying that in my speech the word “if” appears. That is if a migrant or refugee client comes on to the unemployment benefit he or she faces an 85 percent chance of being there—50 percent if one is New Zealand - born. The word “if” has to be used. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a copy of the Minister’s speech but the quote he has just given the House is not anywhere to be found in the speech. I will quote from it and I want an answer from him as to why he said what I am quoting he said in his very speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can ask that as a supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I already have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can continue his reply. The member interrupted his reply. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can do no more than clarify for the member that the facts of the matter are that the word “if” needs to be in there. I said: “If a migrant or refugee client comes on to the unemployment benefit they face an 85 percent chance …” That is exactly what I said at the meeting in Auckland yesterday. 
Dianne Yates 
: How do numbers of recent refugees and migrants on a working-age benefit now compare with the same figures in 1999? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There has been a 28 percent reduction in the number of recent refugees and migrants receiving any form of working-age benefit between October 1999 and October 2003. I repeat: it is a 28 percent reduction since we came into power. The unemployment benefit has been reduced by 34 percent during the same period. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has the Government considered any ideas to restrict welfare eligibility for recent migrants; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes we have. Unlike the position under the previous Government persons arriving here as migrants wait 2 years before they can have access to the benefit system. Refugees of course have access to emergency benefits. The previous Government did not change that—we did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister whether he said these words in his speech which I have a copy of: “Why should we have a particular focus on refugee and migrant job seekers? Around 50 percent of job seekers overall leave the unemployment benefit within 6 months of registering. However among migrant and refugee clients that figure is around 15 percent. In other words 85 percent of our migrant and refugee job seekers are in danger of becoming long-term unemployed.” Why is this Minister trying to duck what he said and belie the facts that everybody else knows about and what are these people doing here and why are long-suffering New Zealand taxpayers paying for it? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister replies there were two interjections—one from a member who is not normally sitting on the front bench. That is the last time she interjects from there this question time or she is out. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What they are doing is contributing—in the last year June to June—$700 million net to this economy. Only 1.3 percent of migrants are on the unemployment benefit as we speak. What Mr Peters has been reading out is exactly what I have said: people who are on the unemployment benefit relate to the figures of 85 percent or 50 percent. They have to get on there first. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Where was the word “if” in the quote I have just given the House? He began with a process of obfuscation and a waste of time. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the very last time that I allow an interjection on a point of order. Please continue. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: You will recall what happened at the beginning of this question time. I quoted from this Minister he then said that I had left out the word “if” which does not appear in this quote at all—which he now at last recognises. That sort of behaviour from a senior Minister on the front bench is simply not good enough and must stop and you must make sure it stops. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is perfectly acceptable for the Minister to explain his version in that way. It is up to the Minister how he replies. I cannot adjudicate on disputes of that nature. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have given all the evidence for a clear case not of mistaken interpretation by the Minister but of straight-out lying! [ 
Interruption 
] Well I have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now stand withdraw and apologise for accusing another member of telling a lie. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You were continuing your point of order I hope. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: This is my point of order: I have laid out before you the exact quote from the transcript I have here. The word “if” is not present as the other words he just quoted are not. It is a clear attempt to misrepresent the situation in this House. What are you going to do about it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I said I take an entirely different point of view from the member. It is perfectly acceptable for the Minister to explain his version in that way. 
Dianne Yates 
: What is the economic contribution of skilled migrants to New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That contribution is translated by Business and Economic Research Ltd into $700 million over the year June 2002 through to June 2003. That is $700 million net coming into this country. I repeat that these are people who—if we take the 206813 residence applications in the last 5 financial years—represent as we speak about 1.3 percent of those on an unemployment benefit. 
Holiday Leave—Cost 
2. Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by the reported statement of her office in relation to the cost of implementing an extra week’s holiday leave that Treasury and the Labour Department had agreed that $350 million was “the most accurate figure”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because officials did advise that that was the most accurate figure in terms of the cost to employers. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why did she fail to mention when she announced this policy on 8 November that the total cost of implementing an extra week’s annual leave was in fact $700 million and that at least half that amount—$350 million—would come off workers’ future wage increases? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because all the whingeing about a fourth week’s holiday has come from the employers not the employees. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that the majority of people who are confined to 3 weeks’ holiday per year are casual employees low-paid employees or young people and does the Prime Minister concur that it is neither fair to build an economy on the backs of those folk nor economically sound in the long term? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member makes a very very good point and of course that would also apply to people who are immigrants to New Zealand as well as to New Zealand – born workers. 
Sue Bradford 
: In calculating the cost of an extra week’s leave did officials take into account the additional cost of childcare and health care as a result of workers trying to balance family and work responsibilities and did the final cost include net gains arising from a more productive workforce? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the first part no. There is always a good deal of uncertainty around these estimates because there is some productivity element taken into account but one assumption was that there would be a 75 percent flow-on of relativities. That itself I think is a highly questionable assumption. 
Deborah Coddington 
: In light of Business New Zealand’s estimates—Business New Zealand being one of the Government’s strategic partners—that the total cost to employers and employees is more likely to be $900 million will the Prime Minister admit that her statement of 10 November is misleading and incorrect; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No no and no because it is not. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Treasury that the impact of the cost of an extra week’s leave will be felt most acutely in terms of lower wage increases by the most vulnerable workers; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is a debatable assumption. The certainty is I think as Mr Brown has argued that the benefit of a fourth week’s holiday will be most felt by vulnerable workers as they are the least likely to have 4 weeks’ leave now. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Minister of Labour’s view that the extra week’s leave will “lead to a decrease in labour supply which is likely to have an adverse impact on growth”; if so how does she see this improving New Zealand’s prospects of getting to the top half of the OECD? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That argument reminds me of Nassau Senior who argued that all the profit in the early 19th century was made in the last half-hour of work when he opposed attempts to lower the working-day from 12 hours. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek leave to table two Cabinet documents released under the Official Information Act which make it clear that much of the cost of this extra week’s leave will be borne by low-income workers and by exporters. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is with regard to that last answer from Dr Cullen. You have said that Ministers must address the question. It cannot surely be an acceptable addressing of the question simply to say that the question reminds one of something from one’s learning of the historical past or whatever. Surely Dr Cullen has to give an answer that is vaguely to do with the question that was asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I will ask Dr Cullen to expand on his answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Absolutely Mr Speaker. Could I point out to the member in response to his original question that from time immemorial right-wing economists have always argued that every benefit gained in terms of workers’ conditions will somehow be paid for by workers only. I invite the member therefore to promise to repeal the 4 weeks’ holiday legislation. 
Taxation—System Review  
3.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any proposals for changes in the tax system? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. I have received an interesting question about how the current progressive income tax system could be replaced with a fiscally neutral proportional income tax—that is a flat tax—a move that would leave 90 percent of families worse off. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Could he tell the House where the proposal originated? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It originated in two written questions from National’s associate finance spokesperson John Key. Only the top decile would benefit from the proposal—families earning over $88000 a year. They would get an average income tax cut of $8000 while the rest of the population would pay on average $1600 a year more. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Minister tell the House why this Government commissioned an expert review of the tax system—a review that recommended a flatter tax structure in order to encourage growth—then proceeded to ignore it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because we are influenced by a range of overseas experience not least that of the Clinton Government whose first move on tax was to lift the top tax rate. He had 8 years of unparalleled economic success which has not been repeated I might say under the current administration in the US with its tax cuts. 
Rod Donald 
: Has the Minister also received a proposal from the Green Party to give hard-working low and middle income earners a 6 percent tax concession on their superannuation tax to match the concession that Labour has already given well-off wage and salary earners; if so why will he not treat all workers the same to encourage them to save for their retirement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I have not because the proposal was in relation to the tax paid by the employer on specified contributions to superannuation schemes—not by the employee. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he believe that lowering the top rate of personal income tax and lowering the company rate of tax would all things being equal be a plus for the economy; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I am confident that whatever the top income tax rate is the member will work just as hard or as little as he chooses. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Gordon Copeland. [ 
Interruption 
] The member is about to be out. It is not an outrage. I have called a member on a supplementary question and it will be heard in silence. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We do expect Ministers to take questions seriously. When the Minister makes a personal comment that Mr Hide will work just as hard no matter what the tax rate is that is an absurd statement. The Minister is suggesting that if he lifts the tax rate to 100 percent so that Mr Hide gets no money—an experiment that the Chinese actually did try and I think 20 million people died—[ 
Interruption 
] It was called the Great Leap Forward and no doubt that is what the Minister will be doing to us next. But the idea that a 100 percent tax rate would have no impact on the New Zealand public! Now he might say that he did not mean 100 percent; well maybe it was 90 percent that he had in mind! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I always appreciate the member’s comments on points of order but whether the comment is absurd is a matter for the judgment of people listening and not something that I interfere in. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that we have a situation where almost any answer will do but my question was “if not; why not?” and although I may be a very productive member of Parliament I do not think I am entirely responsible for the economic growth of New Zealand as Michael Cullen would suggest. I suggest that you require that he answer seriously that question on an economic matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask Dr Cullen whether he would add to his answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am happy to. Let me first of all point out that since the Government raised the top tax rate we have enjoyed some of the greatest success in economic growth that we have had for a very long period of time. But picking up a point that has just been referred to when China had no income tax at all during the Cultural Revolution its growth was zero; now that it is moving to a market economy it actually has income tax and its growth rate has gone up. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is Mr Hide’s final warning. He is out next time. He has interjected once too often for my comfort. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister confirm whether he has received a request from the United Future party to change the tax system to incentivise participation in the workforce by increasing the income of working families relative to those on benefits? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have and the Government is giving that very serious consideration indeed. The House and the country can expect announcements in that respect in next year’s Budget which I look forward to all parties voting for. 
Tauranga Surgeon—Health and Disability Commissioner 
4.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she know whether the Health and Disability Commissioner is considering reopening patient files involving a Tauranga general surgeon; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised by the Health and Disability Commissioner that he is currently assessing requests by two families to have their cases reopened following publicity of a previous case involving Mr Breeze of Tauranga. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: When did she become aware of the high level of anxiety about the competence of surgeon Mr Ian Breeze and why are there no restrictions on his practising certificate despite a series of patient complications deaths and competency reviews? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I became aware of a problem with Mr Breeze when the first case was made public in the news media I think in September—a case that went back to December 1999. I cannot speak for whether there are restrictions on his practice. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why did the director of proceedings urge the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal to find Mr Breeze guilty of the higher charge of disgraceful conduct yet the tribunal decided to only fine Mr Breeze finding him guilty of professional misconduct because “the decision is primarily based on the grounds that as far as the tribunal is aware the events focused upon in this case are a one-off series of events” when in fact the death of Lionel Crowley is just the tip of the iceberg? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot answer those questions. I do not know why the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal made that decision because it is independent of the Government. It is independent of any Government under any political hue. The tribunal makes those decisions and they are not made under political influence. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: As the Minister is always saying: “The buck stops with me.” why would she not see Mrs Crowley when Mrs Crowley asked to see her on 28 September 2001 to discuss the death of her husband Lionel and the serious concerns she had about a system that allowed this tragic series of events to occur? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A process has been put in place to deal with any such tragic event in New Zealand—that is the independent Health and Disability Commissioner. I always advise that people who have problems with the health system and want them investigated should go to the independent commissioner. The Minister cannot influence decisions made by the Health and Disability Commissioner. The House in setting up the position of Health and Disability Commissioner decided that those decisions ought to be independent of political influence. 
Tertiary Education—Capability 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What initiatives has he undertaken to build capability in the tertiary sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Last week I announced that the Government would invest $25 million in the University of Otago Leading Thinkers programme. Twenty-five new knowledge leader projects will be built on disciplines like health sciences and biotechnology in which the university already has acknowledged strengths. The funding comes from the new Partnership for Excellence facility for public-private sector tertiary education investment. This enables tertiary institutions to seek matching funding from the Government for large-scale investment projects. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has the Minister seen other proposals for building capacity in the tertiary education sector? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have seen a proposal that would allow tertiary institutions to raise fees to 60 or 75 percent of tuition costs and give students the choice of a “Rolls-Royce” education or a “mini” education depending on their circumstances. The Government will not adopt this proposal but in the absence of any policy emerging from Bill English I assume that this Young Nats discussion paper is an indication of the National Party’s position. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last part of the answer is not relevant. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Given that a fundamental of the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission recommendations is that all post - compulsory education funding will be administered by the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission does that commission administer Training Opportunities Programme funding; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Funding in that area of course is under the aegis of the Ministry of Social Development but it does so in consultation with the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission. 
Exchange Rate—Government Options 
6. Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What has been the response from the Reserve Bank and the Treasury to his request for a report on ways to curb the rising dollar and can he state which specific options he sees as open to the Government to lower the New Zealand dollar? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Work is being done and no. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Minister concerned about the effect on his own credibility of his musing publicly that he has options for lowering the dollar when a recent survey of business leaders by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 states that 87 percent of them do not believe there is any method open to him unless he is going to be another Muldoon? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 
Dr Don Brash 
: How does his reconcile his comment to  
The Economist 
 magazine 2 months ago: “There are no effective policy instruments” to address the high level of the New Zealand dollar with his recent comment that he is “not without options in this regard”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because it is always possible to come up with other policy instruments. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Would the Minister admit that a dramatic cut in immigration is one of those policy instruments in respect of a reduction in inflation and therefore enabling the Reserve Bank governor to lower rather than increase interest rates; and why is he not prepared to take some action given the dramatic damage done to so many New Zealand exporters in the last 2 years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is hard to see that a cut in New Zealand’s immigration will make the United States dollar rise. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree that the value of the New Zealand dollar would drop if the Reserve Bank lowered interest rates but that it is unlikely to do so because of the risk of further fuelling the property boom and would he consider introducing a capital gains tax on all but the family home in order to get the balance right between speculative and productive investment as well as getting the dollar down to sustainable levels? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point no and with the time taken to do it by then probably the dollar would be coming back down in any case. It would be a classic case probably of pro-cyclical policies and would be counterproductive in terms of New Zealand’s general economic position. On the other matters with regard to the position we are in I think the fundamental driver in the situation is the fall in the United States dollar. Clearly no policy instruments in New Zealand will have any effect on the United States dollar at all. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Following Reserve Bank governor Alan Bollard’s comments last week: “There is no free lunch.” and that that there are “quite big problems around most forms of currency intervention” can we conclude that he would not take any of the unspecified options to curb the rise in the exchange rate unless there is severe disruption in the market; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I agree with Dr Bollard as I very often do. There is no free lunch and the lack of a free lunch and the totally hands-off approach is the distress now being suffered by the tradable sector. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister arguing now that the interest rate set by the Governor of the Reserve Bank has no effect at all on the New Zealand currency? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not arguing that. But what I would argue—and I think our own experience over the last nearly 20 years demonstrates—is that interest rate increases may or may not lead to a rise in the New Zealand dollar in the same way that interest rate falls may or may not lead to a fall in the New Zealand dollar. It depends what the market perception is of the result of those movements in interest rates. If the perception is that an increase in the level of interest rates makes us more attractive then the New Zealand dollar will rise. If the perception is that the economy is going to slow rapidly then the economy could well fall as a consequence. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why will the Minister of Finance not just admit to the House that any of the options that could lower the dollar can only do so by doing great damage to the New Zealand economy—and that would be a helpful statement—or alternatively that he does believe that he and he alone knows some options that will do it and given the damage that the rise of the dollar is doing to the export sector does he not think he has an obligation to this House to tell us what those options are or admit that he has made a fool of himself? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I notice that many other countries similar to ourselves do intervene—notably Australia. That has a modest moderating effect on their volatility at best. 
Dr Don Brash 
: A few moments ago the Minister seemed to imply that a hands-off approach on the currency had significant disadvantages; can he give us advice on what precisely he has in mind as the alternative to that hands-off approach? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. What I said to the member is that there is no free lunch in any policy approach in those areas. That is the hard truth about exchange rate movements. 
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Confidence 
7.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service 
: Does she have confidence in the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Prime Minister stated that she has confidence in Mr Greig because he served for a long time on the High Court bench and has been a conscientious inspector-general. She is also on the record as saying it would have been better had he not given an interview in the middle of a case. 
Keith Locke 
: How can she have confidence in the inspector-general when he commented in the  
Listener 
: “We don’t want lots of people coming in on false passports thrown down the loo on the plane and saying”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. Every member in this House has a perfect right to ask a question in silence. I do not care what the question is; that is part of this democracy. Mr Locke will be heard in silence. 
Keith Locke 
: How can she have confidence in the inspector-general when he commented in the  
Listener 
: “We don’t want lots of people coming in on false passports thrown down the loo on the plane and saying: ‘I’m a refugee keep me here.’ ” when this comment shows a lack of understanding of the right of asylum seekers under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees to enter this country without legal passports because the regimes they are fleeing from commonly do not provide them with such passports? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Despite the point made by the member as I said the Prime Minister said it would have been better had the interview not been given but in general terms I think the view of the Government—and I expect of most political parties—is that it would be better if people coming to this country do not throw their passports down the loo. 
Keith Locke 
: Is she aware that the Refugee Status Appeals Authority concluded that if Mr Zaoui were deported he would likely be tortured or murdered and does she concede that the inspector-general’s inhumanity and prejudice towards asylum seekers are of deep concern to New Zealanders who uphold human rights and human dignity? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify a point. I know that the judge is no longer I think on the High Court but I understand he still does High Court judgments. If that is so then I draw to your attention that it is highly unconstitutional to speak disrespectfully of judges. The statement made by Mr Locke is an outrage. He has actually accused the judge of making statements that no reasonable person would make. All that the judge said was that we do not want large numbers of people arriving in New Zealand on false passports. From that one cannot therefore say that he is inhumane and the other reference that the member made. I suggest to you that Speaker’s ruling 27/1 might apply to Justice Greig. If he is still doing court cases he is still a High Court judge. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point of order which is an interesting one. It is not a court of record. The member is entitled to ask the question but he should take care of course. The Minister may now answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If there is any issue of bias that is a matter for the judicial process to determine. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that matter. But the member I think is not necessarily factually correct just to assume that any deportation of Mr Zaoui would return him to Algeria and that even in that case certain consequences necessarily would follow. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Appreciating the confidentiality of any advice Mr Greig may give the Minister is the Minister nevertheless in a position to give the House any assurance that with regard to the Zaoui case any matters upon which the inspector-general has reported relate specifically to that case and do not canvass the wider areas covered in the  
Listener 
 article for example? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have any information in front of me that enables me to answer that question. I understand that the report from the inspector-general when finally the legal process is over to the point where that report can be concluded will go to the Minister of Immigration and she and she alone will be privy to the matters discussed in it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Can the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service assure the House that the Government will not give consideration to Mr Locke’s plea to have Justice Greig dismissed on the basis of impartiality for the statement: “We don’t want lots of people coming in on false passports ...”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The test for dismissal of the inspector-general is pretty much the same as that for dismissal of a High Court judge. It is an extremely high test indeed and there is no question certainly in my mind that Mr Greig is anywhere near reaching the level of that test. 
Keith Locke 
: In recognition of Mr Zaoui’s year of suffering in New Zealand prisons which has been extended by the withholding of information by the inspector-general will the Minister support Mr Zaoui being granted special Christmas leave? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not a matter for the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service to promote anything in those respects at all. 
District Courts—Criminal Cases 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: How many outstanding criminal cases are there currently in the District Courts and how does this compare with the same time in 1999? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Courts 
: The number of criminal cases before the District Court at September 2003 was 32359. The number of cases in the District Court on 30 September 1999 was 24578. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is this Government so mismanaging the court system that almost 40 alleged criminals who were suspects charged with rape indecent assault sexual violation manufacture and supply of methamphetamine and serious fraud have walked free without trial in the last 4 years because of court delays under this Labour Government? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I do not know the specific facts in each of those cases but my understanding is that often cases are not heard in a timely fashion for a variety of reasons including that often counsel whether the defence or the prosecution is not prepared to proceed or that the evidence is not there. There are a variety of complex matters and I do believe that we should do better. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Minister received any reports that would indicate why more criminal cases are before the District Court? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. This Government has increased the number of New Zealand Police by nearly 10 percent over the past 3 years. Also the number of recorded apprehensions that have been resolved by way of prosecution has increased by over 10 percent during the same period. I believe that the fact that the number of cases before the court has increased demonstrates that this Government is serious about combating crime and is making New Zealand a safer place. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister have any indication of the delays being caused by the number of legally aided criminal cases in which not guilty pleas are entered and the defendants subsequently are found guilty by the courts—a procedure that clearly shows there is an abuse of the legal aid system and the judicial system causing these lengthy delays? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I have no specific information relating to that point but if the member wishes to put it down as a written question I will endeavour to find it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In light of the record waiting lists and delays in our nation’s court systems what assurance can this Minister give the people of New Zealand that gang associates charged with the manufacture and the distribution of P will not walk free because of delays in the court system and the well-known delays in drug testing by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: My understanding is that the timeliness of the disposal of cases has remained relatively constant over the period concerned and that cases that are delayed are very much the exception and not the rule. 
Stephen Franks 
: How long ago did the Minister first learn that the courts were leaving criminals awaiting trial for more than a year; and if responsibility for those Third World justice standards does not rest with the Minister for Courts who will take responsibility to end the scandal of criminals escaping justice through delay? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I do not have accurate information as to when these cases relating to delay first arrived but I am quite happy to find out that specific information. I think this Government is taking responsibility for the delays. That is why we are having a review of the courts and that is why we are looking at the resources that are there. It is also why of course I have sought the support of the Opposition—which has denied it to me—to increase the number of judges. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows the seriousness of the charges against those offenders who are being allowed to walk free because of delays in the court system. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Immigration Minister—Confidence 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still have confidence in her Minister of Immigration; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because she is still a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If she is such a hard-working person then how is it that we have the circumstance of her failing yet again to pick up on fraudulent documents of immigrants—the latest known case being that of Tar Lock Singh who managed at a time when Ms Dalziel was Minister to sneak back into New Zealand after being expelled for covering up the mutilation of his baby granddaughter; if that is going on again under this Minister when will we see her fired? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have no information in front of me about that particular case. If the member cares to send that through to me then I will see what the facts surrounding it are. 
Immigrants—Third World Immigrants 
10.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Do official figures confirm reports that “Hundreds of thousands of Third World immigrants have arrived here since Labour was elected in 1999”? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. The average rate of residence approvals has been just over 40000 per year for the past 4 years. Even if a country like the United Kingdom were counted as a Third World country we still would not come close to “hundreds of thousands” of total migrants since 1999 let alone those from the Third World. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What action has the Government taken to ensure that recent migrants are those who can make a contribution to New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: If only I had all afternoon! I will just mention a couple. We have introduced English language requirements for business migrants which were not introduced by the previous Government. We have increased English language requirements for skilled migrants in order to make sure they can get into skilled work. We have introduced the talent visa which is the new skilled migrant category that takes effect this month and we have introduced strict sponsorship requirements around family migrants resulting in plummeting claims for the emergency unemployment benefit which has dropped by over 44 percent since 1999. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister why she has risen in this House and given out those figures when her department gives the total number as 221630 and when the Minister for Ethnic Affairs says that 300000 people this year in New Zealand speak little or no English especially as the First World countries are not mentioned at all in the new language programme for people from the Third World; is not the fact that not one First World country is in those language programmes the evidence behind the pamphlet that is now being read in Christchurch and Auckland? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Just for a rough estimate I went over the countries described as having least developed nation status in order to find an equivalence for the words “Third World country” and I discovered that since 1997-98—that is for the last 6 years—a total of 20106 people came from those countries. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that the New Zealand First immigration pamphlet that contains the statement about Third World immigrants is simply racist? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. 
