METIRIA TUREI (Green) : The Green Party welcomes this Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill. This amendment is intended to put sustainability at the forefront of fisheries legislation. Ever since the introduction of meaningful regulation of fishing in the 1980s, the fishing industry has been characterised by extreme litigiousness at every turn, with fishers seeking to increase catches without adequate regard for the long-term sustainability of the resource.

It is well known that over the years there has been considerable under-reporting of catches, trucking—which is the reporting of catch as having been taken from one area when it has actually been taken from another, such as has happened with hoki—and other deviations from the law. That is not surprising when only a portion of the total fishing fleet typically has scientific observers on board to bear witness to what fishers are doing. This is not to say that are all fishers are crooked; it is just that there are some bad apples, if you like, in the bunch.

There are examples—in fact, many examples—of fishers leading the way in trying to lessen the adverse effects of their activities on non-target species, such as Dave Kellian’s invention of an underwater bait-setting device. In some cases, such as those cited in Southern Seabird Solutions, there are collective efforts to clean up the industry and its impact on the environment.

In some specific fisheries, fishers have taken quite a strong stand on managing the fishery to ensure that it is sustainable, but often that has not occurred until well after the fishery has already been overfished. In fact, it turns out that fisheries are most profitable when they are fished to only 75 percent of the level of biomass that will support the maximum sustainable yield, which is under the levels that fish stocks need to maintain themselves as sustainable. That is the highest level of profitability, so it is not good for fisheries as a whole.

Time and time again we have seen fishers defeat the Ministry of Fisheries in court, when the ministry has attempted to uphold sustainability measures. Similarly, Ministers of Fisheries have repeatedly retracted their decisions that promote sustainability in favour of economics, and at times Ministers have bent to sheer economic opportunism, irrespective of the environmental impact. One example, of course, is the setting of a much higher catch limit on squid in the last fishing season, despite that resulting in an increased numbers of deaths of endangered New Zealand sea lions in the SQU6T quota area.

This bill should help to address those problems. For the first time it will put environmental sustainability ahead of economics in the Fisheries Act 1996, and this is long overdue. There can be no economic sustainability without environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability is a precondition to a secure economic future for our country. It is not the other way around, as many of those who have been responsible for trashing the planet in various ways, whether through overfishing or soil degradation, would have us believe. This bill takes the position that if the information about a fish stock or about the effect of exploiting it on other species—such as with the sea lion issue I raised earlier—or on the marine ecosystem is uncertain, inadequate, or unreliable, then decisions can be made to ensure sustainability. I would have thought that that was an absolute no-brainer.

If one takes a look at stock assessments over recent years, remembering that the state of the stock is just one aspect of marine sustainability, one sees numerous cases where information is clearly inadequate, uncertain, or unreliable. For example, there are estimates of pāua biomass in only half of the areas where stocks exist, so how can sensible limits be placed on catch in the areas where there are no estimates of that biomass? That can be done only by erring on the side of caution and by putting sustainability ahead of economics. For spiny dogfish there is so little information available that even the maximum constant yield cannot be estimated. Even for those fisheries where there is much more known, such as the tarakihi fishery, the data on which the maximum constant yield is based is, in some cases, over 20 years old.

The lack of information about fish stocks and their environments is all the more significant in current times. It is still unknown just how climate change will affect the marine environments. Will the increasing sea temperatures affect larval survival? Will inshore spawning beds be destroyed by the constant and increased sediment deposition that comes as a result of increased storm intensity over land, which increases soil erosion? Will currents and nutrient movement be affected by climate change? Will stocks and associated species be more susceptible to disease as a result of changes in temperature and other climate change impacts? How will the acidification of the oceans impact on the carbon shell - dependent species at the bottom of the food chain, and how will that, therefore, affect the fish stocks that rely on those small creatures as their source of food?

How will any of the changes that result from climate change affect the overall sustainability of marine ecosystems and fishing activity? We simply cannot afford to ignore these concerns. With climate change and the continued incessant overfishing in domestic and territorial waters, it is a fact that the state of the marine ecosystem is increasingly uncertain. The Green Party believes that the provisions of this bill are a small step, but a crucial one, to making sure that those potential effects are properly considered for the benefit of the sustainability of our marine environment for the future. Thank you.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I thank the Government for allowing me this slot, because people will recognise that when this legislation was being debated on Tuesday night the New Zealand First speaker was Pita Paraone. The debate would have wound up, because there was only 1 minute to go, but he took that slot. Unfortunately he is on leave—within the 25 percent, I might add. So the Government has given us this spot, because we believe that the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill is very, very much in line with what New Zealand First is all about. It is certainly in line with our policy on where we believe our nation should be going.

I have to admit to the House that I would describe myself as a very enthusiastic recreational fisherman, but I would not necessarily describe myself as a particularly successful one. I will give members one story. I fish out of Doubtless Bay up in the far north, and down in Ngunguru, out of Whangarei, and next to Tūtūkākā, but not all the way out to the Poor Knights Islands because that area is a reserve. One day along a beach up in the far north, my mate and I were collecting mussels off a mussel rock there and several groups of people further up the beach were collecting tuatuas. A four-wheel drive stopped and the driver was looking and looking. I have to say that for a moment when we came out of the sea we thought that maybe he was a fisheries officer, but we were well within our limit so we did not have anything to worry about. He was, in fact, an American, and he asked us what we were doing. We said we were getting the mussels off the rocks to eat. He asked if anybody was allowed to do that and we said, yes, that was available to all New Zealanders as long as they stayed within their limits. He asked what all the other people were doing along the beach. We said they were picking up tuatuas. He just could not get over the fact that New Zealanders were able to go out on to their coastline and collect a feed for themselves and their families with no interruptions, and that this was part of the New Zealand lifestyle.