Darren Hughes 
: What effect does she think the circulation of grossly misrepresented statistics has on the thousands of hard-working migrants who are making an invaluable contribution to life in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Everything this Government has done in immigration policy has been to improve settlement outcomes for new migrants to this country. We have had a history in this country of counting the numbers who come in and of previous Governments who do not care what happens to them after they arrive. It is hard for new migrants to settle in a country when they are victims of propaganda designed for purposes of cynical political manipulation—and members who behave in that way should be ashamed of themselves. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Are you going to give her the Valium or me? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am going to give the member the opportunity to ask a supplementary question—which he may now do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why on earth would the Minister for Ethnic Affairs say in April this year that 300000 people are now here who speak little or no English and then why would the language services being set up by the Government have no First World country’s language at all—if any of the evidence that the Minister of Immigration has sought to recite today has a shred of truth to it? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Because I understand that the ethnic affairs information which was provided to back up the piloting of an interpreter service covers all of those in New Zealand who are not confident in using English. That includes some people born to New Zealanders who are New Zealand citizens in their own right but who do not come from an English-speaking background. It comes from people from Pacific nations. It also comes from a number of others who are not confident in English. That member should look at himself before he distorts statistics and tries to make people in our country—who are welcome here—feel they are unwelcome. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: For the edification of the Minister and her colleagues I seek leave to table 107 copies of this brilliantly factual pamphlet on immigration entitled:  
Whose Country is it Anyway?. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Road Safety Campaign—Scratch Cards 
11.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What advice has he received about the effect of the $11 million dollar scratch card road safety campaign on the number of deaths on our roads? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am not entirely sure how the member came to the figure of $11 million. The actual cost of the programme will be $2.6 million for development and implementation in 2003-04 and $4.2 million in 2004-05 and beyond. However I am advised that attacking the road toll requires an approach involving the three Es: engineering education and enforcement. Making the roads physically safer and giving the police the tools they need in order to target dangerous driving must be backed up by the power of education to improve behaviour and in turn to improve attitudes. If one life is saved by those measures then they have been worth taking. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When people such as respected Australasian road safety consultant Dr Ron Christie say of education safety campaigns that most of the time they have no effect and sometimes make things worse; and when record numbers of traffic tickets are being handed out and average speeds are coming down why does he not accept that the money would have been better spent improving the dismal state of our roads? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am not as negative and pessimistic as that particular commentator. We have spent quite a lot of money on road engineering—for example we have announced an extra $47 million over 2 years to fix the black spots. It is important to recognise that education on road safety is important and can influence behaviour and attitudes. Multichoice questions are useful. For example is it true or false that National has had six deputy leaders in 6 years? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Until that point the Minister was in order. Then he most certainly was not. 
Dave Hereora 
: What other reports has he seen in response to the education programme? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen a number of reports in response to the “Up to Scratch” education campaign. George Fairbairn from the Automobile Association said it was a good way to remind people of the road rules the National Road Safety Committee welcomed the proposal and Gerry Brownlee said the scheme had some merit. I thank that member for his support. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister have any reports that indicate there is a connection between knowledge of road rules and road safety outcomes; if so could he comment on those? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. There is no absolute claim that this particular intervention will bring down that number of road deaths but it is fair to say that people’s knowledge and understanding of the road rules and the Road Code do help. If as a result of this campaign people slow down when they go past stationary school buses then that may save the life of a child because children tend to run out. This is a worthwhile campaign which I am sure will be enthusiastically welcomed by New Zealanders when it goes live next year. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would the Minister care to indicate whether he saw all of my comments in which I said: “It may have some merit if it were to get to more drivers.”; and will he admit that in this case only those who register or warrant a car are likely to see these scratch cards and that the people who cause accidents are most unlikely to have those opportunities? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I did see other comments. I thought the member advised that the campaign should be “bigger”. I think that was the word he used. He said it should go to retail outlets and that sort of thing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right. It’s not working. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The reality is that it is targeted at people with cars and those who register for a warrant of fitness. It is important that we do not oversell and overdo it. It is a targeted campaign and it will have an effect. There is no question about that. 
Families Commission Bill—Amendments 
12.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does he have any plans to propose amendments to the Families Commission Bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. A Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled today that includes the following changes—ensuring the Families Commission has regard to family strengths and resilience empowering the commission to refer matters to other official bodies and improving the guidance on diversity of families to make it absolutely clear that the family does not include organisations such as gangs flatmates and the like and it has some minor technical amendments that I had hoped the Social Services Committee would have done. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that the amendments remove any doubt that gangs are not to be considered families for the purposes of the commission’s work and that this was solely the result of negotiations with United Future? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes and yes with the assistance of some very constructive submissions to the select committee. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister planning to amend the bill to acknowledge that two good parents are better than one good parent? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The bill reflects the diversity of families in this country. 
Peter Brown 
: Why has the Minister taken so long to come up with a definition of a family; and noting that the definition in the Supplementary Order Paper is fairly simple and largely precise will he clarify the circumstances and what the statement means: “two or more persons living together as a family”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The last would qualify as a de facto family. This matter has not taken long at all. It has been going through the processes of the select committee and is back in the House now. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Can the Minister confirm to the House whether his Government is continuing on with the policy of being opposed to traditional mum and dad families; if not why are these families not recognised in the Families Commission Bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: This Government is not opposed to what the member describes as a traditional family. But I would like to point out that “traditional” for most ethnicities in this House would be the extended family and not the nuclear family which is a relatively recent invention. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that marriage is now specifically referred to in the bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that contrary to comments made in the second reading debate marriage has always been referred to in the bill as it should be alongside existing references—for example in clause 8. The amendment to clause 10 proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper also refers to marriage to assist in clarifying “family” and “family group”. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Minister received any reports from other parties in Parliament as to whether they will support these amendments given their refusal to consider any changes at the select committee? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I expect to see support from Labour the Progressive party and United Future. I hope the other parties will recognise that the Supplementary Order Paper makes improvements to the bill and will support it on that basis. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Since the bill came back to the House has the Minister become aware of any proposals made to him from any parties—other than those he has just referred to—to amend the bill; if so what are those proposals? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have not become aware of any other party wanting to amend the bill. I hope therefore they intend to support it. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Comments 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Keith Locke seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 reported comments of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The comments constitute a particular case of recent occurrence. While the Prime Minister has certain responsibilities under the relevant legislation she has no responsibility for the comments the inspector-general has made and it is those comments that form the basis of this application. The application is consequently not accepted. 
Marine Farm Resource Applications 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate an announcement that the moratorium on processing new marine farm resource applications is to be extended. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However as the existing moratorium was not in any case due to expire until 25 March 2004 the matter does not require the immediate attention of the House. The application is declined. 
Families Commission Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Families Commission Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The Families Commission Bill is a travesty. It is a travesty because the United Future party has allowed itself to accept that the definition of “family” is not to now mean what everyone in this country really understands “family” is all about. It is about the traditional family unit. First it is the nuclear family unit of mum dad and the kids. And today just as 10 years ago just as 50 years ago—just as way back to the time of Genesis in the Bible—mum dad and the kids was a pretty good thing that tended to work most of the time and it still does. That does not mean that we cannot have extended families. When I look at the Families Commission Bill and at its title I ask where it states what families are all about. I am coming to the point that “families” actually has to mean something. 
I think it is a great thing that the Minister has mentioned today that he has a Supplementary Order Paper in which he will now exclude gangs. It will no longer be the “Families (Gang) Bill”. That is because of the Opposition not any other party. We pointed it out and we were pooh-poohed about it even though we were absolutely right. The Families Commission Bill could be more aptly named the “We Really Did Sell our Soul to the Devil Bill” and that is exactly what United Future has done in this instance. It is an absolute disgrace. I would love to be able to support this bill and to be able to say that we have some recognition of families and their role in society but this bill is inappropriately named because it has nothing about families in it. It is all about bureaucracy. There are a couple of clauses that try to define some sort of family but as long as it does not state “mum dad and the kids” it seems that it might be a family. As long as it is not that then it could be a family. 
This bill is all about commissions; it is all about bureaucracy. It could instead be called the “Families (Bureaucracies) Bill”. That would be a better name rather than misnaming it the Families Commission Bill. This is possibly the payback to United Future for being good little bunnies and doing as the Government tells them. That is about all we can say about this bill. It is a hopeless bill it is a hopeless name and it should be consigned to the gutter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I just say to members that this is a title debate. Members need to ask themselves whether the proposed title adequately describes the bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I raise this issue because it is obviously one that will affect people. This bill is really in two parts only. It is a bill that should have been in normal drafting in several parts and I expect that the debate will be allowed to be wide ranging. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a matter for the Committee to decide. Is the member seeking leave to do so? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In speaking to the title the Families Commission Bill I want to begin by outlining the fact that in arriving at Bowen House one morning recently my eyes were drawn to a radiantly happy young woman who had just alighted from a taxi. As the taxi drove away I noticed on the footpath in front of her a baby in a car seat. The incident made me realise what a thrill I feel when I see that special joy that exists between parents and their children. My primary goal in deciding to offer myself for election to Parliament last year was to work towards seeing a greater number of New Zealand families functioning on the basis of stability and harmony. The ideal is for every child to grow up loved and nurtured by a mother and a father in a situation of certainty and stability with the support from the intergenerational extended family and whanau. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is a title debate. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: In talking to the overarching goal of this bill and the title we need to establish a commission called the Families Commission because it is a vitally important step towards its achievement. There has been debate during the passage of this bill about the definition of “families”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. This is a title debate and the member must discuss the question of whether the title adequately describes the bill. That is the key issue. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I believe that the title does adequately describe this bill because we are talking here about definitions of families and family groups which are incorporated in Part 1. Much of the debate that has been heard in this Chamber so far has been misdirected and it is more than answered through the United Future and Government Supplementary Order Paper to this bill. Arguments about what this should be called about definitions and even the name of this bill essentially miss the heart of what it is that the Families Commission seeks to achieve. While striving to obtain the best possible family outcomes we also need to deal with the reality of our present situation. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The honourable member who is debating the title of this bill does seem to keep straying. I know that you have tried to bring him back but maybe you could just explain a little bit more clearly what the title debate is all about and the narrowness of it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for drawing it to my attention. Can I just say to the honourable member on his feet that I am getting close to terminating his speech. The title debate is a very specific debate. There will be an opportunity for the member to debate the issues he is debating now when we come to Part 1. The member must ask himself this question: does the title adequately describe the bill? That is what the member is allowed to debate and the member may call the bill all sorts of names or whatever but he must come back to the debate. It is a very narrow one. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Thank you Mr Chairman. One can see that the logic of my argument if it was listened to that we need to use the word “families” in the title of the bill rather than the singular “family” which had previously been suggested by some. What I am trying to outline is why we should use the word “families” in the title to this bill. The image of the radiant young woman with her baby which I mentioned earlier sadly stands in contrast to the many struggling unhappy children I see in our society; children who are not only being raised in poverty but also frequently without the presence of a mum or dad. That is reality for many of our children. Some of them are growing up in ways that we could not even begin to describe as a stable family— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but he is not addressing the title and I am terminating his speech. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Speaking to the title of this bill I would like first of all to address some of the comments raised by Mr Copeland. He started off by talking about the fact that the whole point of the Families Commission is to set up something to support families. He said for example that he does not disagree with the facts that we want a loving environment for children that the best possible environment for children to grow up in is a family and that children are basically being ruined by poverty. He said a lot of things that I do not think anyone in this Committee would disagree with. The member on the Government side of the Chamber is gesturing for me to return to the issue of the title of the bill but if he had read his Standing Orders he would know that a member is able to make reference to comments that the previous speaker has made as long as they are not over the top or made for a long period of time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will come to the debate. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Mr Copeland made a lot of points that I do not think anyone in this Committee disagrees with but let us not pretend for a moment that the Families Commission is going to create good strong family networks for those children who are most in need. Let us not pretend that the Families Commission will make a difference with regard to the most vulnerable children or stop there being more cases like that of Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson and children like them. 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Surely if you had to terminate Mr Copeland’s speech earlier because he was getting wide of the mark it cannot be long before you give some instruction to this member that she must address the title of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his consideration. However it is quite true what the member says. Under Speaker’s ruling 38/1 some leeway is given for the first 30 seconds or so of a speech for a member to respond to comments that have been made and that is what I have been allowing. But I now ask the member to speak strictly to the title. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Absolutely Mr Chairman. But I was just taking my opportunity to respond to some rather naive comments about matters that I think are not addressed by this bill at all. 
In speaking to the title of this bill the Families Commission Bill I say basically the definition of a family really does matter. We can talk about this issue and go round in circles but basically if a commission is an advocate for every sort of New Zealand family and every sort of New Zealander then in a way it becomes an advocate for nothing. If we are trying to set up a Families Commission to be something that will actually make a difference to families in New Zealand then the name of the bill should give people the opportunity to consider what the role of the commission is to be. If we look at the name “Families Commission Bill” we see that the title does not represent what is actually in the bill. There are six clauses in the bill that relate to families and the rest of the clauses are all about setting up a bureaucracy. This bill is all about setting up a bureaucratic commission—just another bureaucracy that will sit here in the middle of Wellington and be totally divorced from the realities of New Zealand families. In fact the bill should be called the “All Things to Everybody Commission” because that is what we are talking about here. The definition of “family” is so broad that it basically includes every single New Zealander. We already have a representative body for every single New Zealander. It is called the New Zealand Parliament and that is what we are all here to do. 
If we look at the title of this bill we see that it does not reflect what the bill is about at all. It should be called the “Can’t Advocate for Anything in Particular Bill”. If one looks at the very very general nature of the definitions in this bill and at its aims one sees it basically tries to be all things to everybody. It is not able to state for example that two-parent families are a successful way of bringing up children. This Families Commission will not be able to say that. This Families Commission will basically allow United Future the opportunity to say it has got something. One of the areas where United Future failed of course at the start of this debate was even to be able to debate the bill clause by clause. For some reason although this bill is supposed to be United Future’s absolute flagship United Future has allowed the debate to be condensed down into just a couple of parts. Obviously United Future is not aware of the way things work here in Parliament. 
I do hope that we will have a broad and wide debate on these particular issues because if one looks at the entire set of parts we have in this bill one sees there are a lot of issues to bring up. I think we need to look at the title first of all. I am a great believer that if one calls a bill something that has to reflect what is in the bill itself. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not want to take issue with you Mr Chairperson but I will use part of my 5-minute speech to say that I thought you could have given Mr Copeland a little bit longer. As much as I disagree with him on the concerns United Future has— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no the member cannot challenge the Chair. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will get to the title but I would have liked to hear what Mr Copeland had to say. This bill could be called the “Experiment with Children Bill” or the “United Future in Trouble Bill”. This bill is a sop to United Future. Until this afternoon we did not even have a definition of the family and how can one have a Families Commission Bill without a definition of the family? How can one do that? Perhaps the Minister will take a call and tell us that many months after the bill was first tabled with United Future’s hand-clapping in the background he has come up with a definition of “family” that did not exist until an hour or so ago. 
I have some real difficulty in saying that this is a genuine Families Commission Bill. I was not on the Social Services Committee. My good colleague Barbara Stewart was on it and she will no doubt speak in more detail than I can about the contents of the bill. But if one reads the bill one cannot help but conclude that it is bureaucracy going mad. We are to spend $28 million on a Families Commission under this legislation—and until an hour or so ago we did not know what the definition of the family was in the Minister’s mind at least although that has always been clear to New Zealand First—and I ask how one can justify that expense. Maybe the Minister will take a call and explain that. This is bureaucracy. If we had a genuine Families Commission in this legislation $28 million would be far too much money. We could put a genuine Families Commission in place at much less cost. It would mean identifying the family. The definition of the word “family” in Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey—and I asked the Minister this afternoon what it meant—states: “ … 2 or more persons living together as a family”. I understand that to include a de facto relationship. But are two homosexual men who are living together a family? Are we experimenting with children under this Families Commission Bill? That is a question I would like to put to the Minister. 
New Zealand First is not prepared to experiment with the lives of children under the Families Commission Bill or indeed any other bill. We think that this bill needs to be rethought completely. I think in fairness to the United Future members they would like to see the bill rethought if they were absolutely honest about it. This is an “Experiment With Children Bill” and I tell the honourable Chairperson and the members of this Committee that that is the wrong way to treat families and children in this country—experimenting with their lives. The title of this Families Commission Bill is inappropriate. It should be called the “Experiment With Children Bill”. That would be a fair reflection of the bill. Or it could be called—because Labour wants to get United Future up the polls from about 0.1 percent to something reasonable so that it can get back into power—the “United Future in Trouble Bill” or the “Help United Future Out of the Trench It Has Dug Because It Does Not Understand What a Family Is Bill”. But certainly the “Families Commission Bill” is not an appropriate title for this bill. I am quite disappointed if this is the best that United Future and Labour can come up with for a Families Commission Bill. I say that it is a failure. 
We would welcome supporting a proper correctly structured bill that addressed the core issues that concern families in this country but this bill does not do that. We would be better to spend the $28 million elsewhere in society rather than starting a new bureaucracy that will allow to some extent as I have said several times experimentation with the lives of children. Experimenting with kids and bringing them up in circumstances where we know the outcomes will be less than favourable is a serious matter. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the title of this bill and I wish to say to this Committee that this is an excellent title because this bill is about families in New Zealand. There are 479334 families in New Zealand with dependants and this legislation will address the needs of all those families in our country. It is appropriately called the Families Commission Bill because United Future had a vision at the election in 2002 that the families of this country ought to be addressed in this Chamber and that all legislation passing through this Chamber should be viewed in terms of its effect on families. That is why it is appropriate that this legislation is called the Families Commission Bill. 
 Seventy-one percent of the families of New Zealand are two-parent families and therefore we welcome the fact that this legislation will address their circumstances. However some people would suggest that this bill should have been called the “Two-Parent Family Commission Bill” because those are the only families they wish the commission to focus upon. It would have been a great travesty if that had been the case. The correct title for this legislation and for the intent of it is the Families Commission Bill because 29 percent of our families in New Zealand are one-parent families. In fact I grew up in one of those types of families and it would be abhorrent to the people of New Zealand to suggest in any way shape or form that the family I grew up in was not a family. Clearly it was a family. One-parent families ought to be considered by this commission because if we are to have a better outcome for the children of New Zealand we need all family types to do a better job of parenting. 
Some people would have liked the bill to be called the “Marriage Commission Bill”. While I have great concern about the state of marriage in our country and am deeply committed to the institution of marriage I do not think it would have been appropriate to call this legislation the “Marriage Commission Bill”. If we are to correct and improve the lives of children in this country then we must focus on all the types of families that exist. In this legislation—and we will debate this later on with regard to clause 26—it is possible for the commission to appoint committees that can look into the institution of marriage and at how to strengthen it. I would be very much in favour of the commission doing that. There is no impediment that would prevent the commission from doing that. 
There are also other kinds of families in this country and the statistics from the Ministry of Social Development that have been revealed point out that 0.2 percent of families are parented by same-sex couples. Nine hundred and fifty-eight children or more are being raised by parents of the same sex. Some people would have liked to call this bill the “Let’s Exclude Them From the Definition Family Commission Bill”. Again I think that most caring New Zealanders would consider that to be a travesty also. Those children have not chosen their family form and we need to encourage all adults in this country who are responsible for raising children to be able to do the very best job of parenting they possibly can. The commission has a wide scope of powers. It can address such questions as which family form is producing the right outcome in our society and we expect the commission will adequately accomplish that. 
This bill is called the Families Commission Bill because when we see something of value and a culture in our society that needs to be sustained protected and advocated for we often set up a commission. We already have a Human Rights Commission an Office of the Privacy Commissioner a Children’s Commissioner a Retirement Commissioner a Health and Disability Commissioner and a Law Commission. It is good news for the people of New Zealand that this week we will debate in this Chamber the Families Commission Bill. The bill is aptly titled because the commission will represent the interests of families and we commend the bill to the Committee. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 The title of the bill is the Families Commission Bill but I have a number of suggestions that I think would probably more clearly reflect the nature of this bill and the way it has arisen in the House. I would like to start off by saying that a very good name for this bill would be the “United Future Anti-Family Bill”. All along we have heard that we are not allowed to really promote the traditional nuclear family in this bill. We have to promote any other type of family but we cannot focus on the most common type of family in New Zealand which is the traditional married family so I think the “United Future Anti-Family Bill” would be quite appropriate. However I thought that maybe we could make that a little bit better by calling it the “United Future - Labour Coalition Anti-Family Commission Bill”. To bring Labour into it is better because we know that Labour’s agenda is to undermine the nuclear family. That has always been Labour’s agenda and this bill sort of plays that out. 
However if we want to be more realistic about the nature of the Family Commission and the fact that the commissioners are appointed by the Minister that it is a political commission—in other words it is not appointed by a cross-party process—we could call it the “United Future - Labour Political Payback Bill” or the “Political Puppet Bill”. We could even look at saying that it is a bill to implement the United Nations agenda which we will see later on in this parliamentary term when the Family Commission introduces anti-smacking legislation. We can see that coming a mile off. Another type of name for the bill would be the “Family Commission (Implementing the United Nations Agenda) Bill”. That will be a big debate when it happens because most New Zealanders certainly do not agree with abusing children but they do not see that anti-smacking legislation will stop people abusing children. That legislation will significantly impact on the way parents go about raising their children in their family homes. 
As well I thought this bill could be called the “Marginalising Fathers Bill”. A lot of the political correctness that surrounds this family debate is all about saying that every type of family is OK but nowhere does anybody say: “Hang on we actually want to promote dads as being a very important part of that family equation.” This bill marginalises fathers. Many of the submitters were worried about that particular issue and I know that many people hope that the Family Commission comes out and talks about the importance of fathers in their children’s lives. But we have to remember that it is a politically correct and politically promoted commission so its agenda will definitely be set by the Labour Government. If we have a Labour Government that is anti-male and anti-father then I am afraid that that will be what a lot of the work of the Family Commission will focus on. 
During the time the bill was in front of the select committee we saw promoting psychological attachment as a big issue. Many submitters were worried about the fact that gangs could be part of the psychological attachment definitions in the bill. Until the Minister came up with his Supplementary Order Paper I thought that another name could have been the “Family Commission Promoting Criminal Gangs Bill” which would be an absolute outrage. This is one time when I support something the Minister has done and I can see he is very excited by that. A Supplementary Order Paper that clarifies that criminal gangs are not included in the psychological attachment definitions in the bill is a good move and one that most members of Parliament would support. 
I come back to the fact that this is anti-family legislation. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 In response to the speeches made by United Future members I say that if this bill is a result of their vision they should start praying for blindness. This bill is a disgrace and not one claim that any of the United Future members have made about it can be substantiated upon reading it. I do not know how Mr Adams can tell me that I should read the bill and conclude that his view of it is the way it is. I think that a new title of this bill should be “Family (Includes a Group of People Related by Marriage Blood Adoption or an Extended Family or Two or More Persons Living Together as a Family a Whanau or Another Culturally Recognised Family Group) Bill”. Quite frankly that means that anybody at all living in the nature of a marriage could claim that he or she is a family. That is what the United Future party has delivered for its constituency. 
What do those members really think when they look at the Supplementary Order Paper that has been laid on the Table today setting out of some of the duties of the commission under international obligations? Page 3 of the bill states that the commission must have regard to a range of matters. I do not think that this commission will have any autonomy at all. The bill should be referred to as the “Throw a Fish to the United Party Bill”. That is all it is. It is a few baubles or perhaps a better way to put it would be 30-odd pieces of silver thrown to a group of people who constantly run around the countryside pretending that they have the moral high ground on everyone else in this House and then turn out to be the emperor with no clothes when it comes to a bill like this. 
It is an absolute disgrace that we are wasting Parliament’s time debating a bill and its title when it is abundantly clear that the commission itself will not be able to do anything outside of any law written in this country. It cannot make a recommendation without referring first to the appropriate Government agency responsible and must give all sorts of credence to various groups that might or might not have an interest in the family. Perhaps the bill should have been called the bill that requires the commission to consult groups that represent families or family members and groups that have a particular interest in families or in any one or more matters relating the commission’s functions—for example groups that represent parents mothers fathers children or young persons men women social service providers academics researchers family law specialists employers–and here is the kicker—or workers. 
I think that most people in this country could probably identify themselves with one of those descriptives. We will have a commission that has to give equal weight to the views of all manner of radical groups in this country simply because United Future has agreed that they fit the definition of families. I suggest that the bill might have been better called “We Wish They Had Never Started On It Bill” because quite frankly families will become weakened as a result of the commission’s work. 
If those members over there want any sort of analogy as to why I think that might happen they should look at other commissions that operate in this country. Very few of them stay out of trouble. Very few of them achieve what they should achieve. I will not go into any great detail in my 5 minutes on the title but I ask members to look at other commissions and statements made by commissioners in this country compare their legislation with this legislation and then ask themselves whether they have done well by their constituents. They have not. This bill is a total sham and perhaps should be called “Families Commission Sham Bill”. I cannot see one thing in the bill that will lead to the strengthening of New Zealand families who are the backbone of this country. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I realise that you have had a number of closure motions. I know that you are not a member of the Social Service Committee but I point out that some members who were on the committee including Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First have not taken a call yet. I am aware that the Green Party has not taken a call yet either. I just wanted to get in before you might have accepted a closure. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for her contribution. Expertise of course can be taken into account. I also remind members that this is a title debate. It is a very narrow debate. The contents of the bill can be debated at length when we come to Part 1. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just draw your attention to the fact that you have given United Future two calls. They were— 
Phil Heatley 
: Three. 