That is what this bill is very, very much about. If I think in terms of Doubtless Bay—and I go back to the 1970s there—and look now at my successes in January, for example, at trying to get snapper, it would appear to me that the fish stock has dwindled. It may well be that the phenomenon we find up there is that for the couple of weeks after New Year the fishing is not particularly good, and then it gets good in the second half of the month. I remember that back in the 70s we were fishing in the latter part of January. In the bay at Ngunguru people have been saying that kahawai stocks are dwindling. Well, at times we look out from our window and see schools and boil-ups of kahawai that go halfway across the bay, so we really have to ask ourselves whether our stocks are dwindling—are they the same or are they getting fewer?

That is what this bill is all about. New Zealand First believes that it is the birthright of all New Zealanders to be able to throw out a line and catch themselves a fish, to have access to kai moana, and to have that right for themselves and for their families. It is not the right to be able to rape and pillage, but to be able to catch fresh fish and enjoy them around the barbecue, out in the backyard, or wherever it might be, over certain periods of time. Members must admit that there is nothing better than a fresh snapper, for example, or a feed of fresh kūtai. Therefore we, as a nation, have a responsibility to ensure that both our freshwater and our sea stocks of fish and other kai moana are maintained.

We have put in place a strong system. Although I say it is a strong system, I tell members it is not a totally foolproof system. One of the problems with the Fisheries Act 1996 as it currently stands is that when the various sustainability measures are being decided upon, such as the total allowable catches and fishing method restrictions, the Act does not allow for a precautionary approach to be fully taken. So where there is an absence of information—and let us face it: there is a lot of absence of information around our ecosystems—rather than requiring the decision makers to take the fully precautionary approach so that they minimise risks, the Act actually does the other thing. In fact, it tells them to take risks.

The problem with that is that in the absence, dearth, or weakness of information available, the wrong decision can be made. For example, when there was not full access to information about orange roughy, inadequate decisions were made about total allowable catches, and that was to the detriment of the fish stock. This bill changes the law so that if the full information is not available, then the decision makers will be able to act in a fully precautionary manner. New Zealand First believes that this is the way it should have been from 1996, and we are 100 percent behind this bill.

We are not necessarily behind the shared fisheries proposals, and we are asking some questions about the problem there.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I say to members that it is a longstanding convention that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is necessary to do so, and then so as not to disturb proceedings because it is distracting for the member who is trying to address the House. Thank you.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: As I say, we in New Zealand First will defend to the end the right of recreational fishers to be able to have sustainable stocks, and to be able readily to obtain fish—not necessarily in the manner in which it used to be done but certainly in an easy fashion. However, we are not absolutely convinced about the shared fisheries proposals, and we ask what the problem is. We fish in the snapper 1 area, and that has the smallest restrictions upon recreational fishers. I tell members here and now that I have not heard even one of the people who live up in Doubtless Bay complain that the restrictions are too great. The number of fish that is allowable—nine snapper per fisher, for example—is certainly adequate for the people who fish recreationally to be able to feed themselves and their families. So we ask what the problem is that the legislation may be trying to fix.

This issue is a different issue altogether. This issue is something to do with setting the total allowable catch across customary fishers, Māori fishers, recreational fishers, and commercial fishers—the total whole. We believe that decisions being made around that, if they are got wrong, will negatively affect all sectors—the recreational sector, the commercial sector, the Māori sector, the customary sector—the whole lot. Therefore, we believe that it makes eminently good sense to have legislation that requires the decision makers, in the absence of the full degree of information about the impact upon ecosystems, fish stocks, and stocks of seafood, to employ the precautionary approach, to its fullest measures.

That, we believe, will enable my grandchildren, for example, to come out in the boat with me and have that thrill of catching a fish on a rod and line. They will be able to take the fish back to grandma and say: “Look what I caught, grandma!”. Grandad can fillet it for them and then they can enjoy the eating of it. That is the birthright of every New Zealander—and every new New Zealander. As far as we in New Zealand First are concerned, we will do everything possible to protect that birthright. Therefore, we will support this bill through all its stages.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) :Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker, tēnātātou. In principle, the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill sounds all very laudable. It is always sensible lawmaking to start off with the intention to clarify the law and to provide clearer direction. The bill is motivated by a concern that the existing wording of the Act fails to make it sufficiently clear that decision makers should not delay or avoid taking measures to ensure sustainability, even when the best information available is incomplete or deficient. The key buzzwords relate, as in the original 1996 Act, to providing for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. In focusing on sustainability, emphasis is given towards maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the needs of our future generations, and towards avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment.

In and of itself, making sustainability a priority in the way in which we manage ocean resources is commendable. We endorse the view of Greenpeace that making sustainability the priority and urging precaution as a principle is a move along the right track if we are to prevent the collapse of the ever-declining population of all major commercial fish species. But—and it is a big but—we in the Māori Party must always be aware of and watch out for fish-hooks and the potential for decay and destruction to occur. So we ask why the Government would need to intervene to assist the process of making fisheries management decisions. Would it have anything to do with the shared fisheries plans, on which, coincidentally, submissions closed the day before this bill had its first reading in the House? Why would a new item appear on the legislative agenda to assist decision makers to take measures even when the best available information is incomplete or otherwise deficient?