PETER BROWN 
: I believe two but I stand corrected but at least more than one whilst I see that New Zealand First a much larger party has had only one call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that. Maybe I did the wrong thing there but I did terminate one member’s speech. The member had not spoken very long but he did not address the title. I felt that it would be only fair if a member of that party were given the opportunity to debate the title. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I do not think that the Families Commission Bill even begins to describe what it sets out to do. I think it would be better described as the “United Future Derision Bill”. One could say that United Future is just having a laugh but I do not think that is the reason the bill should be called that. It should be called the “United Future Derision Bill” because with this move United Future has become the laughing stock of the country. The bill is an absolute waste of $28 million. It replicates good work already being done by a number of community groups church groups and even Government departments. 
One could call it the “Misuse of Taxation Revenue Bill”. That would be a more accurate description of what the bill does. It would be far more effective more efficient and sensible to put that money into supporting the many excellent community groups that work in the area and are screaming out for adequate funding and I mention the Child Poverty Action Group Plunket and Homebuilders. The Green Party opposes the squandering of that tax money. The title does not begin to describe what the bill does at all. 
Another approach would be to call it the “Intolerance Bill” because the usual reaction from United Future to anyone who opposes its policy proposals has been personal abuse—regardless of the fact that members like my colleague Sue Bradford have a far greater wealth of experience and knowledge of this area and in working on the ground. Personal abuse is the usual retreat of United Future when faced with disagreement in a policy area. 
We could also call the bill the “Venal Bill”. We are all familiar with how that term has been used. We have received an abusive letter from Mr Peter Dunne—surprise surprise—that describes opponents to the bill as “venal”. How interesting! How is fulfilling the functions inherent in the role of a member of the House of Representatives to protect the public interest venal? I cannot begin to imagine. What I would describe as venal is accepting $28 million in an election bribe. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can the member just come to the title debate please. I know it is difficult but members need to address the title. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Thank you. I am suggesting that the bill be described as the “United Future Bribery Bill”. That would be an adequate description of what the bill does. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will not allow the word “bribery”. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I withdraw and apologise. Perhaps another title could be the “United Future Venality Bill”. The bill is an attempt to keep United Future supporting a Government that strangely enough has been described by Mr Dunne himself as a trendy-lefty think-pink party. He has described the Prime Minister as being hijacked by the thought police and the Labour Party as hand-wringing sickly white liberals. That is the Labour Party as described by Mr Dunne which he continues to support because of the $28 million venality bill. 
What will the bill give us? It will give us a commission with three to seven commissioners. It creates a commission and an expensive office will be set up to replicate work already being done in the community. How much money will be wasted on establishing an office on administration costs on the letterheads on the logo design and on all of the fancy accoutrements relating to those things simply to replicate work that is already being done in the community? We could call this bill the “Family Issues Replication Bill” the “Snatching Scarce Resources from the Community Bill” or the “Another Bureaucracy Bill” as the previous member has already mooted. 
No doubt the seven commissioners will be well paid soaking up scarce funds that are needed by grassroots organisations in order to stroke the ego of Mr Peter Dunne. That is no criticism of any future commissioners; I am sure that they will all be competent and well intentioned. No the criticism is reserved for United Future which is prepared to force this waste to occur then abuse members who point out the deep flaws. The title of this bill does not even begin to describe what the bill does in any shape or form. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Families Commission 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The Families Commission that is to be set up under this bill will not save one child. It will not save one family. Not one family will be left intact because of this commission. Twenty-eight million dollars of taxpayers’ money—not Government money but taxpayers’ money—will be wasted to pay off a debt that Labour owes to United Future. The sum of $28 million is the price of New Zealand families. Not one family will be saved by this bill or by anything in it. When I look at the bill I can see how we can save taxpayers $28 million. I suggest that children need love discipline and boundaries. They need to know who they are. They need to know their whakapapa. What they do not need to know is who their mum’s latest boyfriend is. They need education. They need to be healthy and absolutely to have hope. 
United Future members have told us today that they have a vision. Well I think their vision was a faulty one. They need to have their eyes looked at because I am sure their vision did not tell them that they would be pushing for—not just supporting but pushing for—a bill that talks about everything except mum dad and the kids; or even mum and the kids with dad being an active father. Nowhere in this bill does anyone talk about the family unit as it actually is. Everywhere it talks about families being whatever people think they are. It is a bit like the word “Maori” which has become debased over the years because now—under a Labour Government and previous Labour Governments—Maori is no longer about blood. It is all about how one feels about it. 
When I look at this bill as a mother— 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: We give in! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
:—I am absolutely disgusted with this Government and with United Future. The Minister says he gives in and so he should because what does he know about being on the 4 o’clock morning shift? People who have not been there should not talk about it and people like young Darren Hughes—a very nice young boy who is trying to interject—should not talk about things they know nothing about. My mother was brought up in a solo parent family with seven little children during the Depression. If you ever said to my mother who is now dead— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The bill does not contain anything suggesting that solo parents with seven children will have a much tougher time than people with two parents and seven children. It does not say that because this is just a rubbish bill for rubbish people. Parents need to know that the best thing for their children is almost inevitably that they be active parents and wherever possible stick together. Nothing in this bill states that. That is one of the awful things about it. It is a fraudulent bill because nowhere does it tell the truth that wherever possible two parents—two good and great parents—will do better than one good and great parent because that is what kids need. Children need fathers and they need their mothers. 
They definitely need their fathers. One of the things we need in this country is active fathers—fathers who are embraced as part of the family not as some sperm donor who happens to pop along every now and again or send a Christmas card. That is not what we need. This bill should be telling people the truth and if it cannot do that it is a complete waste of money. This bill is $28 million of taxpayers’ money being thrown down the drain and it will be going into the pockets of people who should know better. If they do not know what makes a good family then I and others in the Opposition—the real Opposition—will tell them. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Sometimes some of the words I hear spoken in this Chamber absolutely amaze me. Judith Collins asked whether we had a vision. If she would like to go back to my maiden speech she would see that one of the things I said in it was that I wanted to see the hearts of fathers return to the children and the hearts of children return to the fathers. The family was very seldom mentioned until United Future came along. We recognise the importance of the family unit. Therefore we have been very pleased to come forward with the Families Commission. 
Every member of United Future is married. Every member of United Future has children. But we are well aware that many children in this nation do not have the same sorts of family relationships. As I look through the streets of this fine nation I see some of the circumstances that some children are brought up in. I am one who with every ounce of my being believes that a family unit of a mother and a father is by far the best unit in which to bring up children. I believe that the Families Commission as it researches things will begin to produce statistics that show that. Yet I do know that children do not choose their parents. Therefore children in this nation—whatever colour whatever creed and whatever religion they are—deserve to have a commission that will take the time do the research and study what the best set of circumstances is to bring them up in. With regard to the small percentage that have same-sex parents did those children choose to have same-sex parents? No they did not but that is what they have. Therefore somebody needs to love them enough to take the time to help them work through real-life situations. 
Much has been said about fathers. Fathers in this nation are under tremendous pressure these days. The expectations on fathers are unrealistic in many cases but I agree that fathers need to be encouraged to be great fathers. These days when a mother has her first child—especially now that there are many mothers who do not have an extended family or close family members around them—who is there to help her? What information does she have when her baby begins to cry in the early hours of the morning? I have four children myself and I know what it is like. Will the mother know whether the crying is normal whether it is just part of what a young child does as it grows up? Who will give the mother the information? 
I believe that the Families Commission will research things. It will start to say: “This is the best pattern. This is what has worked best.” United Future members stand proud of the Families Commission Bill because we are concerned about all the families of this nation. Yes we have an understanding of what we think the perfect family is but not everybody is living in a perfect family. When something has to be rebuilt one has to start with where it is now and to work on what is at hand to make it as best as one can. There must be research and this is what the Families Commission will do. It will look at the whole range of families and will come up with the finding that some families are not producing the results that others produce. Therefore— 
Peter Brown 
: We already know that. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Members may already know that but at least there will be a Families Commission in place that will focus on the families of this nation. I am pleased that United Future is in the situation where we are working on that. 
Many have said that they have worked for years with children. Well I have worked for years with children. I have worked with my own children. I have worked with children in the community who are not in the same sort of family as I have. What I have discovered is that all children and all families have the same basic requirements but not all families have the ability to find out what works for them. The Families Commission will help them—whatever sorts of families they are. It will give them information and situations that will help them bring up their children so that family units in this country can become far stronger and far greater. If this country does not rebuild families we are in deep yoghurt. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Mr Chairman I have to say— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that Katherine Rich will make a valuable contribution to this bill—I have no doubt about that whatsoever—but I do point out that my colleague Barbara Stewart has been seeking the call for some time. She did not get a call on the title. You have now given two calls to National members on this part and you have ignored Barbara Stewart again. I want another call but I have been refraining from taking a call so that my colleague can get the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am looking at proportionality and it is generally two to one in favour of National over New Zealand First. Secondly under Speaker’s ruling 23/3 I have already called the honourable member Katherine Rich so I have to give her the call. But I have noted that your colleague wants the next call and she will have the next call. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: After that preaching from Paul Adams a member of United Future I have to ask that member given all those different scenarios he has just talked about how the Families Commission will make life any different for those families. It will not achieve the sort of Utopia that that member has just described. I feel sorry for the Minister Steve Maharey right now because I know he would love to take the $28 million and put it into some other worthy projects. This commission will cost a significant amount of money but will achieve little other than being just another bureaucracy in Wellington. 
When this bill was first introduced National members read it and found that a family group was defined as one whose members “have significant psychological attachments to one another”. Our immediate interpretation of that was that it could include a lot of New Zealanders that it is not intended that the Families Commission should advocate for. It could represent gangs flatmates social clubs cults or even the Labour Party and that was not the intention in creating the Families Commission. When National members brought up this issue our points were met with derision from the Government and United Future. We were accused of being unintelligent and United Future even went so far as to say that our opposition to the bill was venal. When members look up the meaning of that word—and I am convinced now that the press secretary who wrote that particular press release did not understand it—they will find it means open to bribery and corruption. My question to those members here today is who is open to bribery and corruption when we are looking at a $28 million pay-off to United Future for its support of this Government—$28 million that could be put into a wide range of services that would actually make a difference to New Zealand families. 
The other point that I think is worth discussing is the changes in Supplementary Order Paper 173 to the commission’s main function. We understood that the commission’s main function was to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally and that the function did not include acting as an advocate for the interests of particular families. Within the Supplementary Order Paper some additional points have been added. Subclause (3) of clause 7 provides that the commission must “identify and have regard to factors that help to maintain or enhance either or both of the following: (a) families’ resilience:”. I ask the Minister to take a call and tell members what that means. We are talking about New Zealand families here not Sealy Posturepedic beds or Aunt Daisy’s sponge. I would like to know what “resilience” means in terms of a legal definition. We are right back to academic psychobabble that does not mean anything and has no place in any legislation. 
The next point is that the commission must have regard to families’ strengths. Once again what does that mean in terms of the law? It is waffly namby-pamby sort of stuff that actually does not mean anything. It is feel-good legislation but when one starts to interpret it and ask what will happen it is very difficult to describe what exactly that part of the bill will do. 
Once again it can be seen from the new definition which excludes gangs that those on the benches opposite have come to understand that National members were right all along when we brought up that interpretation of the definition of family. There now are 62 words that are designed to say: “This definition does not include gangs.”—62 words. It is probably one of the waffliest provisions that I have seen. I do not know why the Government did not just come out and say that the Families Commission does not include gangs. It would seem that it has skirted around the issue. Nobody can quite come out and say it—so much for it being an improvement! 
Those are the sorts of things that were brought up during the select committee process by the members of National ACT and New Zealand First. We were rubbished for bringing up these issues. How did these changes miraculously occur half an hour before the Committee stage of this bill? Why were these changes suddenly miraculously made when these points had all been made during the select committee? Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call and explain to members how he suddenly had a revelation. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Adams along with the rest of United Future may have had the vision but we the people of New Zealand will have to live with the nightmare of the Families Commission—a $28 million nightmare I might add. The Families Commission will not do what Mr Adams wants. It will not save even one child. The issue is not about defining families; it is about ensuring that New Zealand children are raised in the best possible situation and the best possible way. This bill will not save one child. 
We want the best conditions and the best outcomes for New Zealand children and New Zealand First believes that the best way to do that is to strengthen the Office of the Commissioner for Children. We all know that children are the basis of families so why not give the Commissioner for Children part of the $28 million that is being set aside and appoint a Families Commissioner who could work in conjunction with the Commissioner for Children? 
Likewise in reference to clause 16 we believe that there should be only one commissioner and one deputy commissioner rather than the huge bureaucracy that is being set up with at least three but not more than seven commissioners a chief commissioner and a deputy chief commissioner. Lo and behold a general manager—or a chief executive as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 173—will also be appointed. I must remind United Future that none of those commissioners or the chief executive will be paid at the lower end of the scale—they definitely will not be. By the time the bureaucracy that has to surround all those officers is in place—the people who will be employed to carry out the research and clerical functions—we will be looking at a giant expensive bureaucracy. When we come down to it we could have called this bill the “Building a Bureaucracy Bill” or the “Biggest Best Bureaucracy Bill”. It is foolish to test the water with both feet by building such a huge bureaucracy. 
New Zealand First would have definitely supported the appointment of a family commissioner to strengthen the Office of the Commissioner for Children plus some additional researchers to carry out research on “families’ resilience” and “families’ strengths” as the Supplementary Order Paper phrases it—whatever that might mean. With this bill the opportunity to support strong families has basically been dismissed. That $28 million could have been better spent in other ways. We believe that unfortunately this giant bureaucracy will not deliver what is required for children and for families in New Zealand. 
I also would like to correct United Future on a point that its members constantly make as they try to ensure that they have a monopoly claim on families—which they do in a rather condescending manner. I remind that party that family-friendly policies were around prior to its coming to Parliament and they will be around long after it leaves. 
The Families Commission will not do exactly what United Future believes it will do. We all know even without a Families Commission that the family is fundamental to the optimal development of children and that many current social problems are the result of a lack of support of that traditional institution. I would like to think that the legislation introducing the proposed commission would have recognised that but I believe that in this instance it absolutely fails to do so and will just exacerbate the current situation. The cumbersome structure that is proposed in the bill and the duplication of tasks that are undertaken by a whole lot of other agencies mean that the goals of the commission will never be realised despite the eloquence of United Future members. New Zealand First believes that the commission is totally neutered. It is political expediency and a sell-out of traditional New Zealand families. It was most interesting too to see that the appointment process for the commissioners is not included in this legislation. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 1 of the Families Commission Bill. It is very worrying that the creep of political correctness that this bill represents is now overwhelming New Zealand society. This bill promotes a view that all family types are equal. Instead of supporting the traditional nuclear family structure which has been the cornerstone of society for ever as demonstrated by all the evidence this bill is now promoting divergence and difference and stating that those are the types of family structures that we in New Zealand should be celebrating. My having said all of that is not to say that other family groups are not successful and do not do a wonderful job in raising children because they do. There are many families that struggle against enormous odds and manage to raise wonderful children in the face of very difficult challenges. But surely the role of Government and of legislation is to promote success—to actually promote the type of organisation or structure that will achieve success for the majority of citizens. 
That used to be the goal of Government and the role of legislation. But then my experiences are of what used to happen before a socialist Labour Government came along. Many of us in Opposition are learning about socialism under the term of the Labour Government because the socialist-feminist agenda promoted by the Government is to undermine the traditional family to undermine the role of fathers in the family to promote diversity and to promote instability and—guess what—by doing those things the Labour Government simply promotes a growing group of people who rely on a strong Government to provide support for them. That is Labour’s agenda. It does not want to see families consisting of people who are strong and able to get on with their lives independently of the State because those people in general do not vote for a socialist Government. 
I feel really disappointed on behalf of all those good New Zealanders who voted for United Future because they thought that party would come into Parliament and promote and support the family unit. When those people look at this bill they see that the United Future party has essentially sold out. It has sold out to a socialist Government that wants to undermine the nuclear family. A whole bunch of people who put those eight MPs into Parliament must be sitting there right now wondering what on earth they did at the last election. What we now have is a party that has sold out to the Labour Government. United Future is now supporting Labour’s anti-family agenda. United Future members might say that is not correct but I urge them to read about the historical roots of socialism and to understand what it is that socialist parties are engaged in and then to have a look at the record of this Labour Government. They will find that it is doing everything to undermine the family in spite of its fine words. 
What we now have is United Future undermining the family to the tune of $28 million of taxpayers’ money. The Families Commission Bill will create a huge bureaucracy. I understand that the Commissioner for Children’s funding is in the region of $1 million. The funding for the Families Commission is 28 times larger. Although the bill makes the functions of the commission sound really good in Parliament today we are passing legislation that will give $28 million to supporting an agenda that denigrates the nuclear family marginalises fathers encourages dependency and makes the situation of families in New Zealand a lot worse. That is why the ACT party is opposing this bill. It is costing us $28 million. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I always like to follow the words of Dr Muriel Newman because they are nothing short of entertaining—always. They are something like  
The X Files 
 I always find: the entire world is a series of conspiracies. It is an amazing mind to try to get inside when one listens to Dr Muriel Newman talk. I notice that over the last little while there have been a large number of her articles in which she has been raving on in a very similar fashion on the net. They are often sent off to newspapers or publications. I have not seen one single one of them published and I imagine that that is because people can recognise stupidity when they see it. 
I want to reflect on what I think are the two core points that have been made by— 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that this debate is a robust one but I think that the Minister just tipped over the edge a little in terms of denigration back then. If you had have been listening very carefully you might have pushed him a little back on to the straight and narrow in this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say two things to the member. The first is that under Speaker’s ruling 38/1 people are allowed leeway in order to respond to the previous speaker. Secondly members make disparaging remarks about each other all the time. It is personal reflections that are out of order. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I want to reflect on what I think are two core points that have been made in this debate. The first I guess—and I respect this point of view—is that we should not do it. The view that we should just not have a Families Commission would seem to be the point made by most of the people who are speaking on the Opposition side of the Chamber. But we are going to do it and we are going to do it not because the Families Commission is a sop to United Future but because this is a minority Government. In other words parties get to advance a range of policies in a public relations environment that they would not get elsewhere. Just as New Zealand First advanced policies when it was in coalition with the National Party we are seeing in this Parliament the advancing of a policy that comes from a party other than the Government. There is nothing of a sop about that; it is simply a fact of life that parties can do that now in this environment. Frankly I welcome that. I think it is a good thing that we have a multi-party environment where other ideas can rise to the surface and can be advanced and debated in this Chamber. In this case United Future has quite properly made that possible. 
The second point that people frequently make really hinges around whether we should advance privilege and only talk about one kind of family—which is usually referred to I have to say as the traditional nuclear family. We could get into a very long debate about that but I say to people that I do not think members mean what they are advancing. The traditional nuclear family as it is often called is a relatively recent invention even in Western society. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Not an invention. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Well it is a way of organising the family that stems largely from Victorian times in Britain. If Ms Tariana Turia were here—but Taito Phillip Field is—she would refer as he refers to the traditional family whether Maori or from the Pacific Islands as an extended form of family which may well have seen grandparents or aunties and uncles bringing up children rather than their biological parents. Those societies would certainly have relied on a large network of people who may or many not have been biologically associated with those children and they would traditionally have had that family structure for a long period of time. So the notion that we would start to say we should have a piece of legislation that defends the traditional nuclear family as people have said because it goes back to Genesis is just factually wrong and stupid to talk about. It is a stupid thing to say and it has no merit because it does not reflect history. Nor does it reflect the direct experience of a large number of people in this Parliament. 
The other thing we are told about the nuclear family being traditional is that it is made up of mum dad and the kids. In the sense that we usually applied that in New Zealand it meant mum being at home and looking after the kids and dad being at work. Now I know that Katherine Rich does not support that. I do not criticise her at all for being here in Parliament. It is her right to organise her family in a way that she believes will serve her children well— 
Phil Heatley 
: You’re so generous. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not being generous. I am just saying that when we get up and advance those ideas about the traditional nuclear family we should realise we have already passed on from that tradition in this country. Everybody in this Parliament supports the new organisation because they support the right of women to choose to go to work—to go outside the home to earn a living. They also support quite rightly the fact that it may be that males stay at home and provide the ongoing care of children. So let us not get hung up on a silly notion that this debate is about the traditional nuclear family being somehow dragged out of history and preserved in legislation—as if the family ever existed in that form traditionally or as if anybody in this Parliament wants it to exist in the way that perhaps my mother and father experienced it with my mother staying at home to look after us and the breadwinner dad working outside the home. We do not believe in that any more in this Parliament and the notion that we would preserve it in legislation in this way is clearly something that no one wants. Those are empty debates. 
I suggest therefore that the most sensible line of argument that has come through here today—and I have heard it from National speakers as well as from speakers all around this Chamber—is that we should not be arguing about the form of the family but should want good outcomes from every kind of family. No one in this Chamber doubts that it is a good idea for kids to be brought up by their parents. That is a great idea to have. I was brought up by my parents; I liked that. I am sure there are other people all around here who also experienced that—but other people who did not. Yes it is good if kids can stay with their parents and be brought up as children by them but of course that is increasingly not the case in this society. We have extended families we have whanau and we have sole parent families—we have a diversity of families. Should we not as a Parliament be dedicated as speakers have said to the functions of all kinds of families? 
I heard before from a National Party speaker that the key functions of families are easy to detect. It is common sense as well as research-founded knowledge that if kids get good support from families if they get good nurturing if they get love and if they get consistent boundaries for their behaviour they will be pretty well certain to turn out OK. I hope that the Families Commission will commit itself to ensuring that every child comes out of every kind of family with those outcomes. That is what I hope. Some kind of notion that it will dedicate itself to advancing only one kind of fictitious form of family would be a complete travesty of public policy and I do not think anybody in the Committee would want us to have that. We want mums to be able to work outside the home. We want fathers to take responsibility for their kids all the way through their lives. We want children to grow up in an environment where they will become dependable adults just as they hopefully are able to depend on adults to bring them up. That is the kind of vision I think that United Future has been expressing extremely well and that is why the Government has been comfortable to facilitate this bill and put it through. 
I know that when I sit down we will go back to a silly debate about the traditional nuclear family and so on but I want to put on the record the fact that we as a Government stand for kids coming out of every single kind of family with the best possible outcomes. That is what we stand for that is the vision of the Families Commission and that is what it is hoped the Families Commission will achieve. If it does that then every kid in this country will be thankful. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I commend the Minister for his exposition of what I take it is United Future’s and his vision for the family. It is great but I do not think that the Families Commission is the way to realise it. The first thing I would like to point out about this part of the bill is in relation to the Government amendment to clause 7(3) on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey which states: “… the Commission must identify and have regard to factors that help to maintain or enhance … (a) families’ resilience: (b) families’ strengths.” That sounds all well and good and uses the latest in politically correct sociological jargon but I ask what exactly it means in terms of the context and functions of the Families Commission. 
Is that organisation going to carry out strength-based social work practice with abused and neglected children as Department of Child Youth and Family Services staff continue to try to do against the odds? Will the commission work alongside families on benefits who are heavily in debt with never enough money to live on in order to help parents to find the strength within themselves to carry on living without abusing and neglecting their children? Will we see the families commissioners out in the community helping the parents of children with special needs to access the full educational health and other services they so badly need in the face of systemic intransigence and a failure to provide those services at the level that is needed? I do not think so. I do not think this $28 million Families Commission will be doing any of those things. Its functions as outlined in clauses 7 and 8 are not about any of those matters or about a myriad of other practical applications of assistance and strength-based practice to families in this country. I believe that using the language of social and community work practice and applying it here as that Supplementary Order Paper does deliberately creates a misleading impression of what this bill is about. 
Going on to the actual functions of the commission those revolve around advocating for families generally encouraging informed debate increasing public awareness of the importance of the parenting role promoting research into matters relating to families and a whole lot more in a similar vein. Does the Labour Government not understand that there is already a vast array of church and community organisations out there carrying out those very functions? Does Labour not realise that the Ministry of Social Development has hundreds of policy analysts already undertaking mountains of research on the sociology and economics of families and children in New Zealand? I am sure Labour does understand that all too clearly and as other colleagues from the Social Services Committee have already pointed out this commission is purely and simply an electoral trade-off that will not necessarily add anything at all to the sum total of good being done for families in New Zealand. I welcome the fact that the Minister has acknowledged that in the speech just prior to mine. 