The bill provides even more explicit direction that even if information is “absent or is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate”, decision makers should not postpone or fail to take measures. I do not know what members think, but it sounds a bit Mickey Mouse to me. When else in this House are we asked to endorse a policy process in which we vote for decisions to be made even when information is absent, uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate?

The approval for policy gaps and gaffes to be allowed becomes even more suspect when we consider the current context in which the Government is looking to trim back commercial fishing quotas in order to make available more fish for recreational fishers. This proposal has been met with widespread alarm by Māori fishers. Iwi have identified that the shared fisheries plan will conclude with their losing substantial value from their fishing assets. They are united in believing that the proposals undermine the integrity of the 1992 fisheries settlement. Te Ātiawa Trust released a statement on 11 February 2007, which stated: “Not one iwi was in favour of this proposal, with some saying that legal action might be necessary.”

In the heat of such opposition, is it not interesting that new legislation is suddenly introduced, thus clearing the way for decisions to be made? It is not as though the Ministry of Fisheries has a particularly good record in terms of its capacity to relate to and consult with Māori. We have looked at the transcript of an interview on TV3 with the Minister of Fisheries on 9 February, in which the advice of Māori is described as “hysterical and ridiculous”. In fact, the Minister went even further, by responding to the comments of the Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee chief executive, Peter Douglas, with the following retort: “Get a life. I mean that’s ridiculous. These are private property rights. … I hear everyone screaming this at me. Do you think I don’t understand that?”.

It is evident that the Minister and the ministry are under pressure, but does such a crisis situation require such drastic action as is proposed in the current bill? The Māori Party, like the Māori caucus of the Labour Party, met with a group of eminent iwi leaders last week, who were fuelled by the concerns they had about the current fishing policy. There were iwi leaders from Ngāpuhi, NgāiTahu, Ngāti Kahungunu, NgātiPorou, Tainui, Te Arawa waka, Ngāti Awa, and many others. Also attending were representatives of other Māori fishing interests, including Aotearoa Fisheries Ltd and Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee. It is always a privilege to be in the company of such a prestigious group of leaders. These people are our iwi leaders. They spoke to us of their fear that the Government would increase recreational quotas by reducing commercial quotas. So we come to this bill with that advice ringing in our ears.

We come also to the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill recognising the united concerns of those representatives, who dismiss the criticism of Māori interests as being hysterical and not helpful. A release issued the next day had this to say: “We’re not being hysterical over this issue, we’re being historical. The Maori fisheries agreement with the Crown settled historical grievances and [yet] the proposals put forward by the Ministry clearly undermine that agreement.” When I raised the matter on Tuesday in the appropriations debate, the Minister of Fisheries was in complete denial.

We have to acknowledge the expertise and institutional experience of Māori fishers and value the advice they have to offer regarding fisheries management decisions. Their cautionary comments alert us to any fish-hooks legislated for by amendments such as those proposed today. They alert us to any changes that serve to threaten or endanger Māori fishing rights. We note, for instance, that in the new Shared Fisheries document the business and activity of Māori fishing has seen the interpretation of customary fishing reduced to non-commercial rights, to the exclusion of commercial customary rights. This demonstrates an absolute ignorance of the fact that Māori, since time immemorial, have been involved in both commercial and non-commercial activities. This new definition of customary fishing is totally in breach of the official deed of settlement to Māori.

We will be opposing this bill on three counts. Firstly, we cannot support the proposal that decisions should be made even though information is absent, uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate. Secondly, according to the Māori tribal leaders themselves the Ministry of Fisheries has demonstrated its inability to relate to, and have meaningful consultation with, Māori—despite the Minister’s claims about consultation. On that basis alone, it would be difficult for us to support this bill. Thirdly, the recent activity associated with the shared fisheries proposals has alerted us to the possibility of the fish-hooks that could serve to entrap and ensnare those involved in Māori fishing rights. It is as a consequence of these issues that we will today register our opposition to the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill. Thank you.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) :Aleikum salaam. I rise to take a brief call in support of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill. This movement of sustainability, which is the catchcry of the world nowadays, started 20 or 30 years ago. It all started in New Zealand with, if you like, the introduction of the Resource Management Act. The whole idea is to make sure that we manage and utilise the resources that we have inherited from our forefathers, and make sure there is enough left for our children and grandchildren to enjoy. Sustainability is pretty much akin to all the resource management legislation that we have in place. We are now talking about the aspiration to carbon neutrality and making sure that the land, the air, the sea, and the forests—all the resources that we have—are managed and utilised in a way that maintains them for future generations.

Normally we have been talking about GDP, which is basically talking about things in dollar terms. We talk about trying to have economic gains from various national resources, and as the world moves towards some kind of genuine progress indicator we have to make sure that environmental and social issues are taken into account as we move forward.

This bill about fisheries is in the same vein as the cautionary approach we take to the resources of land and air to protect them. This bill is all about protecting fisheries for the longer-term use by our future generations, and this precautionary approach is to make sure there is enough fish for future generations to enjoy. In the longer term, sustainability and utilisation as I see it, and I have done a lot of research into some of these sustainability issues, are really compatible. On the one hand we say that farmers have to make money to survive, which I totally agree with, but on the other hand we say that long-term sustainability and long-term enjoyment of these natural resources are important and we must look after them. In terms of the fish stock in the sea, we have to make sure that we fish in such a way that enough is left for the long term.

I had the opportunity last week to go on a trip with the seafood industry, and it was fascinating to see some of the aquaculture areas that are being developed up in the Hauraki Gulf. It was nice to see a large area now brought under aquaculture, to grow fish for export purposes.

I support the bill, which is clearly designed to remove any ambiguity in the current Act and to make sure that future decisions allow for sustainability in the longer term. Thank you very much.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries: I move, That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committeereferred to Primary Production Committee

• Motion agreed to.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) : I move, That the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The purpose of this bill is to establish an effective and fair system of military justice. Our current system is governed by the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, which came into effect on 1 December 1983. Attitudes and the environment have changed considerably since that time. Community expectations and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 have both highlighted and expanded the rights that need to be observed. As a matter of principle the Government believes that the military justice system today should apply to our armed forces personnel the same rights enjoyed by civilians in the criminal justice system, to the greatest extent possible consistent with the efficient and disciplined operation of the armed forces.

Changes are also required to bring our military justice system into line with the 2001 defence statement entitled A Modern, Sustainable Defence Force Matched to New Zealand’s Needs. This states that a joint approach to structure and operational orientation should be a key component of the Defence Force. Some parts of the military justice system today are not common to all three services. This hinders the proper exercise of joint command and is an unnecessary complication. Acknowledging the need to respond to a changed environment, the Defence Force undertook a review between 2002 and 2006 to assess what reforms needed to be made. This review took into account New Zealand’s international obligations. It also looked at the experience of other States such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, which have gone through a similar process in recent times. The review included substantial consultation within military and legal communities, and this bill is the product of that review.

The two principal components of the military justice system are summary discipline and courts martial. Summary discipline deals with more minor charges heard by a commander in a unit. Currently the Armed Forces Discipline Act provides for two systems of summary discipline, one for the Navy, and another for the Army and the Air Force. This is not consistent with the joint orientation that has now been adopted by the Defence Force. This bill provides for a common system of summary discipline for the armed forces that complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and combines the best elements of the two current systems. The bill will simplify processes and produce efficiencies consistent with the expeditious administration of summary discipline without compromising fairness.

At present the convictions and sentences of courts martial are reviewed by the Board of Review, which has the power to quash convictions and vary sentences. This bill will abolish the Board of Review, replacing it with enhanced rights of appeal to the Courts Martial Appeal Court. The Judge Advocate General’s supervisory role in respect of the military justice system will be preserved by expanding his or her power to refer cases to the Courts Martial Appeal Court.

One of the principles that underpins many of the reforms in this bill is that the processes of the ordinary criminal law should be the benchmark for military law unless there are sound reasons arising from the nature of the armed forces that dictate otherwise. The bill, for example, aligns the grounds for appealing to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court from a decision of the Courts Martial Appeal Court with those that apply to criminal appeals from the High Court. Another example is the authorisation of an equivalent to the police detention legal assistance scheme for the benefit of service members who are being questioned by the service authorities in connection with a suspected offence.

In assessing whether the special nature of the armed forces requires a departure from the processes of the ordinary criminal law, the review conducted by the Defence Force focused on what are generally agreed to be the seven vital elements of the military justice system. These are the maintenance of discipline, consistency in all strategic environments, portability, expedition, fairness, efficiency, and simplicity. This bill represents a significant advance for the New Zealand armed forces in respect of those vital elements, as well as improving the compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I have had the chance, I think, to consult with almost all parties in the House on this legislation. This ought not to be a controversial piece of legislation and I believe that it will attract support from all sides of the House. I certainly commend the bill to the House.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : National will be supporting this bill going to a select committee. We do note that the Minister did brief the National Party and other parties in the House. Yes, it is true that our system of military justice does need modernisation, but it is important to highlight a fundamental point. The actual military offences are not being changed by this legislation. What is being changed are the procedures—how those offences are in fact tried. The changes are largely around what we might loosely call the superior jurisdiction—the courts martial.

There are some details in that that I want to bring to the House’s attention. As, I am sure, there will be members in this House who perhaps have suffered the impost of summary jurisdiction of their units—

Ron Mark: And dealt it out.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: —and dealt it out, so we hear—I shall mention that that part of the procedure will not really be changing, in fact. I do note that there are two colleagues at least in the House who have served in the role of presiding officers in the summary jurisdiction, and I would also have to put on record, I guess—as the member volunteered it by interjection—that Major Ron Mark was also a recipient of that jurisdiction, perhaps as a private soldier. It clearly did not inhibit his rise through the ranks thereafter.

That having been said, I will now move to the issue of courts martial, because this is a significant change. Under the existing system, we essentially have a panel of military officers who try the accused. There is no jury or anything of that nature, and the legally qualified person—frequently not a serving officer—is acting merely in an advisory role. At least, that is the theory. Those members who have seen the film A Few Good Men will note that in other jurisdictions such as the United States it is done quite differently. There it looks more like a civil trial, with a judge sitting in jurisdiction exercising a legal approach to the trial. That is the major change that will be brought about by this legislation, and I think it is a good one. When people are facing the prospect of imprisonment—and there have been many courts martial in New Zealand, including those in recent years, where people have been sentenced to imprisonment—there should be a legal process and all legal niceties should be observed.