In particular I cannot see the commission doing anything for low-income families who continue to suffer disproportionately despite the welcome decrease in unemployment and our so-called boom economy. The Government should not be pouring this money into a Families Commission. If it was serious about its Labour heritage and traditions it would instead put the $28 million into things like providing better funding for community groups that work at the grassroots level to help families in all their various forms. It would put the money into reforming the benefit system so that benefit levels are adequate and so that family support and family assistance apply right across the board to all families and keep pace with inflation. It would put the money into ensuring that both low-income worker and beneficiary families get all the entitlements they are allowed and into doing more to address the hardships generated by the way the benefit system operates including addressing issues around the abatement levels and the levels of debt repayment. 
Finally I believe that the Government should be prioritising the $28 million not into the Families Commission but into doing more to support existing commissions like the Children’s Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission. It is ridiculous that we have the Children’s Commissioner and her staff trying to do a fantastically huge job with 12 staff and a budget of around $1.7 million a year while this new commission will get around $7 million a year. That is out of hand disproportionate and uncalled for and I think it will be a sad day when this bill goes through. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I must say I am somewhat surprised by United Future. If this was indeed its flagship policy the big win that it got when it knocked on Helen Clark’s door on 28 July 2002 to say it wished to be associated with her Government I would have thought that when we passed this flagship policy in the House United Future would demand of the Labour Party a clause by clause debate on the issues in this bill. But no it has not done that. I would even have thought that United Future’s leader Peter Dunne might have taken the time to take a call on the matter—but no. That is a huge disappointment for those of us in the Opposition opposing this bill. I will put some good questions to this Committee: why is this flagship policy not being debated clause by clause why did United Future not demand that it be debated clause by clause and why has Peter Dunne not taken a call on it? The answer is here on my left: Katherine Rich was quite right to say that it is simply because there is no substance to the bill. That is what she said. 
I was intrigued by Minister Maharey’s discourse on the family and on how wide-ranging it was. I was intrigued by his definitions of the family and how he encompassed all in his definition of the family. It was a beautiful thing to see him hug all and sundry in all the situations in the lives of New Zealanders. That was a great thing. I was intrigued that originally in this legislation “family” according to Minister Maharey encompassed gang members rugby teams and anyone else who had a psychological attachment and a deep love for one another. We have seen Minister Maharey spend some time on examining families in New Zealand. It will be a great relief to my mother to learn when she reads this bill that thankfully I still remain related to her and she to me. I am her son and she will be delighted at that. I only wish that my grandparents—Grandma Heatley which nobody would have guessed and on the other side of the family Grandma Needham—could have had Mr Maharey’s confirmation before they died that I was their grandson worthy of the great inheritance that would pass down to me: I am family I am blood and I carry the family mantle. I thank Mr Maharey for securing that for me. 
I guess I wish that I was a member of all the other families that Mr Maharey would have liked to see me be a member of: rugby clubs gangs the Mongrel Mob and various others. Perhaps I could have been a family for the National Party. Perhaps he would have encompassed me in Labour United Future or somewhere else. Mr Maharey would have liked to see me in all types of families. But no he has decided on the basis of his vast study that my grandparents and certainly my mother father sisters and even my children will be reassured by this bill that in fact “family” includes a group of people related by marriage blood adoption an extended family where there are two or more persons living together as a family and a whanau or other culturally recognised group. Maharey says solo parent families are as good as traditional families. Good for him! I am glad he has taken the last 2 months to come up with that evidence and could give it to this Committee. Good for him! I am glad that he has confirmed that all the solo parents out there are doing the best they can in difficult situations—often struggling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind the member that he may not refer to a Minister by his or her surname. It must be by the full title or portfolio. That is in Speaker’s ruling 24/5. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Is “Minister Maharey” OK then? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Minister? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Maharey. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is acceptable. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: OK thank you Mr Chairman. Minister Maharey has said he has confirmed that all those family groups are doing very very well and are all successful in this country. That leaves one wondering why we need a Families Commission given that all families are successful and all can be recognised and acknowledged. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 If anybody believes that this Act is to do something for the families of this country then I invite him or her to read the “Purpose”. I thought when I heard Peter Dunne describe this bill as the “Jewel in the Crown” of United Future’s political agenda then the purpose must be something worthwhile. “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) establish the Commission”. Then it goes on to say how important that is: “(b) state the Commission’s functions and powers: (c) require the Commission—(i) to have regard to certain matters; and (ii) to comply with certain other obligations.” That is the purpose of this Families Commission Bill. 
I thought there had to be more to it than that so I looked at the functions in clause 7: “Commission’s main function (1) The Commission’s main function is to act as an advocate for the interests of families generally.” That sounds all very fine. That sounds quite worthwhile. 
 “(2) That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of a particular family or particular families in connection with a particular case or issue.” What the dickens is all this about? The commission will cost $28 million and will not look after a family or a group of families that have a particular problem or area of concern. Spending $28 million on a Families Commission $1.7 million we are told this afternoon on the Commissioner for Children and $28 million on this is an absolute disgrace. 
The definition of “family” in this bill is not good enough. It is too wide ranging. One might as well call this bill “The People’s Bill” as it defends everybody and everything but not specifically. In my name I have put an amendment to this particular part—a Supplementary Order Paper that defines “family”. It should go into the interpretation and I will read it: “Family means a family group including an extended family (a) in which there is at least one adult member and (b) in which the members have a biological or legal relationship.” 
My amendment will preclude two homosexual males having the future rights to adopt children. Under the current Families Commission Bill that is not only distinctly possible it is more than likely. We heard United Future members stand up and say they supported the rights of children here there and everywhere. I say to this Committee and to those members in particular: is that what they want—homosexual males to be able to adopt children with equal rights to heterosexual parents? I do not believe that that is what United Future stands for. Certainly its support base does not believe that that is what it stands for. 
This bill went through the select committee and came out exactly as is. As a result of that the Hon Peter Dunne—if I can use the term the Hon Peter Dunne—wrote to every submitter or to a large proportion of submitters accusing political parties of being venal. I think the words he used were “unprecedented and venal political stunt”. “Venal” means “open to bribery and corruption”. I ask the United Future members and particularly Judy Turner—because she is playing a prominent role in this bill and I have stood on the political stage with her on many occasions—do they believe that I am open to bribery and corruption? 
Judy Turner 
: The meaning of the word is also “unprincipled”. 
PETER BROWN 
: Does she believe that I am open to bribery and corruption? The  
Oxford Dictionary  
defines “venal” as being “open to bribery and corruption”. Do they believe that Craig McNair is open to bribery and corruption? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Not Craig! 
PETER BROWN 
: Or Barbara Stewart? Or my colleagues? I say to Mr Duynhoven that this is serious. I have taken real offence to this because that member the Hon Peter Dunne wrote to every submitter and accused the Opposition members—because we did not agree with this bill because it came back from select committee as is which is not unusual and I am sure he would agree with that—of being “venal”. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 This has been a very interesting debate. Hearing what the Opposition parties are trying to say in order to defend the indefensible position that they take against the families of New Zealand says more to us about what National ACT New Zealand First and the Greens believe about families than it does about anything else. They are quick to say that families are the foundational unit of our society; that families are failing at huge costs to the taxpayer; and that the benefits of the family are being lost as families disintegrate. But they have done nothing at all in this Parliament or previously to help resurrect the family and save that situation. 
What have National and New Zealand First—at the times that they have been in Government—done in order to help salvage the family to promote it and to strengthen it? Nothing whatsoever. Instead as soon as United Future arrived in this House New Zealand First and ACT immediately appointed spokespeople for the family. 
 All of a sudden they think they need a spokesperson for the family. They did not have one before. National probably because it was in disarray at that time or perhaps because it was so embarrassed that it has never had a spokesperson for the family took until a couple of months ago to appoint a spokesperson for the family. What have those spokespeople done? 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is meant to be a robust debate on a bill. This guy is going on about whether we have members with responsibility for the family. For his enlightenment I tell him that New Zealand First is firmly committed to the family always has been and has had a spokesperson on it for all of its terms in Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. It is not actually a point of order. The member is coming to the point now. I was giving him leeway under Speaker’s ruling 38/1. I ask him to come to the point. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I am interested to hear that New Zealand First is for the family. It may now change its vote and support this bill which is there in order to support the family. But let us just look at the two and only two arguments that have been put up against this bill by the Opposition parties. The first argument—typically Judith Collins’ comment—is that a family constitutes mum dad and the kids. Now this is a party that also at the same time says that it believes that a child’s welfare and best interests are paramount when it comes to family life. So what are they saying to the children of this nation? They are saying to them that if they are not in a situation with a mother and a father they do not belong to a family. They are saying to every child with a sole parent bringing that child up that he or she is not part of a family. They are saying to widows and widowers that they are not a family. They are saying to children being raised by their grandparents that they are not a family. New Zealand First is saying to children being brought up in a de facto situation that they are not part of a family. New Zealand First is saying to foster families that those children do not belong to families. They are saying to children whose parents have been killed and who— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would be keen to know what this guy stands for not what he thinks we are for or against. I draw your attention Mr Chairperson to the Supplementary Order Paper on the Table in my name on behalf of New Zealand First that clearly illustrates that we recognise de facto families. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. It is a debatable issue. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: If New Zealand First believes that de facto families are biologically or legally connected then I suggest they have another look at their definition. They are saying that children brought up by de facto families do not come within that definition. 
So what are we looking at in a families perspective? We are trying to find an environment and to strengthen families in New Zealand wherever children find themselves placed. United Future is looking at the welfare and best interests of children. We are saying to children that whatever environment they find themselves in we are setting up a commission that will look at strengthening that environment to improve their prospects in life. We are doing that by setting up a commission that will have an overarching look at the whole situation of families in New Zealand and at ways to improve that. 
That brings me to the second argument—the only other argument put up against this bill. It is an argument that has been put up by National and by ACT. They say that this is just a bureaucracy; that it is just putting money into an environment where it could be better spent at ground level. That is what the Greens say. When ACT and the Greens agree on something one has to think there is something suspicious about it. It is like saying to the All Blacks: “You don’t need a coach. Why should we pay for a coach to sit up there in the grandstand looking out of his window at the play and giving directions from above? Why don’t we just pay the players a little bit more money then they can go on the field and do what they think is best to do in running the team?”. 
The Families Commission will be a coach. It will provide an overarching view of families. It will look at what is happening now in families. It will address where the problems are. It will look at what is lacking in families and family education. It will carry out and implement research to try to fill in the gaps in knowledge that we have about families and how they relate. Then it will encourage the direction of funding into those areas where we see there is a weakness. 
The argument Judith Collins put up that this is a bureaucracy typifies the approach that National takes in terms of all these policies which is: just keep throwing money at the grassroots instead of doing any planning at all any oversight or having any sense of direction. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave for the honourable memberto have an extension of time of 1 minute. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows he cannot seek leave for another member. Please be seated. 
PETER BROWN 
: He has made some comments and I would like to know his view on homosexual adoption. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been warned by the previous Chairperson. 
PETER BROWN 
:Have I? Have I got a yellow card? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It was not a point of order previously. 
Murray Smith 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Hon Member 
: There was no point of order. 
Murray Smith 
:If the Committee wants to encourage me to have extra time I will seek leave for an extension to my time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member was absolutely right—there was no point of order. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. Craig McNair has been seeking the call. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I might have misheard but I thought that the member did actually seek leave and I thought that the question of leave should be put. 
Jill Pettis 
: He was only joking. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: No he sought leave. Maybe Madam Chair you could get the member to clarify that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on it. The member was speaking to a non-existent point of order. 
Murray Smith 
: Madam Chair I did seek leave for an extension. I did so at the invitation of New Zealand First whose members want to hear more of what I have to say. I will seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave for an extension of time. He really should just seek another call—that is what he should be doing. But he can seek leave. Is there any objection to that? There is. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. During that point of order about seeking leave Jill Pettis was yelling across the Chamber: “He was only joking.” My understanding is that there is supposed to be silence in the Chamber as there is now when a member raises a point of order. If you are going to allow a member to shout across the House and put words in the mouth of the person taking the point of order that is unacceptable and I just raise that matter with you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There were actually about three people speaking during that seeking of leave. I give members an overall warning that there is no discussion at all during points of order. They will be heard in silence. Everyone knows that. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to this part I start by saying that any party that cares about the welfare of children must celebrate and support committed enduring family relationships. We in New Zealand First are not opposing this bill because of opposition to the family. We are not opposed to the family unit at all—whatsoever. But New Zealand First will continue to fight to protect our social fabric and traditional family values and that is the point we are trying to make here in our speeches. New Zealand First does not support the Government’s legislation for a Families Commission as it still fails we believe to properly define a family or to set out structures that will provide children with a safe environment and that is a major issue as my colleague Barbara Stewart mentioned in her speech. 
I believe that the bill introduced by the Government and supported by United Future still broadly defines the family group. Mr Baldock said in his speech that we should not exclude. But what is wrong with promoting a traditional proven family unit that has worked for 10 20 30 40 or 50 years? That is what we are getting at. This Government would have us believe that the two-parent family is history. It seems that the Government’s preference is to promote and support diverse family compositions almost to the exclusion of the two-parent mum and dad family. That is what I am trying to get at here. 
Moana Mackey 
: What? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I would like Moana Mackey to take a call on this but all she wants to do is move that the question be now put. If she disagrees with me why does she not take a call and tell me why she disagrees with me? 
I believe that more emphasis needs to be placed on promoting and supporting family structures that are independent that work and that have worked for the last 10 20 30 40 or 50 years and so on—right back to Adam and Eve. New Zealand First has always been an advocate of the importance of the family to the future of New Zealand. It is time for United Future and the Government I believe to stop being so PC and to ensure that traditional family values are not lost and I do not think that is too much to ask. 
New Zealand First has repeatedly expressed its opposition to the politically correct Families Commission as proposed by this Government. The social fabric of our society continues to be seriously eroded by the promotion of so-called liberal policies such as prostitution law reform—and I will not focus on that because I am not speaking about it. But the family is fundamental to the optimal development of children and many current social problems are a result of a lack of support for this traditional institution. The question we have to ask is whether this commission will better support the family unit and I say that in its current form it will not. How do we justify $28 million being spent on it? I have no problem with $28 million being spent on a Families Commission but not the commission in its current form. 
A couple of speeches ago my colleague Peter Brown said that in all fairness to United Future members they probably honestly do not believe in the current definition of the family and I saw that Murray Smith—I was probably the only one who noticed because I was at the back on the other side—disagreed with that comment by Mr Brown. Murray Smith honestly believed—it seems from what he was saying—that the current definition in Supplementary Order Paper 173 is a good definition and that his view on that issue has not changed. Well I do not think the people who voted for United Future support this definition in any way. United Future’s support of the Government over this bill has I believe cost United Future a lot of its credibility and has won its supporters nothing but the sop of a family commission where the definition of a family is likely to offend I would say most if not all of its supporters. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert the following definition in its appropriate place: 
Family 
 means a family group including an extended family— 
(a)In which there is at least 1 adult member; and 
(b)in which the members have a biological or legal relationship. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to other Acts 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 This part includes the schedules I think. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes it does. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I can see—[ 
Interruption 
] I did check this with the Clerk before. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to check the bill but I have been advised that the debate is on clause 60 which relates to schedule 4. Clause 60 states: “The Acts listed in Schedule 4 are amended in the manner set out in that schedule.” 
John Carter 
: Yes that is correct which covers a number of schedules. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No just schedule 4 and then we take the schedules. 
John Carter 
:So are we having two separate debates? Are we having a debate now on just the amendments to schedule 4 and then there is a separate— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will just clarify that. It is my understanding— 
John Carter 
:My understanding is that Part 2 covers all the schedules but if there are two debates that is fine. We are very happy with that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We will just double-check the resolution from the— 
David Benson-Pope 
: On the agreement of the Committee and on the agreement of Mr Carter I would be pleased to ask for leave for there to be one debate on this part and the schedules. That would accommodate Ms Rich. 
John Carter 
:I do not know that the member will get leave. 
David Benson-Pope 
: One question rather than two would be sensible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has sought leave for that. Is there any objection? There is objection. We will just be very clear that we are now debating Part 2 which contains clause 60: “The Acts listed in Schedule 4 are amended in the manner set out in that schedule.” So members can speak to schedule 4 now then can speak to the rest of the schedules in the next question. 
John Carter 
: So there are two questions to be addressed? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It was very interesting to hear the contribution from Murray Smith on this bill and to see that although he sought leave to extend his time to speak about this bill that leave was denied by Labour. I had thought that the whole point of this Committee stage from the perspective of United Future was to sing the praises of this bill from the rooftops. So it is interesting that the Committee stage is being rushed through. I can understand why. I can see why the Minister would be embarrassed to have to sit in the chair while we discuss the various parts in the bill. He knows that this Families Commission will do nothing for the most disadvantaged families in New Zealand. I think if the Minister were able to make decisions about the $28 million he would prefer to put that sum into areas like the Department of Child Youth and Family Services or Work and Income or into a new project to get people back into work or into something that would actually make a difference at the front line for New Zealand families. I was surprised to hear Murray Smith say he thought this Families Commission would be a coach of New Zealand families. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but clause 60— 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I am getting there Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There are two matters in clause 60—let me explain. It relates to the Public Finance Act and to provisions of the Ombudsmen Act. So the debate is very narrow. There will be a wider debate on the schedules. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I seek clarification. I do understand though that I am able when I take a call to refer in passing to comments that have been made by other members before I get on to other parts of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member must be relevant to what is being spoken to. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Clause 60 relates to schedule 4 which looks at amendments to other Acts and it is very important to see there reference to the Public Finance Act. I think that once again gives me an opportunity to talk about the expenditure that this Government will have to make to put in place the Families Commission. This bill was set out— 
Mark Peck 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This is a very narrow clause and all that the amendment to schedule 4 does is insert in that Act the words “Families Commission”. It does not bring in any other matters that the member could possibly canvass in the way she is doing. The legislation has been to a select committee. My submission to you Madam Chair is that she is totally out of order in her comments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is a narrow debate. It is about the Families Commission and the provisions within the Public Finance Act only. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. If you look at Part 2 “Amendments to other Acts” which includes clause 60 “Amendments set out in Schedule 4” you will see it is very difficult to debate this clause without making reference to schedule 4 which I was doing before I was rudely interrupted by that member. I was making reference to the Public Finance Act. 
Mark Peck 
: It is a very simple matter. Part 2 deals with amendments to other Acts of Parliament. The other Acts of Parliament are simply being amended by the insertion of two words “Families Commission”. There is no wide debate on that. All that the speaker can possibly do within the Standing Orders is to say whether “Families Commission” should be included in the two pieces of legislation being amended by clause 60 which is Part 2 of this bill—nothing more nothing less. The bill has been to a select committee. The member has been here for some time; she should know that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is correct. However the part is about the commission relating to the Public Finance Act and all the provisions within that Act. I think the member was trying to get to that. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I sat on the select committee that discussed this bill. I have read the bill unlike that member over there who took no part in evaluating the Families Commission Bill. As I said I was speaking to Part 2. Part 2 relates to amendments to other Acts. If members look at clause 60 they will see that it states: “Amendments set out in Schedule 4.” I challenge that member over there to tell me how one debates Part 2 without making reference to schedule 4. It states: “The Acts listed in Schedule 4 are amended in the manner set out in that schedule.” Although schedule 4 looks like a small amendment to that member in terms— 
Mark Peck 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I will not sit here and listen to the member’s reflections on me in that respect. I ask her to withdraw and apologise for her derogatory comments. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member was being interrupted by you Mr Peck. I think the member is entitled to a fair go in relation to what she was speaking about—that is the Public Finance Act. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I would like to clarify one point. When I was speaking about a small amendment to the bill I was not referring to that member over there although he obviously took it as that. I was referring to very significant pieces of legislation—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is entitled to a fair speech. Would the member please desist now. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: It seems that there are a few sensitivities flying around today. 
Although the insertion of the words “Families Commission” into the Ombudsmen Act in schedule 4 looks like a small one it is actually quite a significant change in this case because it means that the Ombudsmen Act now oversees this particular bill. Likewise for the Public Finance Act in respect of which schedule 4 states: “Insert in the Fourth Fifth Sixth and Seventh Schedules in each case in its appropriate alphabetical order the following item: ‘Families Commission’.” We see two small words but it just goes to show that when one sets up a $28 million bureaucracy like this one has to rewrite lots of other pieces of legislation at great cost to the community. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 If I understand it correctly schedule 4 is quite a significant amendment. By putting the Families Commission under the control of the Ombudsmen Act we are saying that Family Commission matters for want of a better term can be ruled upon by the Ombudsman. Maybe the Minister will give us some guidance on that. Is that not what this measure means? Does it mean that the Ombudsman can look at issues that stem from the Families Commission? Maybe Mr Peck can explain that to me because it is a sincere question. 
I thought the Ombudsman looked at individual cases. If people have an issue about something then they write to the Ombudsman—that was my understanding. The bill states: “That function does not include acting as an advocate for the interests of particular families in connection with a particular case or issues.” We are actually putting this bill under the control of the Ombudsman but we are saying that individual families or a collection of families with an individual problem cannot go to the Ombudsman to ask that it be solved. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: I would answer the question but the member is being silly again. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister has said something. I think everybody would appreciate some guidance. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Wasting my time. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is wasting his time. He cannot be bothered. The truth is that the Minister does not know. Maybe United Future members can tell us—they are claiming the credit for this bill. Does putting this commission under the control of the Ombudsmen Act give people who are appealing to the Families Commissioner the right to write to the Ombudsman if they get a less than satisfactory answer? If it does not what is the point of putting it under the Ombudsman’s charge? Why do we bother putting it there if the Ombudsman cannot have any say on an individual family issue? 
I think that that is a legitimate question. I ask anybody on the Government benches including United Future members to explain how the Ombudsman can have control over the Families Commission but not have any say in matters that affect an individual family who might have approached the Families Commission for a solution. Maybe the officials can answer as there is dead silence from Government members. Maybe the officials will know—I see they are looking at something. I think the officials have recognised that there is a valid point here. Maybe the Minister would like to consult them and explain to the Committee. 
This has not gone through the select committee process in the normal sense and I think we are entitled to know whether the Ombudsman could have a conflict here. Could a family that writes to the Ombudsman over a particular issue involving the Families Commission be told by the Ombudsman that he or she cannot get involved because the commission cannot deal with individual family cases? If it is the case that there is no right of appeal from the Families Commission to anywhere why are we spending $28 million and saying that this bill is in the interests of children and families when it is not? 
If putting this commission under the Ombudsmen Act just means that the Family Commissioner can go to the Ombudsman for any problem that he or she might have in the operation of the Families Commission why do we not say so? The impression one gets by reading this bill is that the Ombudsman will be open to families who have some concern about the way the Family Commissioner does his or her job. But we then look at the function and as I said earlier it does not allow the commission to act as an advocate for the interests of a particular family or particular families in connection with a particular case or issue. That does not make sense to me but I am but a simple sailor and I think the Minister should take a call to explain how that rests with him and how he understands it will work in practice. Indeed I invite United Future members to take a call because this bill is meant to be the jewel in their crown. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 We are discussing schedule 4 which as we know is to make sure the Families Commission is in line with the Ombudsmen Act and the Public Finance Act. We have legislation here that will cost the taxpayers $28 million and it has to be inserted under the provisions of the Public Finance Act so that Parliament can not only appropriate that taxpayers’ money but also adequately scrutinise the spending of it. The Public Finance Act provides a framework for the parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s management of the assets and liabilities of the Crown and we are now talking about a $28 million spending line. It provides for a select committee to scrutinise the work and performance of the Families Commission to make sure it is doing what it is it is set up to do. 
That is where we will have some trouble in the future because as we go further in this debate it appears to me that what the Government is setting up is basically a $28 million spin-machine to indoctrinate New Zealand with its view of the family—with its world view so to speak as it relates to social issues. That is a great concern to many New Zealanders particularly those people who really did think that the Government was going to support traditional families. We now understand very clearly that that is not the intention of this legislation. The Government’s agenda is simply to promote support and normalise diversity and marginalise what we have always thought of as being the normal type of family in New Zealand. 