One thing I also want to bring to the House’s attention is what I think is quite a significant change. There is now established a Director of Military Prosecutions. This person, who will almost certainly be a serving officer, will be appointed by the Governor-General. Most probably that person will be the director-general of the legal service, currently a brigadier in the New Zealand Army. The interesting point—and we will be exploring this issue in the select committee—is that that person will be under the supervision of the Solicitor-General and will be immune from command of the Chief of Defence Force. Members should note that point. A serving military officer will not be accountable for this particular purpose—that of Director of Military Prosecutions—to the normal chain of command. The responsibility is actually to the Crown Law Office, which is headed by the Solicitor-General—and that person has the power to stay proceedings under military law. So this is quite a substantial change, and that particular person will have substantially more autonomy and independence than any other officer in the New Zealand Defence Force. The Minister just glossed over that and did not make much of it, but I suggest that that is a very significant change. We will be wanting to explore that change in the select committee in order to understand the significance of it. I am told that it is the case in the United Kingdom and in Canada, so I will want to see how it is working out in practice in those jurisdictions.

National is supporting the bill, but we should not pretend that these are minor changes. They are substantial changes. By and large, I suggest that they are actually changes for the good. They do modernise our system.

I just want to bring the attention of the House to this additional fact. Some years ago—about a decade—there were only about three or four legal officers across the Defence Force. Typically, there was one in each of the services, plus a director. Today there are 28, which is a change in the space of just 10 years, and virtually every deployment overseas includes a legal officer. Is that not an interesting change? No doubt people have it in their minds that that is OK. They guess that when people in the services go out on patrol, they have to go and talk to the legal officer to work out the rules of engagement and so forth, and that if they happen to fire their weapons, they will be interviewed by the legal officer in the field. People might suppose that there will be a report going back to the Director of Military Prosecutions, who is reporting to the Solicitor-General.

We have to ask ourselves whether this helps or hinders the conduct of contemporary operations. By and large, I think that it probably helps, though perhaps not in the way that I have described, because I recognise that contemporary operations and their interaction with humanitarian law, which is a much greater plethora of conventions and custom law, and much greater interaction with civil reconstruction—rebuilding societies—do have a significant legal dimension to them. It is not like military conflicts of the past. So things are done differently, and properly so. These, nevertheless, are very big changes. Four legal officers to 28 in the space of a decade is a change in the culture and in the way the Defence Force now conducts its contemporary operations internationally and, indeed, locally.

So National does support the bill. I personally see it as an overdue modernisation to our military law, but it does raise significant questions, which I trust that the select committee—under the chair of Dianne Yates—will be able to explore properly, because what they really say is that contemporary military operations are different from the military operations of the past that are so well known to many members in this House and to their predecessors.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I welcome the introduction of the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. As the previous speaker said, we look forward to its coming to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. It is a bill about the modernisation of the law of the armed forces. I must say that a good deal of preparation has gone into this bill. It is one of the best pieces of legislation I have seen. The explanatory note is extremely good. Not only does it talk about the policy statement but also it outlines the public policy objectives, discusses the analysis of the clauses, and outlines the consultation processes. As I have said, this bill is one of the best pieces of legislation I have seen come before this House. It is a doorstopper. It is a really thick bill, and it will take the select committee a good time to work through it. But the bill is excellent.

I refer members to the explanatory note. The general policy statement states: “An effective and fair military justice system is essential to the maintenance of discipline in the Armed Forces in peace and war, whether in New Zealand or overseas.” It does state that there has been no substantial reform of the military justice system since 1983—as both the Minister of Defence and the member opposite have said, and the National Party has agreed. This reform comes about through domestic and international developments in human rights—and the Minister has mentioned those in Australia and Canada—and it comes from a review conducted by the New Zealand Defence Force, which recommended a large number of reforms. Those reforms are reflected in the bill, which will amend—as has been said—the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953, and the Defence Act 1990.

The general policy statement then talks about the amendments that the bill makes. It states: “the Bill will make a number of miscellaneous reforms to military law that will—improve the compliance with commonly understood principles of justice … close gaps in the application of military law …”—and Dr Mapp has just outlined some of those—“… and produce a modern military justice system”.

I also refer to the part of the explanatory note that talks about the public policy objectives: “The objectives of this proposal are to reform New Zealand’s military justice system to—improve its consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and maintain or improve its delivery of the following vital elements:”—

John Hayes: We can read.

DIANNE YATES: I remind Mr Hayes that he has an opportunity for a 10-minute speech when I finish—“focus on the maintenance of discipline: consistency in all strategic environments:”.

The explanatory note then goes on to say something that I think is really interesting and that has not been mentioned, which is that there will be a small increase in legal aid costs associated with the granting of legal aid to suspects, and that that will be met from within existing baselines. With regard to most bills that come before a select committee, we ask how much the provisions of the legislation will cost—what the extra expense is. In the extensive amount of planning that has gone into this bill, I think a lot of the questions that a select committee might ask have already been answered.

There has been consultation with the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Judge Advocate General, members of the panel of Judge Advocates, members of the panel of courts martial counsel, the New Zealand Law Society and—I am sure Dr Worth will be interested in this—the Armed Forces Law Association of New Zealand. The New Zealand Defence Force intranet site has provided all members of the New Zealand Defence Force with information about the review of the military justice system and the opportunity to comment. We have a list in the explanatory note of the stakeholders and the consultation process that has been gone into. Finally, it talks about the Government departments and agencies that have been consulted: Treasury, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Law Office, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. There have been a number of meetings between the New Zealand Defence Force and both the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Law Office.