I would also like to use this opportunity to respond to a statement made by the Minister about how traditional nuclear families are a relatively new invention. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: This is a debate. The Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No as we said before the member must speak to Part 2. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The other part has been dealt with. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I wonder whether you could clarify this point for me. This is a debate in the Committee stage of the Families Commission Bill. We are being given only one call per part in this debate. The Minister took a call and criticised my contribution to the last part. This is the first opportunity I have to respond to his criticisms. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member will be seated. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Are you telling me that I cannot respond to his criticisms? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member knows very well that members can speak only to the part that is being debated at the moment. I have already ruled on that point in this debate. Please continue. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I need to clarify my point. Can you tell me when members get to actually answer the personal criticisms made by Ministers against them? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be seated. The member knows that that is a part of debate. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Well when? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That debate has finished. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have ruled on the point. The member will be seated. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: The fact the bill is also subject to the Ombudsmen Act means that we will be able to ask the Ombudsman to help us with questions on issues that the Families Commission would be working on. I suggest that one of the first issues the commission might have to deal with is the origins of the family. We will be able to ask the Families Commission questions under the Official Information Act about its research on the origins of the family which go back to the 11th century AD in spite of claims that the family is a modern precept. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Possibly back further than that. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Yes the family probably does go back much further. I have some new information from the library that shows that. 
However the Ombudsmen Act allows the Ombudsman to debate with the Minister and the commission if they refuse to give such information to members of Parliament. Members of the Opposition will probably be using the Ombudsman rather a lot under this Government because this Government is not open and transparent like it pretended to be when it was elected. In fact for most of the regular information asked from this Government under the Official Information Act we ended up by appealing to the Ombudsman. That is why the Ombudsman is so busy under Labour. 
However I am very pleased that the Ombudsman will be there to assist members of Parliament. When one looks at the projects the commission is set up to be able to do I suspect that it will be working on a lot of controversial information. In general it will be only through the Ombudsman that members of Parliament on the Opposition benches will be able to figure out what the commission is doing. 
The Public Finance Act means that members can question how the $28 million will be spent. That is a huge amount of money. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call on this part and also schedule 4. Certainly the intention is that the legislation would be able to dovetail into other appropriate legislative frameworks that exist and that is what this part reflects. It has always been the intention that the commission will be accountable for its actions and a framework is in place for it to be accountable for the work it puts out. 
People have talked about the fact that the commission is not given the mandate to investigate individual cases. There has been much accusation from the Opposition that this commission will duplicate the work of other agencies and that is the very reason why this clause has been put in. The predominant work of the commission will be to advocate for families in that general sense. However we certainly checked with the drafters at the time that submitters talked to us about that and it was very clear that there was nothing in the legislation that stops or forbids the commission from using a particular case where it illustrates a particular trend in families. It may illustrate that by referring to a particular family situation and advocate for a particular cause based around a particular circumstance that illustrates where that is happening to other people. In that case the Ombudsman may want to be involved or may want to be referred to. 
The commission will be obliged to refer to any other agencies where a case or a situation is presented to it that is not the direct mandate of the commission. Therefore again it may be appropriate for the commission to refer to the Ombudsman anything that comes across its path that is not its direct mandate to deal with. 
That is the obligation within the Act and it is strengthened absolutely within the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. That is really all I wanted to say on that. This dovetails this legislation appropriately with the supporting legislation around it and we welcome it. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedules 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Clause 2 of schedule 1 is very important. It states that the functions of the commission must be performed “efficiently and effectively” by the board. That will prove to be very difficult because if one advocates for everything then one advocates for nothing. If one stands for everything then one ends up standing for nothing. So we come back again to the definition of what a family is and the definition of what the Families Commission will do once it is set up. According to the way the bill is set out the Families Commission covers every single New Zealander many times over. The National Party has argued that we already have a representative body of New Zealanders. It is called the New Zealand Parliament and if we look around this Chamber today we will see people who represent different groups around the country with a greater budget I have to say—[ 
Interruption 
] At least I have one I say to that member. 
In terms of the efficient and effective management of the Families Commission the board members will have to say that they cannot fulfil their obligations with such a nebulous and wide definition of what they are supposed to do. We heard from Murray Smith that the role of the Families Commission is supposed to be to act as a coach for all New Zealand families. With a budget of $28 million it will be very difficult for the commission to touch the lives of all New Zealand families. At the moment the definition is so broad that it includes every single New Zealander many times over. There will be significant duplication when it comes to the work the commission is to do. The policy group within the Ministry of Social Development already has hundreds of analysts studying the sorts of issues that this commission will look at. 
I can see why the Government has made sure that this bill has not had much time in the Committee and why it has been structured so that it comprises only a couple of parts. This is a very short bill and it really is an embarrassment to the Government. Government members know that this bill will not make a difference to New Zealand families. There is no way that the commission can provide effective and efficient advocacy for them when the organisation will be a bureaucratic nightmare because it stands for every New Zealander on a shoestring budget. This Parliament runs with a more significant budget than that; it is the true House of Representatives. Because the Government has not really tried to define what the Families Commission will actually do it will achieve very little. 
Likewise in clause 5 of schedule 1 there is a duty to act with honesty and integrity. If board members are to do that they will be saying that the Families Commission is a sham. The Families Commission will not achieve anything for New Zealand families; it will be just another bureaucracy sitting here in Wellington. Unfortunately it will not do anything to help the sorts of families we have seen in the news in the last couple of months—for example the family of Tamati Pokaia. Do members think the Families Commission would have made a difference to the life of that child? I think the answer is no. This bill is nothing more than feel-good legislation to keep afloat a group that is keeping the Government in power. If members of the board look at themselves in the mirror they will say that there is no way they can keep to the provisions of this part of the legislation. They cannot behave with honesty or integrity or keep a straight face while fulfilling their roles. We are going to see them travelling the country chanting: “Families are good families are good!” 
We all know that but let us not pretend that this legislation is anything more than the Government’s pay-off for the support of United Future. That is why we have not seen a robust debate from United Future. Its leader has not even taken a call. Murray Smith tried to extend his speaking time and Labour declined that. He actually wanted to talk more about the issue but was declined leave to do that by the Government. Some Government! 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will address my comments on the schedules first of all to the financial accountability that the commission will be required to maintain. That refers to the regular practices that any business or Government organisation would have to adhere to. But also I believe it refers to the issue of whether the money the commission is given is well spent. We have heard a great deal of criticism about the commission’s huge budget but we are very pleased that it is being given an adequate budget of $6 million a year to do its work. I believe that the commission will have no difficulty in seeing that the money is well spent. For years and years people have said it was time that we built fences at the top of the cliff instead of having ambulances at the bottom and that is exactly what the commission will be about. Spending $6 million a year in order to give the commission the opportunity and power to address some of the root causes of family breakdowns in our society is not in any way shape or form a waste of money when the results of family breakdowns cost us $5 billion to $6 billion. How could one ever suggest that spending $6 million is a waste of time if we can do something about reducing the huge amount of wastage that results from the breakdown of relationships and families throughout the country? 
The schedules also address the qualifications the commissioners need and the way they are to be appointed. It is thrilling to see the response in the community to the opportunity that is being provided by this legislation. That has been wonderful. I understand that at least 300 requests for the information packet have been received from people who want to apply to become commissioners. Unlike the Opposition parties which are just firing cheap shots at this legislation and saying it will be a waste of time a large number of good people out in the community see this bill as a fantastic opportunity not just to talk about the problems but to get involved roll up their sleeves apply for the job of commissioner and then be given the incredible responsibility and privilege of doing something for families in New Zealand. I applaud all of those who are beginning to engage now in the application process. I believe that some very very qualified people will be appointed as commissioners. 
I understand that the legislation provides for at least three full-time or part-time commissioners and that there can be a maximum of seven commissioners. They are the people who will make the difference. All the rest is just talk and hot air. All the discussion about the definition of “family” will mean absolutely nothing when it comes down to the rubber meeting the road and the commissioners begin to do what is needed in this country—that is to focus on the families and the situations that arise for many children across the country in terms of the appalling circumstances in which they live their lives. I believe that the commissioners will be able to interpret the requirements of this legislation. They will not be at a loss to know what their job is about. They will not be at a loss as to knowing the kind of family that produces the best kind of result. That is self-evident and has been so for thousands of years. But that is not the only task we are asking the commissioners to address; we are also asking them to address the needs of all children in New Zealand as has been said so very well already in this debate. I believe that the commissioners will serve this nation very well and we look forward to their final appointment. Good people I believe always know what to do. It is only some of those in this Chamber who spend their entire lives talking about what ought to be done and never actually accomplishing anything despite all the promises they have made who do not know what to do. 
Under Part 1 of this legislation the commissioners will even have the power to appoint committees to look into specific issues that need to be addressed. One of those issues is I believe the rate of marriage breakdown in our society. I believe that the commissioners—well-chosen people with a good background of experience in family matters perhaps in ministries that have been involved in helping people because I think that means a lot more than having a lot of academic qualifications—may well decide to use the powers given to them to appoint special committees that will look into ways of strengthening marriage in our society. They will look at ways to prevent the increasing rate of marriage breakdown and that will be an excellent thing. I believe the commissioners will also be able to use the powers given to them to address some of the consequences of family breakdowns. That is something that is not happening very well in society at this point and the Family Court definitely needs to have a committee that can look into it. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak to schedule 1 and particularly to clause 2 “Functions must be performed efficiently and effectively and in manner consistent with spirit of service to public”. I know that our faith in the public service justifies our belief that correct accounting practices will be followed as mentioned by the previous speaker. I have no doubt that those accounts will be audited fairly closely. I was quite interested to hear from the previous speaker about the application process that has been followed particularly when as far as I am aware no advertisements should have been placed at this point in time. 
Larry Baldock 
: They’ve been in the paper. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: It is interesting that the advertisements have been in the paper the member tells me before the bill has passed through Parliament but I suppose I should not be surprised by that at all. 
Clause 2 of schedule 1 says that the functions must be performed “efficiently and effectively”. They are suitably vague terms. They are very difficult terms to measure and even more difficult to define particularly when it comes to something like the Families Commission. How will the public or even the Government know whether the commission has ever met its goals or whether it has had value for the dollars that have been spent? While I can appreciate that these terms need to be very broad I think that unless we can be sure that we will get some efficiency and effectiveness from this commission we need to have it further defined. 
We do know that this commission advocates for everything and it will be very difficult to measure the commission against even the main functions that have been set up. As previous speakers have said it appears the commission is set up to normalise diversity so how on earth can efficiency and effectiveness be measured? I come from a corporate background and I know that efficiency and effectiveness are very difficult to measure and justify. I really wonder how this will be done. 
I also wonder who will carry out this audit of performance on efficiency and effectiveness. Will it be the Minister’s office? Will it be United Future? The United Future member talked about accountability but how can this broad general measure ever be used to hold people to account? I really do wonder. Will it be the amount of research that is completed and published? We do not quite know. How will we measure efficiency and effectiveness if other agencies are also carrying out the same functions as we have heard many many times? So when I look at clause 2 I really have to wonder how it will be done. I will be most interested to see how it is done. I will be looking at those audits very very closely having been involved in that area. 
I turn to the membership of the commission. I note that there will be three full-time commissioners and three part-time commissioners. I will be most interested to see what they achieve. The bill does not set out the exact role that each one will carry out. That has been left suitably vague so that I suppose anything that can be carried out will be carried out. It has not been defined as to whether one commissioner will be focused on research; one focused on marriage and the traditional nuclear family which has been talked about quite often in this Committee stage; or even one focused on solo parents. Who knows? I will be most interested to see what role the commissioners will be carrying out. 
I know when we have a term of office of 3 years I would want to be sure that the commissioners achieve what they set out to achieve. I know that achievement means different things to different people but I am really concerned when I look at the term “efficiency and effectiveness”. Is that how the commissioner will be assessed at the end of the year or at the end of the 3 years? I really do wonder. While I can agree that it is quite good to have that term so general as a member of the public or as a member of the Government and the Opposition I wonder how on earth this commission will ever be measured. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to spend a bit of time looking at schedule 2 of this bill because that is the schedule that talks about how the commissioners will be appointed. In particular clause 1(2)(b) states that the Minister: “may only appoint a person who in the Minister’s opinion has appropriate skills and experience to assist the Commission to perform its functions;”. That is “in the Minister’s opinion”—a Minister who told us just a few minutes ago in this debate that marriage was a recent phenomenon. In fact history shows that it goes back between 2000 and 4000 years to the beginning of time. 
I really worry about this Minister. The other day at a conference he stated: “I know of no social science that says a nuclear family is more successful than other kinds.” He claims to have been a sociologist in his past academic career before he came into Parliament but I would like to quote now from a piece that appeared in the  
New York Times 
 from a professor of sociology who stated: “Yet in three decades of work as a social scientist I know of few other bodies of data in which the weight of evidence is so decisively on the side of the issue. On the whole for children two-parent families are preferable.” 
This is a Minister who will be the judge of who can be a commissioner. United Future members might have one set of ideas about what the commissioners will do but this Minister has another. This is a Government that funded research some time ago that was meant to prove why teenage pregnancy is good for girls. I remember questioning it at the time. Clause 1(2)(d) of schedule 2 provides that when the Minister appoints a person as commissioner he or she must take into account “the desirability of promoting diversity in the membership of Crown entities.” In other words it will not be the best people for the job; it will be the politically correct view of who should be appointed as commissioners. It will be whether they match in with the Labour Government’s agenda of making sure that it has diversity in the public service when what most New Zealanders want to see in any role in Government or the bureaucracy is people appointed because they are the best for the job. 
I would like to look at clause 8 which talks about how commissioners can be removed. I have to tell any potential commissioners out there to be very cautious because clause 8(1) provides that: “The Minister may at any time and for any reason that in the Minister’s opinion justifies the removal remove a member from office by written notice to the member.” It can be done with as little formality as possible. If the Minister does not like what the commissioner is saying doing or writing then he or she can remove the commissioner without any recompense or comeback at all. There is no compensation for removal from office. In other words the commissioners are appointed by the Minister at the Minister’s behest and they can be removed at any time by the Minister. 
One of the core reasons why our party would not be supporting this bill even if we did think it was a good idea is that the commissioners will be appointed solely by the Minister. They will be the type of people who will do what the Minister wants them to do and who will go along with his agenda. If at any time they start to stray and get into issues that most New Zealanders would think that they should be looking at and working on and the Minister does not like it because it is not part of his politically correct agenda he can just remove them. They will not have any recompense at all. It would be very good for the Minister to take a call right now just to tell members about those two things. It sounds pretty much like a dictatorship with the Minister Mr Maharey as the complete and utter controller of this commission. 
Maybe there are more checks and balances in there. I know that when the select committee looked at this bill we did not go into this part of it in a great deal of detail. Are there rights that the commissioners have so that the Minister cannot come out of the blue and say: “I do not like what you are doing or what you are saying. You have got to go.”? I would like to know whether there are safeguards in there for those commissioners. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 173 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Procedure 
The Chairperson reported the bill without amendment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 86 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; United Future 8. 
Noes 30 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Report adopted. 
Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 20 November. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and speak to the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill if only to say that National opposes it and that it has been a complete waste of time. There are other things about Radio New Zealand that deserve attention and what this bill seeks to do will not aid Radio New Zealand one iota in its bid to get its share of the listening audience. Although the bill is a small one it is taking up the time of the House when it ought not to do so. 
The bill seeks to amend the charter through first of all amending the principal Act by adding the words “spiritual and ethical” after the word “cultural” in the expression “... contribute towards intellectual scientific and cultural development promote informed debate and stimulate critical thought” and so on and so forth that currently appears in the charter. So the bill seeks to add to the provision of programmes two other traits: spiritual and ethical ones. It also seeks to extend the purview of Radio New Zealand’s programming so that somehow it can cater to the full range of age groups. I guess that means children as well as adults. Section 7(2) of the principal Act is also amended by adding paragraphs that seek to have Radio New Zealand commission surveys first of those who listen to it and second of persons who are not members of its current audience. In one respect that is fair enough but as I said in my opening statement this bill is a waste of the House’s time. Radio New Zealand to date has failed to deliver on the existing charter yet this bill seeks to amend the charter by putting more obligations in it. 
National opposes the bill for those reasons and asks questions along the following lines. First of all we are all very much aware that at the time the bill was introduced into the House earlier in the year we had all witnessed—because it had become very public—in Radio New Zealand an organisation that was completely dysfunctional. Back in February of this year a report was commissioned from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu to look into management and other issues that had surfaced in Radio New Zealand. It was found that Radio New Zealand’s staff were at breaking point. They were in despair over budget cuts and associated woes and there was a high staff turnover. The newsroom was at breaking point. There was the issue of the treatment of Sean Plunket. When one thinks about the fact that the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill seeks to insert a provision in the Act for the radio station to cater to the ethical needs of New Zealand one wonders why the Government showed no concern about the way that prominent broadcaster was being treated. There was also the issue of Ms Snowdon who had to use any means by which she could make her concerns about Radio New Zealand known. There were budget blowouts and the board was asking for more money. 
It was in that context and with a declining listenership that the Minister introduced this bill earlier in the year. Now he is persisting with it yet nothing that has happened during the year—this is confirmed by my colleagues who were part of the financial review of the organisation earlier this year—suggests that things have turned round at Radio New Zealand. That is not good enough. More criteria are being introduced as to the way the organisation should— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The bill before us is the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. Public radio under its current charter is required to provide programmes that contribute to intellectual scientific and cultural development and this bill adds a spiritual and an ethical dimension to the charter. I have to ask whose ethics and whose spiritual beliefs they will be. That is such a wide wide brief there is no way in the world in my view that any State broadcaster could fulfil that function. However no doubt if this bill passes into law we will see how that pans out. The bill also adds a responsibility to provide programmes that cater for a full range of age groups. The big listening audience in New Zealand I understand is the younger age group: 18 to 40-year-olds. How Radio New Zealand caters for that age group is obviously its big challenge. The Government now sees fit to make that a requirement of the charter. How can it cater for littlies—who knows? 
This Government is intent on imposing more requirements in the charter when quite frankly from the Opposition’s point of view Radio New Zealand has failed to deliver on the charter requirements that it has in any event. [ 
Interruption 
] Gosh that was lucky. A Minister has just come into the House— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not refer to the absence of a Minister. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Of course the context within which the Minister seeks to pass this bill into law is that Radio New Zealand has struggled over recent years to hold its share of the listening public. Its operations have been characterised by governance and management issues. There has been something close to what one newsperson earlier in the year described as internecine warfare with staffing and personnel issues that have shown the organisation to be dysfunctional and chaotic. I do not know whether anybody is confident at all that much has been done to correct that—other than that there is now a new chief executive for Radio New Zealand. 
I want to comment now on the new chief executive. Hopefully Peter Cavanagh an Australian will somehow be able to lift Radio New Zealand to the place it ought to have. We must remember that the listening public is spoilt for choice. We have a marketplace that is saturated with commercial radio. Peter Cavanagh’s task—and he certainly seems to have the background for it—will be to lift the listenership and to make sure that Radio New Zealand is a broadcaster whose proper place in the broadcasting scene can be found and confirmed. The charter requirements that are added in this bill will not help his job but nonetheless we will see how he along with the board will deliver on those requirements. Hopefully Peter Cavanagh will get the basics right first and make sure that the funding this broadcaster has is funding it can live with and that it is able to ensure that its management issues are properly resolved. 
This bill tries to cater to everybody and to be all things to all people. That is typical of this Government but it will not work. It is also typical of this Government that it seeks to impose its politically correct views on the public. Hopefully that is not what is envisaged in this bill. In any event as I said earlier the bill is a waste of this House’s time. The Government ought to have made sure that the broadcaster delivered on its charter requirements as they were without imposing more requirements—as this bill does. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. We refused to support the changes to the charter through the Statutes Amendment Act because that Act is meant to be used for issues that are non-controversial. Even though the bill is only a very short piece of legislation its size does not mean that it is not non-controversial. In fact there are a lot of changes in the bill—changes to the charter—that are loaded words and a lot of members in the House have already gone over those. I say again that we are not supporting a situation where an undefined instruction can become a licence to use money raised from taxpayers to promote religious and ethical beliefs. Those beliefs should be obliged to compete in the marketplace of ideas on their own merits using the resources provided by their supporters. 
Private radio in New Zealand already caters well for spiritual and ethical beliefs in terms of radio stations like Radio Rhema and others. If we want to save public broadcasting in this country we have to ensure that public broadcasting is exactly that—that is broadcasting for the public not broadcasting for the Government of the day whatever that Government might be. The level of bias against Radio New Zealand has been made a number of times in terms of State radio—Government-owned radio—being pro-interventionist. We very rarely hear voices of market liberals and voices of non-interventionists on Government radio in this country. 
When the current Minister of Broadcasting took up his position in September 2002 he said that he wanted Radio New Zealand to be “an exciting and compulsive listening piece of our media.” Since then a survey of Radio New Zealand listeners—people who listen for 8 minutes or more in one week—has shown that the proportion of listeners has gone down 6 percent and the proportion of listeners to Concert FM has decreased by 10 percent. 
This Minister has allowed Radio New Zealand to settle for mediocrity. He has allowed Radio New Zealand to set its target at 90 percent of the previous year’s target. 
That has been authorised by the Minister. If Radio New Zealand were a private organisation its shareholders would be crying for blood but what can the shareholders in New Zealand do about it? They can do nothing. 
The State should be secular. We are going down a dangerous path in this country where we are using taxpayers’ money to promote religious and ethical beliefs. They are not minor amendments. For instance the Government wants to extend the audience to a full range of age groups. Obviously the Minister wants to compete also with youth radio in the general market in the private sector—which is already well catered for by the private sector. I ask the Minister how he will cater to the youth market. There is no need to use taxpayers’ money to promote the youth market. We have only to look at George FM in Auckland—[ 
Interruption 
] Well those members over there can laugh but that is the regard with which they hold taxpayers in this country. 
George FM was started in a garage in Ponsonby by people with very few resources and now it captures a lot of the market share in Auckland. No taxpayers’ money was needed at all. As the proportion of listeners to Radio New Zealand plummets the board goes to the Government for more money. 
 They asked for $3 million last time from the select committee. There is not enough accountability. As I said if we want to save public broadcasting in this country we need to have a hard look at the situation. This legislation is just a further nail in the coffin for public broadcasting. It is politically correct legislation. It introduces relativism in terms of promoting ethical development. What is “ethical development”? “Ethical development” means different things to all sorts of people. If we look in one dictionary— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just tell the members on my right that running commentaries are out of order as per Speakers’ rulings 51/5. If they want to make a speech they can do so next time. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: If we look at the dictionary meaning of “ethical development” one of the meanings is “professional standards of conduct”. 
At the Minister’s talkfest last week the chief executive of Government radio referred to Rupert Murdoch in her speech as “the great Satan” of the media. Are those professional standards from an organisation that should be neutral and unbiased? When one says: “commercial radio—four legs bad”; State radio—two legs good” that is not a good use of taxpayers’ money. 
What else were we told at this Government-sponsored talkfest? The chief executive officer—when she was talking about Murdoch “the great Satan”—said: “Do you want to be left with half the facts?” I would argue that private radio stations in this country adhere more to the charter that is set out for Radio New Zealand than Government radio does. If you go to the press gallery and you talk to people from Global News— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member please not bring the Chair into the debate. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I beg your pardon. If one goes to the press gallery and does a quick survey of interviews done by Global News and Sport it does more in terms of giving the voices of dissent than do the other State radio things. 
It is not just me who says this. Listen to what Dr Geoff Lealand said. He is the Associate Professor of Screen and Media Studies at Waikato University. He said that he is a National Radio listener but that it does not surprise him any more. National Radio does not challenge him. It does not supply him with a range of dissenting opinions. He said: “Concert FM is dull and doesn’t speak to New Zealanders at all. On National Radio there’s a divide between the mornings when you do sometimes get people asking interesting questions and the afternoons”. That is from someone who knows what he is talking about. 
I finish by saying that ACT opposes this legislation. There are past board members of Radio New Zealand who oppose this legislation. Dr Denis Dutton and Dr John Isles said that Radio New Zealand had lost its professional standards and lost its neutrality and when the Minister of Broadcasting used a Radio New Zealand staff function in May this year to sympathise with staff that they had “every reason to feel nervous bullied and uncertain under the previous administration” one really has to question the neutrality and whether there is ministerial interference in the State broadcaster. ACT opposes this bill. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill. It is a short bill and correspondingly I will keep my comments brief. 
The bill covers three aspects of Radio New Zealand’s operations and is the result of the Commerce Committee review of the Radio New Zealand charter—the same committee that has just considered its recommendations in the form of this bill. Those three main aspects on which I will comment briefly are: amendments to the charter to encourage Radio New Zealand to contribute towards New Zealand’s spiritual and ethical development; amendments that require Radio New Zealand to feature programmes that provide for varied interests including now a full range of age groups; and finally the last amendment of substance requires Radio New Zealand to survey annually not just its existing audience but also attitudes amongst those who do not presently listen to Radio New Zealand. 
A lot of members have commented on how woolly some of these charter prescriptions are. They are really an acknowledgment of aspects of our lives other than just the material. We have heard that broadcasting should be for the public. Well the public do have spiritual views and they have ethical views and these ought to be represented in a charter. They are not particularly prescriptive. It is not a device to try to push a particular view—religious or otherwise—but to embrace a diversity that we all share. 
Earlier in the year the United Future caucus received a submission from the Churches Broadcasting Commission seeking our support for the provision that requires Radio New Zealand to provide programmes that contribute towards the spiritual and ethical development of our society. We are happy to do that. As I say it is a fairly woolly sort of description but it caters for the fact that we have other than materialistic interests in life. However the commission went on to say how disappointed it was that such provisions could not have been replicated in the recently enacted TVNZ charter. I point out to those members of the Churches Broadcasting Commission and other similar groups that such provisions were eventually incorporated into TVNZ’s new charter. The amendment to the Radio New Zealand charter therefore largely brings some consistency in terms of programming requirements for these two publicly owned broadcasting media. 
Clause 3(2) requires Radio New Zealand to provide programming that caters to a full range of age groups. It is particularly pleasing that this provision is included as it will ensure that Radio New Zealand provides programming that is specific to children listeners and not just to the elderly. There are some problems in its enactment as far as I see in that we have to be much more responsive to public need. We are—as has been mentioned—well catered for in a lot of the other age groups as well. In trying to appeal to those age groups the charter covers one of the things that public broadcasting is supposed to do which is to appeal to all New Zealanders. 
One of the ongoing issues on which we have sought resolution is the issue of accountability by Radio New Zealand to its public. We believe that we are entitled to greater information not just about the quality and type of programming but also about the greatest indicator of how well Radio New Zealand is or is not doing its job—in other words audience share. This bill requires Radio New Zealand to survey both its audience and its non-audience so that it might delineate the wishes of the rest of the radio-listening public provide for their interests and attract new listeners accordingly. This amendment is commendable. However we are severely disappointed that the committee has remained too timid to deal with the real issues surrounding Radio New Zealand’s surveys—that is its refusal to participate in the neutral sector surveys that determine actual audience share for all radio stations. It should compete on a level playing field. 
Commissioned in 2002 by Radio New Zealand an ACNielsen survey found that one in five radio listeners listen to either National Radio or Concert FM. It would be very interesting to see whether a comparison with the monthly commercial radio surveys showed a consistent listenership of Radio New Zealand but we do not know this because Radio New Zealand has decided not to take part in the industry’s standard surveys. I have to question why not. I know that this issue is essentially an operational one and I am aware there were some practical reasons for Radio New Zealand choosing not to take part in the comparative survey but if a select committee can go as far as to specify that Radio New Zealand must undertake annual surveys of its audience—of a quantitative and qualitative nature—then it would have been easier to specify that Radio New Zealand takes part in regular industry-wide radio audience surveys. It is disappointing that the committee has not addressed this. I think Radio New Zealand will continue to kid itself about its true level of public support until it faces reality and subjects itself to the scrutiny of the regular industry-wide surveys. 
United Future will be lobbying the Government to require Radio New Zealand to do this. That is part of the accountability process. In the meantime I commend the bill to the House. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. I think it is good legislation and as many of my parliamentary colleagues would say if they ever had any doubts about it the comments from the previous ACT speaker would convince them that their position must be correct. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish also to rise in support of this bill and wholly support Mr Benson-Pope’s comments about the ACT member whose remarks I thought were quite amazing at this particular stage. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The National Party is opposed to this legislation. We are opposed because of its intention. Some of our previous speakers have already spoken about the fact that it smacks of Government interference. One of the things that have been good about Radio New Zealand is that it has generally been a non-political organisation. I have to say there has been the odd occasion when there has been a suggestion that there may have been some political involvement. But in the main it has been fair to say that Radio New Zealand has endeavoured to conduct itself in a non-political way and has represented the views of its listeners and New Zealand generally. But what we are worried about is the way in which this bill now changes the charter and possibly allows for some political direction. If that were to be an outcome of this legislation it would be a sad and a bad thing. 
One of the neat things about this democracy and this country is that—while obviously here in Parliament we play politics because that is what we do—bureaucracy generally is apolitical although I have some worries about that as well. It certainly implements policy that is set down by the Government of the day and so it should because that is its role but to a large degree—although as I say there is some suggestion that that is changing a little—the bureaucracy has been apolitical. 
While one can poke the finger at some of the media from time to time in the main it is fair to say that the media tries to be balanced. Mr Assistant Speaker from time to time you and I and others in this Parliament may well have a different point of view on some of the utterances that we read and see and some of the television shots that are taken but in the main there is a degree of fairness. Certainly the media would suggest that it tries to be fair. 
We are worried that the way in which this bill introduces things such as spiritual and ethical needs leads one to wonder exactly what that means and whether that allows an avenue for a Government or in particular a Minister to have some political direction through the board and to the manager of Radio New Zealand. If that were to be an outcome I think it would be a sad day for us. It is not the sort of thing that we want to see in our country quite honestly. We need to have the media giving the public an unbiased view so that the public can make a rational decision. That has been the strength of our democracy. Indeed it is one of the reasons that New Zealand is such a free place and our country—as the Speaker of our House said tonight at a function—has a very proud and honourable record of not having any corruption within our Parliament within our ministries and amongst our Ministers. There has been no history of it and long may that remain. 
We need to take care when we are working through legislation such as this that we do not end up causing the thin end of the wedge to start as a consequence of political involvement in things where the Government does not need to be. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 11 November. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 When I was first speaking in this debate some weeks ago I referred to the fact that cervical cancer is one of the most preventable of all cancers but that as a nation we do need to reduce the number of women who die each year as a result of cervical cancer. I talked about how the screening programme was not a 100 percent accurate diagnostic programme and in fact that it was heavily reliant upon the role of evaluators to keep the programme safe and reliable for all New Zealand women. So who are these essential evaluators? They are fully qualified health professionals who are subject to all the constraints and requirements of other health professionals. They are in reality the second opinion that can double-check the records of those most at risk to ensure their safety. 
I am hugely concerned about the alarmist communication regarding the privacy of primary-health records. Women’s health advocates would be more credible if they fully investigated exactly what is proposed in this regard before scaremongering. General practitioner records are already audited without the permission of patients as part of the professional review process of general practitioners. The evaluators of this programme will be health professionals who can be disciplined by their own disciplinary board if information is misused. Of the tens of thousands of women on the programme several hundred may be uplifted for evaluation purposes. I have been told that there is something like a 0.03 percent chance of having one’s files checked if one has no abnormality on one’s smear and a slightly higher chance if abnormalities are present. So the choice is between privacy and health safety and I urge those contributing to the debate to be wise about being alarmist and possibly contributing to the failure of this programme which is absolutely essential to the health outcomes of New Zealand women. 
The Health Committee weighed this issue extremely carefully. Even in the last little while cross-party meetings have been facilitated by the Minister to get last-minute concerns addressed. Such actions have demonstrated a commitment to make this legislation work and to ensure that women’s lives are saved from this very treatable disease. 
In conclusion I commend all my colleagues on the select committee for working so well and in a truly parliamentary way on this vital screening programme. In that regard I specifically mention the chair Steve Chadwick Dr Lynda Scott and Heather Roy who bring essential experience as health professionals. They have been extremely solutions-focused. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill was originally intended to apply to all screening programmes. In this country there has been a lot a controversy about the national cervical-screening programme but that controversy belies the fact that the screening programme has markedly reduced the death rate from cervical cancer in this country. A few years ago five people died per 100000 and now it is 3.9 percent. So we have reduced mortality. I will explain what happens with cervical screening. When a woman has her first cervical smear or Pap smear she is enrolled in the programme. It is called an opt-off programme because women do not get consent at the beginning to opt on to the programme. The woman receives a huge amount of information and can choose to opt off. If she stays on the programme she will get automatic recalls. Then her information is stored on a database. Her slides become part of the programme and if that woman develops cancer there is a need for a retrospective audit to determine the process that occurred and whether the screening programme is actually working effectively. 
In Gisborne we became aware of under-reporting of cervical cancer by one person who was doing some reading of pathology slides. The McGoogan report on the under-reporting of cervical smear abnormalities in Gisborne made very clear what needed to happen to achieve a gold standard system for a screening programme. But this is where we experience a problem because this bill has now been limited to dealing with cervical cancer and just the cervical-screening programme not all other programmes. We have a situation whereby women in this country have a real concern about their privacy and the privacy of their data. That concern generates from a past history in this country of lack of informed consent. That arose from the Cartwright inquiry into the practices of Herbert Green in Auckland whereby women were randomised to either have treatment for their cervical cancer or not to have treatment but they were never asked. It was never recognised that he was doing an actual study and that he was differentiating between two groups. Because of the Cartwright inquiry there is a very strong feeling amongst women in this country that their personal information and their right to consent and privacy need to be respected. That is an issue of debate in terms of this bill. 
Members will have heard speakers from National talking about their concerns that the Health Committee has recommended that there be access to primary-care records. Judy Turner mentioned that the committee has been having ongoing cross-party talks on this matter because we want to get it right. Everybody in the House—this is not a political issue—wants to get this screening programme right and I am absolutely dedicated to that. We have had these discussions and I have to say right now that National will support the second reading but with reservations. We want to see amendments in the Committee stage. If we do not see those amendments then we reserve our right to not vote for this bill at the Committee stage and not vote for it at the third reading. We are waiting to see the Supplementary Order Paper and we will have ongoing discussions about what needs to happen. 
The select committee has said that in order for a screening programme to do an appropriate audit it must be able to not only look back on hospital files but also look at primary-care records. However the concern is that when auditors are flicking through primary-care records they will see a whole lot of other confidential information that is a matter between a general practitioner and his or her patient. We have been having some discussions about that issue. There is a means of dealing with that whereby a general practitioner will supervise any access to those records. The New Zealand Medical Association is happy with this change. That means that general practitioners can limit the auditors to looking at just the information they need because there must be adequacy of privacy for that information. So that is one aspect we have discussed and we want to see that change in the Supplementary Order Paper. 
We also want the one million New Zealand women on the screening programme to be provided with information about what will happen as a result of the changes that have been made to the legislation. They must be told that the personal information in their primary-care records will now be able to be accessed. If they wish to opt off the programme at that point they must be told there is a clear process by which they can do that. We know that some women will opt off because they will not want anyone else to have access to their primary-care records. But we have great hope that those women will have confidence in the programme confidence that the medical practitioners will supervise any access confidence that the evaluators will not have the ability to just randomly look at any information and confidence that they will use that information only for the purposes of evaluation and audit. That assurance is needed for an appropriate screening programme. 
Although this bill is limited to cervical screening we hope it will be a template for the development of other public health legislation for screening programmes like mammography which is currently an opt-on programme. We will then have better uptake of that programme and will be able to save the lives of more women in this country. 
In the select committee we looked at the factors involved in setting up and running a screening programme. We looked at the laboratories. They are audited and credentialed and that is something we had to have. We did not have that back in the early 1990s. We know that looking for abnormal cells down a microscope is not an exact science and that is the problem. People sometimes think that it is just so obvious but looking for abnormal cells is like looking for a needle in a haystack. It is extremely important that we know there will be competency in those who are taking the smears and those who are reading them. Laboratories now have to look at a certain number of smears in order to keep up their competency each year. We hope the demands and requirements of private laboratories in this country are also applied to public hospitals. I have been hearing a few disturbing scenarios lately that exemptions are being made for public hospitals but not for private ones. If this turns out to be the case it is not acceptable. Public and private hospitals have to have the same standard of quality assurance and competence. The ability of laboratories to be able to do a good job is also essential. 
The Health (Cervical Screening (Kaitiaki) Regulations are going to stay the same as they were. That is one of the plans. There was quite a lot of debate about the fact that information relating to Maori women can be used. It can be used as long as it goes through the committee that has been set up to govern the release of that information and how it will be used. 
We heard from people like Professor David Skegg and he was very keen that we get a gold standard system; that the quality assurance programmes will actually deliver the best possible screening programme for New Zealand women. We had discussions with the Minister of Health. Originally she had wanted to have access to primary-care records. After the release of a discussion document a lot of submissions came in and it was clear that many many women did not want that. Therefore this has been a very debated and contentious issue. 
As I have said National does want to see changes during the Committee stage. We want those commitments put down in a Supplementary Order Paper and in writing and we reserve our right at that time to change our vote if we are not satisfied with those amendments. But tonight we will be supporting the second reading. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to thank the previous speaker for her voice of reason that was incredibly important to have around the table when the Health Committee listened to expert advice and ministry advice and also all the submissions on this bill. I would also like to thank Judy Turner and Heather Roy who put a different perspective into this bill. All of us had one shared concern and that is to develop very robust cervical-screening legislation. I think we have run into a few problems since— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. It has just been drawn to my attention that the member has already spoken on this piece of legislation and is therefore unable to do so on this occasion. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill name changed to Health (National Cervical Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill. 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That Air New Zealand Limited be a public organisation for the purposes of the Standing Orders.  
This is a relatively simple motion. It is in response to a number of concerns raised by a number of members of the House. I think particularly Peter Dunne raised this issue most clearly at the first instance since the Government took a substantial controlling interest in Air New Zealand. Nevertheless because Air New Zealand has not been a public organisation for the purposes of the Standing Orders it has not been possible for the select committee and indeed Parliament as a whole to have a proper examination of the way in which the Crown shareholding is being operated within Air New Zealand and related matters. 
So for the purpose effectively of Standing Orders 329 330 and 334 which deal with financial review processes in particular this motion means that Air New Zealand becomes a public organisation for the purposes of those Standing Orders. That means the annual report is tabled and that annual report stands referred to the committee conducting a financial review of the performance of the organisation. Also that report and the matters contained therein is part of the annual debate on the performance of Crown entities public organisations and State enterprises. I think members will appreciate that this will be a little bit different from dealing with a State-owned enterprise or a Crown entity where the Government has a 100 percent shareholding because the interests of minority shareholders will mean that probably there will be a somewhat different approach required on the part of the organisation itself. It is those interests—the minority interests of shareholders—that also have to be protected. 
But certainly speaking personally as the Minister who holds the shares on behalf of the Government it is perfectly appropriate that I should be subject to scrutiny by the select committee if required in terms of the way in which that shareholding itself has been exercised. Of course I would issue a prudent warning to all members that as a shareholder I am bound by the Companies Act the Securities Act and various other things and people may wish to ask me questions about matters that I cannot possibly be held responsible for. Indeed if I made myself responsible I would be in breach of statute and find myself a deemed director. So I simply suggest to members that if they wish to ask why they have not got more flights from their home centre to Wellington the standard of food or the lack of it these days on Air New Zealand or other matters I am afraid those are very much management matters and not matters that the shareholding Minister can be held responsible for. Indeed the Minister is specifically debarred from being involved in those sorts of matters much to my regret since the Monday morning flight from Napier is usually the one that most gets delayed in order to allow the 737s to land from Christchurch and Auckland at the same time. 
Stephen Franks 
: Explain this to your junior whip. She does not know what shareholders do and what directors do! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure my junior whip does but of course she is not a shareholding Minister. Therefore she is not subject to the same constraints as the shareholding Minister is in this respect. There is a certain sense in which when one becomes a shareholding Minister certain parts of one’s political anatomy are caught so to speak—cut off—and one finds oneself with a somewhat higher register in approaching these matters than other members of Parliament. 
So I commend the motion to the House. I think it is an important move that Parliament is able to scrutinise the activities of Air New Zealand in this respect and indeed of the role of the Government as an 83 percent shareholder in the company. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting this motion but only so that we can get a little bit more information about the way in which the Government has structured its investment in Air New Zealand and also so that we can formally state now that this is the final act in the renationalisation of Air New Zealand. Effectively as of tonight Air New Zealand becomes a State entity and therefore subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. That is not necessarily good for New Zealand and we will be watching very carefully through the processes now available to us just how Air New Zealand is structuring and restructuring itself bearing in mind that the assumption would be now that it has a strong level of social responsibility as all other State-owned enterprises have under the current Government—something that we do not necessarily agree with but in terms of this motion we are very pleased that there is an opportunity now to scrutinise its activities. 
In that regard I hope the Government relations people inside Air New Zealand are listening and take the strong message that they now deal with Parliament not the Government exclusively and that they need to change the way they have been dealing with the Opposition over the past 2 to 3 years. The idea that they are not accountable in any way for taxpayers’ funds to members who sit in Opposition should go out of the window. This motion should completely disabuse them of that notion and they should start engaging with us as soon as possible so that we can have meaningful financial reviews and scrutiny of the company. Otherwise of course we just get into the very unseemly exercise of dragging the chief executive and chairman before a select committee on an annual basis giving them a pretty severe grilling putting them in a position where frankly they will not be able to answer some questions and to the public they will look somewhat incompetent in the way they are running the airline. 
I do not think there is much point in hammering on too long about this tonight. We know that when the Hon Michael Cullen stands up and moves one of these motions in a mumbling fashion there is a lot more to it than he wishes the general public to understand. This is the final act of renationalisation of Air New Zealand and it is a message to the board of Air New Zealand to change its style and start dealing with Parliament on a much more equitable basis. That is now a requirement put upon the company by the taxpayer who through Michael Cullen holds those shares. 
We could go on at some length if we chose about the activities of Air New Zealand over the last 12 months. I do not think that serves a lot of purpose here other than to say we will be most interested in how the company treats the proposal from Virgin Blue Airlines to enter the New Zealand market. 
 It would be nice in Opposition to know whether it is true that it has taken particular steps to prevent Virgin Blue taking a holding in the Auckland airport and are effectively holding up the introduction of a further competitive service on our airways. Because of the complete disregard for the Opposition by Air New Zealand over the last period of time we have no idea whether that rumour is true. We simply have to take on face value that it is probably the way it has been operating. For a State entity to behave like that is not acceptable and we would expect there to be some answers to us on that issue and many others certainly sometime prior to Christmas. 
On that note I indicate that we will support this motion. We do not believe that the nationalisation of Air New Zealand is a good thing but while there is in excess of $800 million of taxpayer capital committed to this company in the interim we think that it is appropriate it answers to the whole of Parliament. I restate that I hope Air New Zealand is getting that message as well. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this motion. The issue of Air New Zealand becoming a public organisation is one that we have raised with Dr Cullen in the past. We are pleased he has responded in this way to our requests. It is vitally important that a company that has so much taxpayers’ money invested in it with over 80 percent public ownership receives parliamentary scrutiny. The accountability mechanisms of Air New Zealand were an issue that we raised with the Auditor-General over a year ago and as a consequence we support Air New Zealand becoming a public organisation for the purposes of the Standing Orders. It is however a shame that the Government is not prepared to do the same thing with the Overseas Investment Commission so that we can give it the scrutiny it also deserves. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First also supports the Government’s stance on this issue. We are very pleased that Air New Zealand will be recognised as a public organisation for the purposes of the Standing Orders. We believe it is timely that this organisation comes before Parliament and is subjected to political scrutiny by a select committee. New Zealanders are very proud of Air New Zealand very proud indeed. When New Zealanders get on board the airline in places like London or Los Angeles they immediately feel it is part of being at home. I know I feel that myself. When I came back from London a few months ago and I boarded an Air New Zealand aircraft it was like being back in New Zealand. 
Simon Power 
: Did customs frisk you? 
PETER BROWN 
: No but customs did frisk my wife as we left New Zealand. Anyone who has nothing to be fearful of should not be afraid of the Customs Service. I tell the member that because he might need a little bit of enlightening on that aspect. 
Air New Zealand has a tremendous reputation when it comes to safety and service. In terms of safety it has had some unfortunate moments but one has to admire the positive way it reacts to addressing those issues. In terms of service I do not think there is an airline that can match it. There is certainly none that can beat it. However when it comes to the business side of Air New Zealand it has a rather chequered past. It was sold and it had a disastrous arrangement for want of a better term with Ansett Australia and that almost brought Air New Zealand to its knees. The Government rightly so in the opinion of New Zealand First bought the airline back. We were pleased that it did that and we are absolutely pleased it is now inclined to make this organisation a public organisation for the purposes of the Standing Orders. 
Unlike the Greens who want to claim credit for just about everything we recognise that it is a move by Dr Cullen probably in particular and the Government and we are supportive of this initiative. There is not a great deal more to say except to add that it seems to me that this will go through the House with a degree of if not total support certainly a high level of support from all politicians from all parties. New Zealand First supports this Government motion. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This motion that Air New Zealand be a public organisation for the purpose of the Standing Orders is a sort of motherhood motion. It is the kind of move that is very difficult for a parliamentarian to criticise because of course we like to think that the scrutiny we give to any organisation is very necessary and we want to be proud of our sniffing for abuse of resources looking for waste and for corruption. 
However this is actually an abject admission of failure. This is the last stage in recording that this has become a renationalised public asset or liability. The $800 million that was first put in is just the start. I have forgotten but I think there has already been another $140 million since then. If the board of Air New Zealand is to be believed and if the Minister is to be believed this is not a viable airline unless it is allowed to go and sell itself to Qantas. If they are to be believed this will end up as the New Zealand Parliament sniffing around the skirts of an Australian-controlled organisation and trying to understand the strategy implemented by an Australian-dominated board. 
The New Zealand board at present may protest that it will not be so and that it will be some kind of alliance. Anyone with commercial experience knows when a minnow and a giant get together in a so-called partnership who ends up calling the shots. 
This is sad also because of the pathetic way in which commercial organisations get scrutinised by Parliament. We are politicians. When we look at State-owned enterprises and at companies we do not give the credit for the mistakes that have to be made. Any constructive business will make many mistakes. Any constructive business will incur many losses. Any constructive business will run all sorts of risks that politicians do not know about and never want to run. 
With political scrutiny of a business one gets the focus on the things that went wrong—the stuff-ups—whereas commercial scrutiny of a business focuses on what the outcome was. Did the company make money? Overall were the risks that were incurred made worthwhile by the benefits that were achieved? For politicians those defending will simply try to point to the politically obvious high points those attacking will look for the errors the inevitable errors in a commercial operation and say that the risks have not been worthwhile. 
We will of course get the special pleading. We will get Mark Peck complaining that the number of flights to Invercargill is too small. We will undoubtedly get the Labour Party whip complaining about the service to Dunedin. We will get MPs who probably fly Air New Zealand who do not worry about whether their trip is useful because it is money going in a circle complaining about the temperature of the coffee. That is about the level that politicians can understand when they are dealing with business. That is about the only level that Labour Party members none of whom have ever made a buck or contributed to anyone’s wealth can use when they assess a commercial operation. 
 Of course it was that naivety that has ended with Parliament having to consider a motion like this. It was naivety that had the Government put in $800 million to bail out Brierley Investments when it could have picked up Air New Zealand for nothing; when it could have let it go to the wall which is what it said was about to happen and not paid a cent in goodwill to anyone and then have rescued it if that is what it thought had to be done the day after it had gone into receivership. 
But the political naivety and the embarrassment of the Minister after the Prime Minister had jerked the market around and breached the Securities Amendment Act with her insider trading and market manipulation! The Minister then of course had to rescue Air New Zealand because the Government could not afford to let the normal scrutiny take place which would have occurred if it had collapsed. 
We had the Minister throw $800 million of taxpayers’ money into Air New Zealand. Fortunately in commerce the Government still found some very good directors and a very good chairman who were prepared to give it a go but I am sure on the basis that they would run it as a commercial operation. 
The next step of course will be much more toady-like. When they have been through two or three sessions of the purported examination by a select committee and the useless debate that covers commercial issues in this House in the report back people like Ralph Norris and John Palmer will say that they have better things to do with their time. They will have better things to do with their time than to argue about the selection of aircraft and what sorts of influences have been brought to bear. 
This is an early stage of the return of “Stan the man”. Hardly anyone here would know what that refers to but he was the full-time lobbyist who used to ensure that Air New Zealand bought only Boeing. 
Dail Jones 
: I remember that. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Dail Jones would remember “Stan the man”. That is how airlines are run when Governments are involved in them. That is exactly the future. That is all he did and that is exactly where this airline is heading for. The minority shareholding in public may be a slight hurdle or a slight obstacle to the full-scale renationalisation and recorruption of an airline. The minority shareholders will be able to object when the Government starts to require that rugby league teams and netball teams be carried at reduced rates otherwise life will be hard in the select committee and otherwise appointments as directors will not be renewed. 