As one of my colleagues has said, many of us have been impressed with the process that has been gone through. I recommend that those who are interested in legislation—and those who are drafting future legislation—take a good look at the explanatory note of this bill and at the actual structure of the bill itself. I am sure the select committee is looking forward to undertaking a closer examination of its content.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : Dr Mapp has explained in an exemplary way the ramifications of this legislation and its impact on the current law. As he has said, National supports this Armed Forces Law Reform Bill for passage. It is a commonplace to say that an effective and fair military justice system is essential to the maintenance of discipline in the armed forces in peace and war, whether in New Zealand or overseas.

This legislation stands clearly in need of amendment. It is interesting that the legislation being amended—the principal Act—is the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. But it took that legislation 12 years to come into force. I am not sure that we would tolerate that in the Parliament of 2007. That was a 12-year gap between the enactment of the legislation and its coming into force. We just do not see those unacceptable time frames. The reason for that, in substantial measure, was that it was necessary for armed forces rules of procedure to be enacted. Prior to the Armed Forces Discipline Act, there was a Navy Act, New Zealand Army Act, and Royal New Zealand Air Force Act. They all had quite different rules, and incidentally they all had quite different traditions.

In the course of my military experience I had the privilege—fortunately not of being a victim of the court martial setting—of taking part in courts martial in a number of roles. In particular, I had a role in navy courts martial—the service I was associated with. Where the court martial involved the trial of an officer, a sword was placed in front of the accused. That sword lay parallel to the place where the accused officer was seated or standing. The court retired to consider its verdict, and when it came back to pronounce its verdict in open court, the accused officer could look to see which way the sword was pointing. If the sword was pointing towards him or her—but it was always him in those days—then he knew that he would be convicted by the particular court. Those were the elements of drama that were injected into the courts martial of those days. It was somewhat akin, as more experienced members of the House may recall, to that television programme called Branded, where the sword of a Confederate Army officer who had crossed the line of military discipline was broken.

There were other aspects of courts martial in those days that were also of some interest. One good practice was that when the court retired to consider its verdict and was in a position to deliberate on what the outcome would be, it was always the junior officer in the court of three—or, perhaps, five—officers who was asked to say what he felt and whether he felt the accused was guilty or not guilty. The reason behind that tradition was so that a junior officer would not be affected by the views of his seniors as to what would be the appropriate political response to make in respect of a determination in a criminal setting. It is also right to say that there was a degree of cynicism about those court martial processes in those days—somewhat akin to the Alice in Wonderland statement of sentence first, verdict afterwards.

We are not seeing in this legislation significant, substantive change, but we are seeing some change, which I believe—echoing Dr Mapp’s comments—to be worthwhile and of merit. There are still significant differences between military justice and the justice meted out in the civilian courts sitting in their criminal jurisdiction. Much higher standards are expected of military personnel than those people outside the military who cross the line and commit criminal offences. Nothing in this legislation will detract from that higher standard required of those who serve this country in a military setting.

The comment has been made about the number of lawyers in the military. That is truly a striking change. To some extent I am not supportive of that change, but it is the reality that this Government has significantly moved our focus of military activity not from war fighting but to peacemaking. In that peacemaking context the provision of legal advice becomes quite critical. In a war fighting setting those issues do not bear time for reflection. I commend this legislation to the House. I think it is appropriate that it be enacted without delay.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I found it very interesting to listen to Dr Worth, who actually made me reflect somewhat on what I was going to say. I will follow on from the interesting summation he has given, because it really highlights to me what is different about the military, and what is different about ordinary people.

Some of Dr Worth’s recounting of the courts martial, and of the procedures that used to exist, reminds me even more broadly of the customs of the service and the expectations placed on military people that stand far and above the expectations placed on ordinary citizens of this nation. These expectations are put upon military people for very good reasons. There is an honour code, and there are expectations such as what one will or will not do. There are consequences from bringing the military into disrepute through conduct to the prejudice of good military order and discipline, and there are ranges of charges that can be brought against someone under that simple charge. In my day those charges came under section 61, and most young men and women who were undergoing recruitment training fell victim to that at some stage for misdemeanours such as dirty boots, twisted boot laces, not shaving, scruffy hair—all of which was considered to be conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.

To those who were subjected to the first few torrid weeks of the military world, it could be quite daunting to find themselves being marched up at 110 paces to the minute, to be stood rigidly to attention in front of the officer in charge of a company with their headdress removed, to have the charges read out, and to be given a few split seconds or minutes to attempt to justify or refute the charges, which might be brought against them as a private by a lance corporal—who himself might look as if he has barely learnt to shave. It could be daunting for a private to be given a punishment and summarily marched straight out of the door, to be put to work to complete one’s sentence—after-hours, generally, in one’s own time. In those times and in those days, there was not so much as a snowball’s chance in hell of redressing what one thought to be a wrong. A few of us, on the odd occasion, took it upon ourselves as junior recruits to challenge the orderly room procedures, and we were astonished to find that our punishments had doubled as a consequence. So one learnt pretty quickly to shut one’s mouth, take one’s punishment, get on with it, and demonstrate that one was a man and would accept the consequences of one’s own transgressions.

The customs of the service, which are embodied in military discipline and the processes that underpin the Armed Forces Discipline Act, are important. There have been differences between the army and the navy, for some very good reasons. Some of it is customary. Some of it is outdated now, such as the custom that the navy has of not drawing its sword, of carrying its sword “at the trail”—that is the correct term. In days gone by under Queen Victoria, I think it was—

Dr Richard Worth: King Charles.