When the Government gets its finger into that kind of direction the minority shareholders will have a legitimate grievance but how will they know? They will be jerked around by the political requirements the Minister’s desire to look good and the so-called democratic—what is the other term used by Mr Brownlee? He talked not about public service or public good but used some buzz-phrase of the moment like “triple bottom line”; anything that measures a business other than on what it should be measured on—in other words whether it is getting a good return on assets running efficiently and whether the market is saying that those people are doing better with those assets than the next people would and avoiding takeover. 
Of course there will be an opportunity for people like the Greens who I know applaud this move—they will be able to ask why they are not using organically produced ethanol instead of kerosene whether GM-free food is in first class. They will have a wonderful time in this House looking at the really critical issues for Air New Zealand! We can see that. 
We might well have New Zealand First wondering whether the stewards are free from contamination in their overseas stops. Some of them might have been to a mosque; who knows! The really politically important issues will be covered in this House once Air New Zealand is back under the tender scrutiny of democratically elected representatives trying to pretend that they are business people. 
It really is strange how many wannabes one sees in the House; how delighted they are salivating at the thought of interrogating the upstarts who think they can run businesses better than the democrats from the left. Those people have never ever made any money to contribute. They have always been employees and now are so delighted to be back in control of an airline and so delighted to be able to play with the trains. 
It is odd how each time technology develops a new leading edge the State wants to get in there be able to fly around on it and put the logo on the tail. It is like the Minister of Police choosing the décor for police cars. I suspect that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises did manage to avoid dictating whether it would be Frodo or Bilbo on the Air New Zealand plane. But that degree of freedom for Air New Zealand will not last long. That degree of freedom for Air New Zealand will soon be seen as excessive by a Labour Government that is thoroughly enjoying getting back into throwing taxpayers’ funds into competing with the private sector. 
For companies like Origin Virgin and all those other airlines that will have to compete with the bottomless pocket of Air New Zealand they too will get drawn into the political process. They will have to organise all their commercial campaigns through Parliament. In other words our entire transport sector will get drawn into politics instead of business. To have that trumpeted by the Minister and applauded by the Greens and New Zealand First is an instance of how sad it all is. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will be supporting the motion that Air New Zealand Limited be a public organisation for the purposes of the Standing Orders. I believe that it was shortly after the bail-out of Air New Zealand following the collapse of its deal with Ansett and the injection of taxpayer funds into the airline to give it ongoing viability—a move that United Future like others strongly applauds because Air New Zealand is such an iconic part of the New Zealand commercial structure and an integral part of our tourism industry—that my colleague the Hon Peter Dunne first raised with the Government the matter of how we now make this organisation accountable in some way to the Parliament of New Zealand. The reality of course is that the airline is now under Government control and therefore Parliament does have responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers to scrutinise and review the stewardship of those funds. As Stephen Franks has mentioned Air New Zealand has a sound board and management. But like any other company it remains accountable to its shareholders who in this case are the people of New Zealand. Being a shareholder carries with it the responsibility of being a proprietor. That includes evaluation of the need for new capital and all the other issues that normally arise at the annual general meeting of a public company. It is very important that shareholders take their proprietorial responsibilities seriously. We have seen a lot of examples in the commercial world in recent times and throughout the corporate sector of many shareholders basically just regarding their share scrip as an investment in an organisation. They wipe their hands of its running and stand back from it sometimes with quite disastrous results. 
Stephen Franks made some interesting observations about the kind of tensions that this new arrangement might well bring to bear but I do not see an alternative for it. It is a step forward from the present situation where this company with its hundreds of millions of taxpayer investment is effectively accountable just to a single person—namely the shareholding Minister Michael Cullen. It is a step forward to say: “No the airline should be accountable to its shareholders who are the taxpayers of New Zealand through Parliament.” I think this is an evolutionary step. Personally I would like to see this thing evolve a lot further. For example we should give thought in due course to whether there is some way we could have a kind of annual general meeting whereby the other shareholders—and of course we have many thousands of private shareholders also in this airline in addition to the taxpayer—could be represented along with perhaps some representatives of this Parliament who would be there to represent the interests of the taxpayer. It is an interesting evolution. It is a new challenge for Parliament to manage through this process as it were or scrutinise through this process a public company that is not just 100 percent taxpayer owned. Continued taxpayer ownership of Air New Zealand will carry with it the obligation for new capital injections as the airline moves forward. For example this Parliament has set aside a further $150 million to go into Air New Zealand in the very near future. In our view that kind of occasion of capital injection certainly deserves parliamentary scrutiny. The short point is that this motion makes sense at this point in time and will have the support of United Future on that basis. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business of the House 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I note that the House is making very good progress tonight. I also note that on the Order Paper are a number of bills that have been lanquishing for some time. Most particularly I draw the attention of the House to items 16 and 18. Item 18 is the Taonga Maori Protection Bill which has been on the Order Paper for the entire time the Labour Party has been in Government—almost 5 years now—with no progress whatsoever being made. I seek leave that the House move to the Committee stage of that bill right now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 A similar bill the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill has made no progress in this House since February 2001. It stands in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs and it is a little inexplicable that a bill should sit unattended for so long on the Order Paper. It would seem that this is an ideal opportunity for the House to take the Committee stage of that bill and I seek leave for that to happen now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is. 
Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill be now read a second time 
. It is a great honour to read this speech out as someone who did a lot of work on a member’s bill on this matter and welcomed the introduction of this bill to the House. The further progress of this bill today brings us a step closer to the creation of a clean slate regime in New Zealand—a regime that finally gives people the chance to put their past mistakes behind them and to get on with their lives as law-abiding citizens without being subject to unfair discrimination and ongoing punishment. Such a scheme is long overdue in New Zealand. Contrary to what the critics of this legislation may claim this is not dangerous uncharted liberal territory. It is not soft law that will see armed robbers and sex offenders being employed as primary schoolteachers as the Opposition will try to make out. The scheme will allow people with minor convictions—ones that never resulted in a jail term—who have subsequently kept their noses clean for 7 years to lawfully conceal those convictions as they go about their day-to-day lives. 
Comparable schemes have been in operation in overseas jurisdictions including the UK and Australia for up to 30 years. The lack of such a scheme here has been the cause of extreme and in my view totally unnecessary anxiety and suffering for many ordinary hard-working and law-abiding New Zealanders who are haunted by the legacy of a very minor mistake they may have made many many years ago. Because they have had to disclose a criminal record they find themselves constantly being discriminated against by prospective employers by landlords and so on—despite having lived blameless lives for years or even decades since that offence. The punishment they experience for their entire lives is utterly disproportionate to the crime. 
Few issues have prompted so many heartfelt letters to the Minister and myself in the 4 years we have been in Government. I have had a letter— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Give us an example. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: —if Mr Brownlee would listen—from a 48-year-old grandmother who offended when she was 15 years old. She still feels she is treated like a criminal as a result of that. Another letter came from a man who committed a petty theft when he was 17 and is still followed by the stigma of his criminal record 55 years later. Another person was convicted of removing a roadworks sign 10 years ago. That was not a victimless or costless crime I concede but it is surely an act that a decade later we can forgive as a youthful prank that went too far. We have dozens of letters on this topic and they all tell similar stories of minor and deeply regretted mistakes that continue to punish their authors decades on. Many of those affected believe they have suffered discrimination in employment and elsewhere as a result of their criminal record and all of them feel the stigma of being branded as a criminal in public every time they are asked to disclose any prior criminal convictions. In those cases the punishment they experience quite simply does not fit the crime. 
This scheme is designed to help ordinary New Zealanders such as those people. It is not a scheme that gives free rein for serious or violent criminals to lie about their past. The qualifying hurdle is high by any standards—higher than in most similar overseas schemes. To qualify for clean slating firstly the conviction must not have resulted in a custodial sentence and secondly the person must have remained conviction free for 7 years. The conviction-free period of 7 years is a change from the provisions in the bill as introduced. Following discussion and public submissions the Justice and Electoral Committee decided to reduce the qualifying period from 10 years. The statistical evidence was that if people have a minor conviction and have not reoffended after 7 years they are unlikely ever to reoffend. There was therefore no reason to hold the conviction-free period at 10 years and I agree with that amendment. 
The non-custodial threshold for qualifying convictions is also a high hurdle. It is conservative in comparison with overseas schemes most of which allow for a sentence of 6 months or less in prison to qualify while some allow for convictions resulting in up to 30 months’ imprisonment to qualify. There are advantages in having such a clear threshold. Custodial sentences are generally used as a sentence of last resort for serious or recidivist offenders. Furthermore that is a clear line of eligibility that the public can easily understand. Any further conviction whether or not it results in a custodial sentence will mean that the individual is no longer eligible for a clean slate. Such a conviction will bring the concealed records back to light until such time as all the requirements are met once again. 
It is important to note that individuals with convictions for child sex offences will not be eligible for concealment irrespective of the sentence handed down. Most New Zealanders if they were sensible—unlike the Opposition—would agree that any child sex offence is a serious matter and for that reason should be exempt from concealment. 
The clean slate regime provides authorisation for those with qualifying convictions to conceal or not to be obliged to disclose those convictions when going about their day-to-day lives. They will effectively have a clean slate when seeking employment or accommodation applying for hire purchase arranging insurance and so on. The conviction will not have to be disclosed by the individual and it will be an offence for a person with access to criminal records to unlawfully disclose a concealed conviction. The official conviction record is retained however and may be used in specific exemption situations. The exemptions include accessing clean slate records for law enforcement investigations and in relation to particularly sensitive matters regarding certain types of employment such as employment in the care and protection of children or young persons or employment involving matters of national security. In those cases all convictions will be available to the prospective employer and must be disclosed by the applicant. We will also move a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to provide a further exemption allowing the police to examine clean slate convictions when considering applications under the Arms Act for firearms licences. 
It is unfortunately not possible for a clean slate regime to legally excuse New Zealanders from their obligation to disclose past convictions to overseas authorities while travelling or in overseas visa or immigration entry applications. A concealment regime can exempt New Zealanders from the normal obligations under New Zealand law in certain circumstances but it cannot exempt them from any other country’s law. Similarly clean slate regimes operating in overseas countries do not apply when those countries’ citizens arrive in New Zealand. That will be a source of disappointment to many people but it is not within the power of New Zealand’s Parliament to legislate for other countries’ disclosure requirements. Consistent with that reality the Government legislation enables New Zealand law enforcement agencies to disclose an individual’s full criminal record when requested to do so by equivalent overseas agencies for the purposes of investigation. That reciprocates the level of cooperation that our law enforcement agencies expect from overseas jurisdictions. 
I thank the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their work on this bill and on the member’s bill in the name of Nandor Tanczos which was considered alongside this bill. Mr Tanczos’ bill helped to provide impetus to this issue and raised valuable points of debate and discussion about how a clean slate regime would best be tailored for New Zealand. That debate has I think had a positive influence on the shape of this bill as reported from the committee. 
The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill will finally provide the means for many hundreds of New Zealanders to put their past behind them. Those who have lived blameless lives for many years should not be continually punished by the stigma of a past mistake being made public over and over again. This is not soft law nor is it a licence to lie. The thresholds are high and conservative by any standards and the scheme’s exceptions are justified and serve as safeguards. We look forward to the passage of the bill and the commencement in New Zealand of a clean slate regime. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is a privilege on behalf of National to indicate the position of the National Party in respect of this iniquitous legislation the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. A very good starting point on which to make preliminary comment is the statement made by the previous speaker that this scheme is to help “ordinary New Zealanders”. I say to Government members opposite that ordinary New Zealanders are not criminals. Ordinary New Zealanders do not require the protective provisions of this bill which the Government seems determined to pass. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What hypocrisy. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Clearly the member’s position is that ordinary New Zealanders are criminals. That is just flying in the face of reality. 
This bill has been the subject of very detailed consideration by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I would like to start off by highlighting what the impact of this legislation will be because it has some core elements that are central to the Government’s philosophies behind it. First of all the legislation enables criminal convictions to be concealed rather than wiped or expunged. A criminal record that is eligible for concealment must be protected from unlawful disclosure. Later I plan to develop the argument that it is wrong to call this bill a clean slate bill because the slate is not cleaned; the slate is temporarily concealed and it can re-emerge in the context of a range of circumstances discussed in the bill. 
Second the legislation is automatic in the sense that it does not require individuals to make an application to have their convictions clean-slated. If it were within the power of National we would be seeking to have a clean slate provision that did require application in individual cases. Third it is an all-or-nothing regime which means that an individual must meet all the criteria in order to become eligible—and a record of course can become unconcealed in the event of subsequent conviction. Next the legislation is question-based. It requires those with access to criminal records to treat questions about an eligible individual’s records in a manner that is consistent with the scheme. Finally it takes “criminal record” to mean official criminal record only which includes all material held about criminal records by Government agencies. 
The commentary on the bill includes National’s minority view—for National was a minority on this committee—and the starting point for our concern is that the legislation is based on mistaken political correctness. It is not in fact clean-slating as I have said; rather it is the concealment of convictions in limited cases. Such convictions may become disclosed in a number of circumstances. Not ruled out is the possibility of records maintained in private and media archives. I am certain this legislation will give impetus to a new business which will be the setting up of private records that will be accessible by those who have an interest in the criminal history of offenders and who can effectively subvert the purposes of this legislation by providing details from that archival material. Second convictions may become disclosed by the inadvertent disclosure or consent of the offender. There is no doubt that the legislation can be subverted in cases where for example in the context of an employment interview the interview is structured in a way that will lead to the offender believing he or she has no alternative but to disclose that prior criminal history. 
As the Minister has said the third aspect is that the bill does not deal with questions involving the laws of foreign countries—in particular customs and immigration questions. Those who seek to enter the United States as travellers for example will still have to answer correctly the question on the immigration documents that in the case of entrants to that country and to other countries asks: “Have you ever had a conviction for a criminal offence?”. So this bill sets up a regime whereby one can tell the truth and must tell the truth in the context of answering the questions of foreign agencies but has a warrant to lie in respect of questions asked in a New Zealand setting. Finally there are exceptions in relation to an offender seeking particular types of employment. Clearly the class of those employment opportunities has not been closed because tonight the Minister has indicated that a new exception will be created in respect of firearms licences and questions being asked under the Arms Act. 
I believe strongly there is a relevant public interest in knowing the criminal history of any person particularly in the context of employment. I take as an example my past occupation as a lawyer where there is a need to know when employing legal staff or staff who will be involved in aspects relating to the handling of money whether a person has convictions for dishonesty. Law is just one occupation where knowing that information is truly relevant to a decision to take a person into employment. This legislation could well create a situation whereby an offender may have multiple convictions of dishonesty and theft that have fallen short of a custodial sentence but does not have to disclose his or her criminal history. Most thinking New Zealanders would find that utterly unacceptable. 
The bill involves sanctioning a lie because an eligible individual may under clause 11(2) say that he or she has no criminal record. So the bill legitimises perjury and it legitimises breaches of the Oaths and Declarations Act. I am amazed that any Government that puts a premium on honesty and the need for transparency in process would contemplate legislation of this kind. 
Stephen Franks 
: They don’t. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: As an interjector has just commented that is not the hallmark of this Government at all. 
There is a case—and I would argue this strongly—for greater use to be made of the diversion scheme for minor offences so that young people facing criminal charges for minor offences do not carry what clearly is the stigma of a conviction. I would like to see the diversion scheme formalised in legislation in order to ensure consistency of application while preserving the necessary element of flexibility. It seems to me that the current diversion scheme tends to favour middle-class white youths. There is an unevenness in the application of the diversion scheme that could well do with codification and the establishing of more settled guidelines. There is also a case for legislation to contain provisions for true clean-slate applications to be made to the court in individual cases; so where an individual is having a particular problem and where the stigma of a conviction is truly working an injustice it may be possible in an individual case for that criminal conviction to be set aside. However it should not be on the basis on which this bill proceeds which is a blanket concealment of convictions. That is very much the essence of this bill. 
There are a number of issues of drafting and detail that need to await the Committee stage of the bill. I note as a point of interest that incorporated in the bill is a diagram that gives a general overview of eligibility under the clean slate scheme. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to strongly support the second reading of the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. The legislation that has come back to the House after diligent consideration by the Justice and Electoral Committee is excellent. The committee was well served by three officials who worked very hard on this bill. They were Melanie Gudsell and Susan Roberts from the Ministry of Justice and Brian Hesketh from the Department for Courts who worked with us to try to improve this bill. 
In the end the bill’s message is that when a crime occurs there should be a punishment for it. No one on the committee disputed that. However the reason we have punishment in our system is so that the crime does not occur again—that once people have committed an offence under the law they recognise that their behaviour was not appropriate at that time and do not go on to lead a life of criminal offending. That is why we have a punishment system. 
Stephen Franks 
: This is a new theory. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Franks interjects but he should realise that this bill is not new. It was introduced into the House by his leader Richard Prebble who came to Parliament and said that we should have a clean-slate regime. Once upon a time Richard Prebble from the ACT party supported this bill. Today for political reasons ACT members do not and they screech at the Government on a law and order issue. What we are trying to say is that there are some crimes that are very minor and do not carry a custodial sentence for which people serve the court requirements—a punishment or a fine—at the time and people should be allowed to move on from that crime provided they do not reoffend. 
All sorts of things are being yelled around the Chamber but members need to think about certain things. They need to think about whether a conviction for under-age drinking needs to be carried by people all their lives. I suspect that there are members of this House who bought and consumed alcohol before they were over the age of 20. I defy many members of the House to stand up today and say that they did not consume alcohol before they were 20 which was the legal drinking age. All of a sudden there is silence in the House. Mr Franks was very keen to interject before. [ 
Interruption 
] Dail Jones interjects that the legal age was 70 when he was a boy. Crimes like that mean that people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens carry a criminal record all their lives. That is why we believe that we need to give people the opportunity to move on from that—provided they do not reoffend. 
Mr Worth said the slate is not entirely cleaned; it is only concealed. That is true in terms of the mechanism by which the law will work. The law will work every single time the question is asked about whether a person has a criminal record. The system will be activated and will look back over the previous 7 years of that person’s life to see whether he or she has been convicted of an offence that was non-custodial and whether the retribution for the offence has been paid. That means that if after 10 years of non-offending a person reoffends he or she does not enjoy any of the benefits of the clean-slate scheme. That is a tough measure in the bill rather than a weak one as the Opposition spokesperson on justice tried to portray. 
According to the figures very few people reoffend after 7 years of non-offending because we are talking about very minor one-off crimes that people have been caught committing. A lot of the crimes covered by this bill are committed by people who are never caught and I am talking only about people who are apprehended for those offences. The offences listed in the bill are very minor indeed and we believe that people need to move on. If we are to get tough on very serious crime we need to give people the incentive to not reoffend in terms of some of the minor offences. I support the bill. I think it is a very important bill. 
Stephen Franks 
: Where is the evidence that this bill will do one element of that? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The member asks me what evidence there is. If he looks at the report of the select committee—of which he is the deputy chairperson and for which he is paid extra salary—he will see that people do not reoffend in large numbers after 7 years of non-offending. This bill is not about people who lead criminal lives. 
Stephen Franks 
: It didn’t say that. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: It absolutely does. The member should go back and look at the Ministry of Justice figures. They show very clearly that people who do not commit a crime after 7 years of non-offending are very unlikely to commit further crime in their lives. There is a very high threshold for that. I support the bill and look forward to seeing it progress though the House. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill. It is a classic example of the minority Labour Government being soft on law and order. We set up a judicial system and a police system whereby we apprehend people who are caught convicted and have a conviction against their names. This Labour Government wants to forgive them after 7 years as opposed to those people who have never had a conviction and have always had a good life and who apply for the same job as someone who has had a conviction. The person who has had a conviction—perhaps for theft—will stand just as good a chance of getting the job under this Labour Party scheme as someone who has had no conviction for theft. After 7 years the applicant would have his or her conviction concealed and would stand as good a chance as someone who had led a blameless life of getting that job say in an accountancy or a law firm. 
What is the point of not committing offences when under this Labour Party legislation—which is supported by other parties—a person could after 7 years have a conviction forgiven. There is no point. One might as well say to people when they are 18: “Have a grand old time commit any number of minor offences of a particular nature and after 7 years have gone by no worries they’re all forgiven.” That is the soft-on-law-and-order Labour Party - type of situation. 
Of course that is the sort of thing that a middle-class European white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male would do but the young Maori lad who does not understand these things would keep on committing offences. He would always be caught by the system and would never have a clean slate. That is what the Labour Party does not understand. Its members have never been in a criminal court and seen those young Maori lads time and time again getting caught up because their mates have done something and they just cannot help themselves and go along with it. They can never ever get a clean slate. But the classic European-type bloke who has a binge when he is 18 or 19 can get away from it and about the age of 26 or 27 he will have a clean slate. 
The Labour Party does not support Maori in this country. We will not see Labour doing anything on behalf of Maori. It is exactly the same in this type of legislation. Anyone who has done court work can see how this bill will disadvantage the poorer members and the young Maori lads in our society who will be gripped by this for a much longer time than any young white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male—or female for that matter. 
I say this legislation is soft on law and order. It is of course part of the deal between the Labour Party and the Greens on the Supreme Court Bill. What does this bill do? It wipes out cannabis convictions. That is why Nandor Tanczos will be so pleased by it. That is the deal between the Labour Party and the Greens. The Labour Party said to United Future that it would not introduce any legislation that would be soft on cannabis charges. But that is what this bill does. This bill with United Future’s help—I suspect; I am not sure—will wipe out cannabis convictions. We will have to wait and see what happens because that party has a sort of minority report on the bill. This legislation which I think goes to the heart of the agreement between United Future and the Labour Party will wipe out cannabis convictions for many people. We can see why Nandor Tanczos would support it. 
I would have thought that in spite of the United Future – Labour Party agreement this type of legislation could not possibly go through the House but here we have it going through. There has been a breakdown immediately so what will United Future do about it? Will its members just be lapdogs or withdraw their support for and confidence in the Labour Government? I doubt that very much indeed. They will continue on their way with another broken promise to their supporters. 
Of course there is another group that lingers in the background—the Springbok tour group—all those trendy people who had their convictions from the time of the Springbok tour. I would not be surprised if they were even represented in the House. If they have kept their noses clean all those convictions for disorderly behaviour and suchlike will be wiped clean too. If there is anybody in this House who has such a conviction I presume he or she will disclose that interest to the House before voting on this bill. I believe such members would have a vested interest in how this bill proceeds so I will be looking forward to hearing whether there is anyone—like those people perhaps who led Springbok tour marches. 
I remember the day in 1981 when members of Parliament had to have police protection because Springbok tour protesters were going to break into this Parliament. We had police surrounding Parliament to prevent a break-in by Springbok tour protesters. I well remember standing next to a massive very attractive female constable who was a well-known discus thrower. I was very pleased she was here because this place was surrounded by protesters who intended to break in. I raise that issue because if those people come within the general category referred to in this legislation they will have their convictions quashed. So we have cannabis users and Springbok tour protesters—trendy people who have perhaps had those convictions on their records and who might not have been able to get as much promotion as they wanted in various areas because of their pasts. It is no wonder that this Labour Party with its view towards the breaking of law supports this type of legislation but we in New Zealand First oppose it. 
There is also a trap in this legislation. There will be many people out there who will say:“Oh well they have passed this bill now and I want to go to the United States. I haven’t been able to go to the United States because I have had this conviction behind me but Parliament has now passed this legislation.” They will fall into the trap of thinking that they are now clean and do not have a conviction any more. Of course they still have a drug conviction so far as the United States Britain or anywhere else is concerned. If they have a cannabis conviction of a minor nature which is concealed by this legislation for New Zealand purposes they will still have to fill out the form when entering the United States and be asked whether they have a criminal conviction on a drugs charge. The answer still has to be “Yes”. 
Many of them inadvertently will say “No” because they do not fully appreciate the issue. They will be in a sort of double-jeopardy situation—doubly at risk—because first they will have a conviction in New Zealand and second they will have breached United States law by filling out a form saying they do not have a conviction when they actually do. That will be a breach of United States law and the law of anywhere else. We are setting a trap for New Zealanders who do not fully appreciate the way this legislation works. In any education programme that might apply to it there must be clear notice to people that when they are travelling overseas they do not have any protection from the clean-slate legislation. 
It is unfortunate when people commit crimes but all I can say is that when someone is young and manages to avoid committing crimes by making a positive move not to get involved in something why should that person be then treated just the same as someone who went out there and committed an offence willy-nilly? Where are the standards in our society today? There are no standards as far as this Labour Party is concerned. If one is sitting in the pub and having a drink it is all a question of whether one gets caught or not. But when one is drinking under age under the old law—or even under the new law—one has to be doing it in a public place or on licensed premises. Having a drink at home is not a criminal offence and Mr Hughes does not seem to be able to grasp the distinction that if one is under the age of 20 years it is the place where one drinks that matters—not the fact that one is drinking. 
The police were very reticent in their view on this legislation and I am very concerned that New Zealanders will be placed in very difficult situations if this bill goes through the House. We in New Zealand First oppose this legislation. It is soft on law and order. If one commits a crime one does the time and the conviction stays there—that is the oldest one in the book. Committing an early crime is a step towards committing the next one and that is what this minority Labour Government does not recognise. This bill will encourage people to commit their first crime because they will say to themselves that after 7 years they will be clean-slated— 
Darren Hughes 
: Where’s the evidence? 
DAIL JONES 
: Darren Hughes has no experience whatsoever. If he appeared as I have done for many people under the age of 16—I have appeared for someone under the age of 16 who had 120 convictions for breaking and entering including breaking into a bank— 
Darren Hughes 
: With a 7-year break in between? 
DAIL JONES 
: Mr Hughes just does not understand that someone will be encouraged to commit that first offence because they will think they will be clean-slated. Having committed their first offence they will then be encouraged to commit their second third and fourth offences and it will be all due to the fact that they found committing their first offences so easy that those offences led on to the others. Mr Hughes has absolutely no idea and this Labour Party has no regard for law and order. This bill should be opposed. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill. It is very good that the previous speaker and the member who introduced the bill referred to Nandor Tanczos because it was his Clean Slate Bill which was pulled out of the members’ ballot which started this whole process in Parliament. It was a very good bill and the Government fairly quickly decided that the bill was such a good idea that it had to think of it too which was good. Phil Goff introduced his bill. It was not as good as Nandor Tanczos’ bill although I understand that the two bills were considered together in the Justice and Electoral Committee and amendments were made that brought Phil Goff’s bill more into line with Nandor Tanczos’ bill in several respects. For instance I think Phil Goff’s bill had a 10-year time period whereas as speakers have indicated this bill has a 7-year time period before a person is clean-slated under its provisions. 
There has been quite a delay with this bill. There has been about a year between the Government’s announcement that it would bring the bill forward and its introduction but at last it has come back to the House for a second reading. It is a tribute to the select committee the way its members worked on it and the work of the advisers. The changes they made have by and large been in a very good direction. 
As people have indicated there is quite a long tradition in this House of movement towards such a bill and I think Darren Hughes mentioned the name of Richard Prebble who came forward with a private member’s bill some years ago in that respect. It is interesting that Mr Prebble also moved a private member’s bill to make New Zealand nuclear-free; he has turned round on that issue too. When his biography is written I think people will look at his earlier days with the greatest respect and will learn most from those days. 
It is important that as the bill has been processed the number of exemptions have reduced. There are not very many exemptions under this bill and I think that is good. Richard Worth said that it was bad and that the bill is more or less a blanket bill. I think it is good if laws are fairly even in their application; that is something we should strive for. It is important in terms of the changes that have been made that decriminalised offences are automatically and immediately clean-slated. 
 There is a bit of a problem in that the bill does not allow any clean-slating for custodial sentences. That can create inconsistencies because people who served custodial sentences in the past or were convicted of something that had a custodial sentence but the sentence for which has been changed to give a lighter penalty are caught in a bit of an inconsistency. The bill does not take into account the changes and the liberalisation of the law in some respects. 
Previous speakers have said that the bill is soft on law and order. I cannot see it that way. How is encouragement of the full rehabilitation of people soft on law and order? How is it soft on law and order if someone has not reoffended for 7 years? Darren Hughes referred to this in his comments or his interjection. If we look at the graphs in the Justice and Electoral Committee report we see that after 7 years the reoffending rate is very low. What we are saying is that those people will be reintegrated fully into society without the sorts of discrimination penalties and negative attitudes that would ensue if we did not have this bill. That helps law and order in society—not the other way round. 
Of course a bit of a public campaign will be required to educate everyone in the community including those who have offended and who will be clean-slated to let them know they will be automatically eligible under this law and will not have to disclose their history with regard to those offences to their employer or potential employer insurance agency etc. That is very good. It will require quite a bit of education of employers too because they might demand or somehow try to penalise workers for not disclosing offences that have been clean-slated. 
Dail Jones referred to the Springbok tour. He said that all those people who had minor convictions from the Springbok tour situation will get off and be clean-slated under this bill. I think most of them are very proud of their convictions—the ones I have talked to. But those convictions can still negatively impact on people’s careers if they have to disclose them. 
I think a couple of speakers have brought up the contradiction in that the clean-slating will operate in New Zealand but when people go overseas to the United States or Canada they might still have to disclose those convictions. I think we should look at two things. In some respects this law is not at the head of the world; there are a lot of other countries that have similar laws and some are better than this law. But we should try to be part of this world and should have more progressive legislation in this area. I think we can be a model for some other countries—in North America etc.—that do not have fully adequate provisions in this respect. We can look at some examples of the problems caused by those overseas jurisdictions that are a bit weak in this area. For instance one of our greatest athletes Erin Baker—our great triathlete world-renowned—had a Springbok tour conviction. When she wanted to compete in a sports event in Hawaii I think it was in the Ironman triathlon she was excluded. It took her quite a while to get round that. We should be in the vanguard of moves—[ 
Interruption 
] What I am saying is that by our going along with other countries that are leading the way in this respect we will eventually help sweep up the United States and people there will see the light. That is the way it goes. I have faith in the people of the United States to get beyond the present administration and the present situation and ultimately to introduce such progressive legislation. 
I think this bill is a very good bill. The Greens are fully supportive of it and we have played a great role in it in terms of Nandor Tanczos’ bill being in the ballot and also through his participation in the select committee to progress this situation. 
A previous speaker alluded to the police being a little bit cagey in their response to the bill. As I understand it they were intensively criticised in the select committee when they raised some problems about the exchange of information between international jurisdictions because when it came down to it there did not seem to be any problem in exchanging essential information between police jurisdictions. In that respect this bill is a very good bill. 
I also understand that Doug Graham—a former National MP of some note and a former Minister of Justice—made some moves down the clean slate track as well. I think there is a good tradition in both ACT and National in that respect; unfortunately the people in those two parties seem to have gone a bit backwards. I think we have to realise that this bill will affect many many thousands of decent New Zealanders many of whom are starring in their lives and will benefit very much from this bill. For many thousands of people in the future—young people in particular—who commit small crimes and do not want them hanging round their necks for the rest of their lives this bill will be very good. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Just in case any people listening to the debate are not otherwise aware of it I want to commence by reading a chunk of the Labour and Green majority report on the bill: “Labour and Green members encourage the Human Rights Commission to consider including discrimination on the basis of unrelated or irrelevant criminal convictions in its review of the grounds for discrimination in the Human Rights Act 1993. These members further recommend the Government incorporates the recommendations of the National Plan of Action on Human Rights into the Human Rights Act.” We have not seen the national plan of action but of course that does not stop the Labour and Green members from saying it must be a good thing and to make it law. 
Does it speak for itself only to the National Party United Future New Zealand First and ACT that the idea of making it unlawful to discriminate—in other words to draw distinctions on the basis of whether a person has a criminal conviction—must be about the most gross violation of the human right of freedom of association that one could imagine? Here is a Government that cannot enforce old-fashioned criminal law here is a Government whose police do not bother to turn up to burglaries and here is a Government that cannot even prosecute fraudsters rapists and burglars within a year. Yet here is a Government that says: “Let’s make a new offence of someone daring to say that he or she would rather not associate with a criminal when there is a choice.” Here is a Government whose members—Mr Darren Hughes and Mr Damien O’Connor—stand up and say: “We think New Zealanders should be forgiving and merciful. And just in case they aren’t we will make sure they don’t know who needs forgiveness and whom to show mercy to.” 
The select committee heard that there are somewhere between 500000 and 600000 people to whom this bill might apply. Somewhere between 500000 and 600000 people have convictions that will be suppressed under this law. The members tried to persuade us that this is a pressing social need; that those 500000 to 600000 people had their lives blighted because New Zealanders were free to choose to decide whether they had outlived their earlier offences. This Government decides: “No no we will not leave ordinary New Zealanders with that choice—they might choose wrongly. We will make sure they don’t know who has offended and who has not and in that way we can pretend that we are merciful and forgiving.” This is the Government saying as socialists usually do that it does not trust the good intentions of ordinary folk and that it does not trust the judgment of ordinary New Zealanders. Instead the Government will make sure that New Zealanders do not know who has convictions. That is what the Government will do. 
 Who will be the first beneficiaries of this? The one obvious group that will not benefit is the group whose members are believed in popular expectation to be likely offenders. What happens when one cannot get at the truth? Any ordinary New Zealander makes some assumptions and what will the most likely assumption be? It will be that anyone who is Maori is probably an offender—“I’m not allowed to ask about their record. I cannot find out whether they are offenders. Let us just assume they are and discriminate against Maori.” That is the obvious real effect of a law like this not the putrid rhetoric we have just had about the 50-year-old woman who is worried that her shoplifting offence years earlier is going to blight her life. No person in this country who is convicted of a single offence has his or her life seriously blighted. The fact that there are 500000 such people whom none of us know or care about is evidence of that. 
This dishonesty on the part of the select committee majority this misuse of not just rhetoric but statistics appears on page 29 of the report on this bill in the table headed “Percentage of people given a non-custodial sentence ... who were not reconvicted in each of the next 15 years”. In year 7 we see that only 32 percent of those aged 10-17 were not reconvicted after 7 years and that 41 percent of 18 to 19-year-olds were not reconvicted and then we get up to the really impressive figure that 72 percent of people aged 40-plus were not reconvicted. But what the table does not tell us is how many were reconvicted after two previous offences. This is not a bill about second chances; this is a bill about fourth fifth sixth seventh eighth and ninth chances. The average number of convictions of an offender in New Zealand before he or she first goes to jail is nine. The average offender has to be convicted nine times before he or she does not get the benefit of this bill. This bill will suppress the convictions of people who have offended eight times which is an absolute pattern. If there is one thing we do know it is that the very best predictor of future offending is a pattern of past offending. A single offence may not be the pest predictor but that is not what this bill says. This bill does not say people get a second chance; this bill says they get nine second chances. 
And this Government masquerades as a Government that wants to be merciful. This is a Government that is condemning thousands of New Zealanders with absolutely clean records to the suspicion of having criminal records. This is the Government that will now charge a priest a $10000 fine for daring to urge a parishioner to obey the Bible and tell the truth instead of obeying the Government and telling a lie. This is the Government that puts in the bill a $10000 fine for a would-be fiancée who asks her intended: “What were you doing with those scumbags? Are you sure you have not been convicted? Please tell me the truth.” This is the Government that says: “Here is a warrant to lie and we will pretend your offences never happened.” What about people looking for a flatmate who have just been ripped off and do not want someone who has been a criminal? They want to try to get some objective information but no that is illegal. 
The Government has exempted the criminal justice and security systems but not the medical system and not teaching. Even Nandor Tanczos wanted to make sure that schools could ask about the previous convictions of schoolteachers and childcare workers. But no in this great rush of enthusiasm the members opposite—who actually do not believe in social sanctions; who do not believe that people left alone can organise their lives; who do believe that only when the Government makes people do things can one get virtue and generosity of spirit—have decided that the education system can do without truth that it can just lump it that it can take the risk that we are putting teachers in there who have 20 previous convictions as long as they got away with not being convicted for the last 7 years. Members should think about it: it does not mean that a person has not offended; a person could have been a paedophile in Australia or could have been out of the country for 6½ of those 7 years. There is nothing this bill can do about that—if a person has no criminal record in New Zealand for the last 7 years all previous offences are expunged. This is a wicked piece of law. 
This bill started with Mr Goff in all his vein-popping glory trying to outbid Nandor Tanczos for the “yoof” vote. So Mr Goff who is there to be tough on crime is now colluding with criminals who may have any number of prior offences to suppress their records. This bill is about Labour colluding because it still believes that there is a class struggle and that criminals are not really responsible for what they do—they are victims of class oppression to be pitied and helped by the rest of the community and if the rest of the community does not want to do that Labour will make it. That is the Labour approach. That is what Mr Darren Hughes has bought into. That is what Mr Darren Hughes so proudly told us was his achievement. Of course young Mr Darren Hughes is competing with Nandor Tanczos for the “yoof” vote too. He is going for it by suppressing the criminal records of people who might have enough offences for anyone to know that future offending is likely. 
This bill is about forcing us into ignorance. This bill is not about rehabilitation. It will hurt the people who should have expected to be helped by it. The well-connected can still find out about one’s criminal record because at least until the human rights law is changed one can go back through newspapers or one can get a private detective to find out about a record. The people who really need to know and who have the money will still find out about one’s previous record—or they just will not give an unpromising person a chance. I say to members that this is a disgraceful piece of law. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 When I first arrived in this House I had quite a bit of respect for Labour. I remember meeting David Major who was party secretary for National prior to the 1999 election and I said that the only difference I saw between Labour and National was that Labour wore its sins on its sleeves whereas National wore them under its sleeves. What I meant by Labour wearing them on its sleeves was that although I saw Labour in many respects undermining the Judaeo-Christian ethic and bringing in moral relativism that was destructive of our society at least it was upfront about it. National’s arrogance and its disregard even to the extent of abuse of those who are the least well-off in New Zealand society and its drive to benefit the rich at their expense I saw as just as morally reprehensible. Since I have been in this House my respect for Labour has to some extent been undermined. The actions in legislation that have occurred under Labour have been nothing short of destructive of the foundations of our society. It has promoted a misconceived ideology that will create more and more problems for our society and create greater and greater costs to it. 
To some extent Labour seems to be a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand today we have had Labour supporting United Future’s initiative with regard to the Families Commission Bill which will do a great deal to strengthen families. But then we find that it is bringing in measures that will weaken our society. I do not think it is intentional largely because I believe that Labour has integrity. But if it is not intentional then Labour must be doing it somewhat blindly. The example I point to is the Prostitution Reform Bill which can do nothing but undermine the foundations of our society. I also point to Helen Clark’s speech to the Labour Party conference in which she said: “Let me be clear: removing the defence of reasonable force does not mean banning smacking. There is no such defence available to a person charged with assault on an adult. That doesn’t mean the police lay charges every time one adult pushes another. So why the reasonable force defence with respect to children?” So what is she saying about that? It is similar to what is happening in this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is no similarity at all. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: What she is saying in both respects— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: When I am on my feet the member will sit down. The member has drifted way off this bill. I want him to return to the bill. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. What is happening in this bill—and what was happening in that situation—is a mandate to lie. Clearly the bill is without a shadow of a doubt saying to people that they can lie but they should not worry about that because the Government says it is OK. Clause 11(2) could not be clearer. It states: “An eligible individual may answer a question asked of him or her about his or her criminal record by stating that he or she has no criminal record.” How much more blatant can we get than that? This bill is in the same category as that—it is all right to lie. It is destructive to our society when we legislate for people to lie. 
There is an alternative model. United Future was very sympathetic to the idea that people who had very old minor convictions should be able to put those convictions behind them. We proposed an alternative model. We proposed that the law would recognise that the clean slate scheme was a privilege that was being given to eligible people because they had maintained a good character record. In order to convey that a person would apply to have his or her convictions expunged following which a certificate would be issued which would avoid any doubt about the matter by confirming that in recognition of a person’s good behaviour the person’s convictions had now been expunged. Any application for expungement would be sent to the police and they would have an opportunity to oppose the application for any of the reasons mentioned in terms of the person’s prior convictions. That would help to ensure that only people who truly deserved the expungement of their convictions would achieve that. 
This bill will protect people who for example have been to Australia have been in prison there for major offences and have come back to New Zealand but who because they have been out of the country for 7 years have no New Zealand record and are eligible to have their prior convictions concealed. Such a scheme would also give people who did not want their convictions to be expunged control over whether that occurred. Sue Bradford told us that she wore her convictions like a badge on her sleeve because she felt proud of them. Well they will be hidden under this legislation. The exemptions contained in the bill could still be provided for by creating a historical record of convictions—in the same way that legislation shows the historical provisions of Acts prior to their amendment—that would be accessible by the exemption authorities. That record would simply be a historical record of previous convictions that the person had but which had now been expunged. It would mean that once a person had completed the 7-year rehabilitation period his or her previous history would be expunged and even if the person reoffended he or she would start with a truly clean slate. 
It would be an easy scheme to administer. United Future considers that although there would be a rush of applications at the early stages they would then settle down to a regular trickle and simply require the Ministry of Justice when applications were received and approved to transfer convictions shown on a person’s record into a history file. Furthermore as people would need to take affirmative action United Future considers that applications would largely be limited to people who consider that their previous convictions are an ongoing impediment in their lives. We would also have proposed that to avoid mandating people to lie about the absence of convictions there would be a restraint on employers as to the nature of questions that could be asked. In particular a question would need to be framed in a way that specified that it excluded convictions expunged under the scheme. That would be a simple matter for employers to implement on their standard employment forms. That is what we suggested should happen. In fact some of Nandor Tanczos’s bill headed in that direction. 
We do not need to go down the track of mandating a lying regime. If we took that other model we would avoid a lot of key problems. I have already alluded to one problem that this bill will cause—namely people who have been overseas for 7 years no matter what convictions they have overseas will still be able to have all their convictions in New Zealand wiped and clean-slated because they have not had any convictions here for 7 years. In addition there could well be people whom the police are aware are recidivist offenders but as it so happens have not been caught for or convicted of an offence for 7 years. Those people may have been charged numerous times but not convicted. Such people will be eligible for this scheme even though they are well known to the police. Also the police may be aware that although a person has had only minor convictions the convictions that he or she has had—for example a string of convictions for theft as a servant—make it contrary to the public interest that those convictions be concealed from future employers. However in this legislation there is no opportunity for the police to object to the concealment occurring if a person meets the criteria of the Act. 
One of the difficulties of this bill is that it chooses to sting employers and does nothing to encourage people who want to use the scheme to comply with it. Under the provisions of the scheme there are huge penalties on employers who misuse the provisions of the bill. But if somebody abuses the bill by lying and claiming that he or she does not have convictions even when under the terms of this bill he or she is not entitled to claim that that person gets off without any censure whatsoever. If there was as United Future will propose in its amendment during the Committee stage a provision that actually stated that people would be penalised if they stated they had no convictions—relying on the clean slate scheme or otherwise—when they did have convictions at least that would send a signal to people that if they do not comply with the terms of the legislation they will not get away with it. As it stands people will read this bill very simplistically. The word will go out through the pubs that a law has been passed that states that if one has old convictions and has not had a conviction for a while one is entitled to lie about them. That is the simple message that will go out. This legislation will be abused all over the country. 
The New Zealand Law Society saw that. It stated: “realistically individuals should take legal advice if the bill is enacted in its present form to ascertain they fall within the criteria as of right. It is doubtful whether that will occur. People with a general knowledge of the legislation may consider themselves to be covered when in fact they are not. It also leaves open an abuse of the provisions with individuals failing to disclose convictions on the basis that they believed they did not need to when in fact they knew they did.” The Law Society could see that. The Maxim Institute stated: “No certificate is to be issued confirming that a person’s old convictions are to be concealed. Consequently the scheme will be open to abuse. Unless they have a very detailed knowledge of the specifics of the legislation devious people will make an assumption that they have the benefit of the scheme when it is not the case and give misleading answers to questions about their past.” 
I could not agree with those sentiments more. That is exactly how the bill will operate and it will simply mean that employees going for jobs will lie about any convictions they have. United Future will oppose the bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The essence of this bill is actually summarised by clause 11 which has already been read out. But it is such an important clause I will read it out again. Subclause (2) of that clause states: “An eligible individual may answer a question asked of him or her about his or her criminal record by stating that he or she has no criminal record.” How many criminals because that is whom we are talking about will thoroughly research this law find precisely the circumstances in which they are permitted to give a State-sanctioned lie— 
Stephen Franks 
: The most wicked ones will! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The most wicked ones will do the research. But other people will just say that they know Parliament has passed a law that enables them to lie and when asked the question they will just say that they have no criminal record. Will the employer be able to easily do anything about that? The answer is no. 
Far from the 500000 or 600000 people who will potentially be affected by this bill in reality one will see a much larger group of people all saying they do not have criminal convictions. We will now see a whole group of people with serious criminal convictions saying they do not have them. That is what will happen and employers—because those are the people who will be mostly asking that question—will find they are employing serious criminals who have lied. They will have lied in breach of the legislation that enables them to lie which is an absurdity in its own right. 
Stephen Franks 
: Labour thinks it is funny. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Yes Labour members think it is funny that once one gets on to the slippery slope one starts to encourage all kinds of lies. And is that good? 
I want to turn to a point raised by my colleague Mr Richard Worth because it really shows how shallow this bill is. Mr Worth has pointed out that records can in fact be kept: private records based on newspapers and so forth. What could well happen is that particularly lawyers and other employers who are seriously concerned about the honesty of their employees—which actually is common—will go and ask private organisations to tell them the real story as to whether a person has convictions. Those records will be legally kept. The bill permits that and the people who ask private organisations will get the honest truth—not a State-sanctioned lie but the honest truth as to whether a person was a criminal. 
As has been pointed out by other speakers it is not as though we are just talking about youthful indiscretions. We are talking about a much bigger class of offences than that. As everyone knows people have to commit numerous burglaries or assaults before they go to jail. How many pub fights result in jail sentences? The reality is that almost no pub fights result in jail sentences. There are people who habitually get into fisticuffs down at the local pub on a regular kind of basis and they will not have had a custodial sentence. They may be serving periodic detention but periodic detention is not considered to be a custodial sentence for the purposes of this bill. Quite serious offences and successions of them will be covered by this bill. 
I am on record—and I will admit this—as having supported the principle of a clean slate. When I heard Mr Nandor Tanczos speak on this issue when he introduced his member’s bill he talked about a youthful indiscretion: the one-off offence that is committed at 18 or something like that. He talked about minor things: the person who smokes perhaps one cannabis cigarette and gets a $50 fine. But this bill goes much further than that. If the Government was serious and was concerned about people’s youthful indiscretions it could have drafted a bill to cover that kind of thing. Again Mr Worth has pointed out that there is a substantial case to be made to cover something that is genuinely a youthful indiscretion—the one-off offence that is of no real consequence many years later down the track. However the Government did not take that option. Even Mr Nandor Tanczos—although admittedly his bill went much further than that but nevertheless his speech in the House did not—confined his remarks to the youthful indiscretion and said that we ought to have legislation to cover that. 
National is on record as stating and it noted this again in the minority report of the Justice and Electoral Committee that there is a case for legislation to contain provision for true clean slate applications to be made to the court with regard to individual cases. A narrow approach could have been adopted—one that might have actually got some sort of broad consent across the Parliament. However we now have a habit by this minority socialist Government of insisting on passing everything it can by the narrowest of majorities. That practice has become so severe that on major constitutional issues like the Supreme Court the Government is quite happy to pass legislation with a margin of 63 votes to 57. That kind of approach is the sort of thing that brings the parliamentary process into disrepute. The public did not vote for MMP in order to have minority socialist Governments ramming through legislation without any reasonable attempt to try to acquire a wider level of support for it. For instance the Government could have done so on the Supreme Court legislation with regard to issues about overseas judges and the appointment of judges. Those issues could all have been dealt with and at least a reasonable attempt made to reach across to the Opposition side of the House and draft legislation that would have a degree of consensus. 
Has the Government tried to do that on this bill? No it has not. Once again the Government is to pass that kind of bill with the narrowest of majorities. That then forces members on the Opposition side of the House to consider the option that when we are in office we should review this legislation and reduce it back to the narrow scope that people are actually concerned about which is youthful indiscretions. That is the sort of thing that the public wanted to see when MMP was being voted for and they are not getting it. They are getting a habitual pattern by the Government of ramming through controversial legislation on the narrowest of majorities. Enduring legislation is not built on that basis. Surely it is one of the responsibilities of this Parliament and is incumbent upon Governments with regard to this kind of legislation to do precisely that. 
I conclude on this point. We in this House are all aware that some legislation tends to go to and fro depending on who is in Government. Clearly employment legislation is in that category. However a lot of criminal law has to endure over time. One cannot fool around with that every few years. Therefore it is incumbent on Governments to take a wider view. However this minority Government consistently fails to do that. We then get legislation like this being served up which is highly controversial goes way beyond the original intent of the framers and brings the whole proposition into discredit. That is one of the reasons why we will be voting against this legislation. We object to the whole way that this Government operates. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.