RON MARK: King Charles. The navy lost the privilege of its officers drawing their swords in the presence of the monarch, because they had mutinied. That was the punishment meted out to them.

Traditionally, the artillery had to suffer the similar indignity of seeing the transport corps being accorded the right to wear artillery officers’ uniforms and to carry artillery officers’ swords. Why was that? It was because at a certain battle—I think in the Crimea—a withdrawing transport unit came upon a battery of guns.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Abandoned, no less.

RON MARK: They were abandoned, as Dr Mapp has just pointed out. They were abandoned, and that is an ultimate sin because the guns are the colours. For one to abandon one’s colours is an ultimate sin, and the punishment that was meted out to the artillery was for them to see one of their privileges and rights accorded to the corps that actually recovered those guns and brought them back in safely so they could be used again. An act of dishonour resulted in an act of honour being attributed to another unit, and that still carries to this very day. Historically, the differences between the army and the navy have been there for some very sound reasons. But society and the military have moved on, and some of the things that were applicable then, in terms of the Armed Forces Discipline Act, are no longer applicable today.

Dr Worth mentioned the fact that he believes the reason we now have so many lawyers in the military and deployed on operations is because this Government has us involved in only peacekeeping operations, not war. Well, the fact is these days New Zealand rarely deploys purely for the purpose of making war—in fact, we do not. Internationally, most of our friends and allies are involved in peacekeeping and peacemaking operations, and that is a far more complex environment to be working in. The international consequences of a private soldier getting it wrong are considerably greater than they ever were in the First World War, the Crimean War, the Boer War, or the Second World War. These amendments take note and give cognisance to those realities.

I will not go back through and reiterate everything that the previous speakers, Dr Mapp, Dr Worth, the Minister Phil Goff, and Dianne Yates have gone through, but there are some things that are worthy of note. It is worthy of noting that the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 came into force in 1983. I joined the army in 1971 and was subject to the Armed Forces Discipline Act at that stage. It seems a long time ago that I was standing to attention in front of my company commander being confined to barracks for misdemeanours. Some years later in 1978, as an officer I was instructed, as part of my training, in the running of orderly rooms and the powers that subordinate commanders have.

Some time later, I had the opportunity to cross swords with an officer commanding, which resulted in my being fronted up as a junior officer—second in command of a unit—on a charge. It occurred to me then that there was no way in heck I was going to take the punishment of the commanding officer, so I opted for a court martial. I did so because I knew straight away that it was by means of a court martial that one could get a fairer hearing, and that natural justice would be more likely to be played out, and as a result—just for the curiosity of members—they promptly changed their minds and ordered a court of inquiry, which gave me the opportunity to cross-examine my accuser. All charges were dismissed. It did not do the accuser’s career much good beyond that, because he was the one who ended up with a reprimand.

What is pleasing about this bill is that the laws of natural justice and the Human Rights Act are written into this with a far higher degree of compliance than has ever been the case before—and section 24 and section 25A reflect that. The “Seven Samurai”—as often referred to by the military legal fraternity—and the focus on the maintenance of discipline are absolutely essential, and they are retained. The consistency in all strategic environments, given the fact that our troops are deployed to places like East Timor, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, and Bougainville, is absolutely essential. Portability is important, because our troops serve everywhere. Expeditiousness so that justice can be swift is important—and I only wish that was the case with the police force and the way in which it deals with its people.

Fairness, efficiency, and simplicity—I could talk about some of the things I observed in the way in which military justice was meted out in my 20 years in the military. Some of it I find still sticks in my throat to this very day. But I know there will be plenty of time for an opportunity to discuss those issues as this bill makes its way through the select committee and it comes back for the second reading. I hope that some of the things I witnessed in my time as a junior officer will never ever be able to be played out again, because this bill will clearly take care of what I consider to be anomalies that are well past their use-by date.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will be supporting the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill going to the select committee. The bill updates the systems of military justice in what seems to be the correct direction, allowing more due process to apply. It makes sure that courts martial, which the previous speaker, Ron Mark, referred to, are done in the proper manner, with the right to call witnesses, and the right to present one’s defence properly if one is subject to a court martial, paralleling the civilian system of justice as much as possible. Of course, within the military system there are some more summary levels of justice, where the superior officer is the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury, and gives the sentence. But I think our system will now have more protections in it than it had previously.

One of the motivations in updating these procedures is partly to be in line with overseas jurisdictions and partly because of a greater sense of fairness we have in our society now with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; also, it is about being more aware of the need for due process in all aspects of society. There is also the reality of the Defence Force operating in an environment of relatively low unemployment and finding it quite difficult to get people to join up, and, when they have joined up, to retain them for any length of time.

One of the problems, of course, is that it is difficult for people who join the armed forces to have to be away overseas, sometimes for quite a while—for example, on a mission such as in East Timor or on one of the ships for months at a time—because it creates difficulties for family life. So the Defence Force has to have good systems of pay and conditions—and, in this respect, good processes of justice—so that people do not feel they are hard-done-by and leave the armed services for those reasons. The bill reflects a good, modernising pressure from society on the armed forces.

We can compare ourselves with overseas forces and learn from them, but we can also learn some negative things from overseas. Historically, great injustices have been perpetrated against our Defence Force people. In the past this House has debated the unjust executions of New Zealand personnel in the First World War, and we have had bills before this Parliament rectifying those injustices. A former member for Invercargill, Mark Peck, put a lot of effort into that area during his time in Parliament. So I think we are recognising here that we need proper systems of discipline that will allow for fairness.

In those historic World War One trials United Kingdom officers were the ones conducting disciplinary proceedings and getting it wrong, and some of our soldiers were wrongly executed. The United Kingdom system today is not perfect. I refer to another, more recent, case in which the discipline of the United Kingdom armed forces detrimentally affected a New Zealander. That was the case of Malcolm Kendall-Smith, who was a member of the British armed forces. He refused to return to serve in Iraq and was court-martialled on the basis of refusing a lawful order. The trial was not done according to the procedures we would consider just. His main defence was that the US and British occupation of Iraq was illegal in international law—and I think that can be clearly established—but the judge in the trial said that the only thing he was going to take into account was whether Malcolm Kendell-Smith had obeyed a legal order, or what he determined to be the legality of the order. He did not look at the case in terms of the background of the illegality or otherwise of the occupation of Iraq. He refused to consider that as part of the case. That is something we would not want to imitate here.

The bill refers briefly to prisoners of war. The legislation this bill is amending states that prisoners of war are subject to the disciplinary proceeding outlined in that legislation. That is something we are very much cognisant of these days, in terms of the situation with Guantánamo Bay, in particular, with the mistreatment of prisoners of war by the United States and the illegal rendition of prisoners, taken in places like Afghanistan and elsewhere, to third countries where they are tortured. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan are countries to which people have been rendered by the United States and subsequently tortured. Horrific cases came out of that. It is important that we get it right in terms of our treatment of prisoners of war, including the prisoners of war that New Zealand troops capture in Afghanistan.

The Minister of Defence, Phil Goff, admitted recently that the SAS unit in Afghanistan a few years ago did take prisoners of war and pass them over to the US-led forces, and they may well have been rendered to torture in a third country. We still have no guarantee that that did not happen. So the issue is very much alive for us. It is disappointing that the Minister of Defence will not even accept that the people captured in the conflict in Afghanistan have prisoner of war status. If it is not accepted, then it means that those people would not be subject to the procedures of this legislation. We could get into the difficult position potentially of even New Zealand citizens being subject to mistreatment in the way that an Australian citizen, David Hicks, has been mistreated. He has been kept 5 years in horrible conditions and, in effect, been tortured over that time. He is yet to be brought before a justice system—even a military justice system.

The military tribunals set up by the United States have been widely criticised for not allowing a full application of justice. In the case of David Hicks, the charge against him—something to the effect that he supported the enemy or associated with the people on the other side—would not in the Australian or New Zealand jurisdictions be considered a crime; it would be more a question of a prisoner of war status. That is where we have to be very aware of what we do in terms of military law. How we apply international law to military law and connect the two is very important, because we do not want to end up in the situation of the United Kingdom where military justice is not applied in the broader sense; or of the United States, where military tribunals have been subject to wide criticism; or of Australia under John Howard, where he will not even defend the rights of an Australian citizen, David Hicks, to proper treatment. John Howard has been rightly condemned, in Australia from across the board, for not standing up for justice—for not standing up for David Hicks.

It is disappointing that our Prime Minister, when she goes off to America next week, will not be bringing up with George Bush the cases of the rights of people who have been captured or seized by the Americans and mistreated in Guantánamo Bay, and elsewhere—being rendered to third countries for torture. She effectively said in response to a question of mine yesterday that if she were the British Prime Minister, or the Australian Prime Minister, and if we had our citizens in Guantánamo Bay, then it would be relevant to take up the issues, but because New Zealand does not have people in that situation we should not bother about it. Yet Guantánamo Bay is something that has to engage—and does engage—the international community. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and all of those international organisations that have supporters and members in New Zealand have taken up the case of people being mistreated by the American justice system, or “injustice system”.

We should do likewise, and I do appeal at this late stage to Helen Clark that when she goes to Washington she should please not forget human rights. She talks about human rights in Zimbabwe—rightly—as she did the other day in criticising the latest arrest by the Zimbabwe regime of the leaders of the democracy movement. I ask the Prime Minister not to be inconsistent. If it is OK for New Zealand to advocate and speak out for human rights in Zimbabwe, it is right to speak truth to the superpower and support human rights there.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou. At the centre of this bill is the assertion that an effective and a fair military justice service is essential in peace and war. The same associations between hope and despair, discipline and punishment, and justice and violence have been played out, as we know, in Parliament over the last 24 hours. That made me think about how those dichotomies are played out in the system of military law—and the context of human rights, which Mr Locke has just talked about—for those employed in the naval, armed, and air forces. In talking about the armed forces, members need to know that I never heard any of my uncles, my koroua, and my cousins who went to war say they were proud they had killed someone. Rather, they disliked war and its effects, both on those with whom they were in conflict and combat and on the civilian population, including women and children. Those same relations of mine talked about the injustices they saw in the heat of battle. They said, however, that discipline had to be maintained.

So I come to this bill thinking about the context of justice, of discipline, and of human rights, and in doing so I understand that the connection between human rights and warfare can be tracked back to our very origins as a country. Six years into the birth of the nation, in 1846, the first armed regular force of the settler Government was raised. Its focus was “to preserve the peace”. Twenty years later that commitment to peace was tested in Taranaki, and the place of its failure became the scene for prolonged combat and the site for two major wars. There ensued a remarkable history of passive resistance, as we know, at Parihaka on the one side, and the playing out of violence, rape, and retribution on the other side. Land confiscation and peppercorn rentals for Māori land were the price of so-called civil disobedience.

That history that sets the scene for the operations of the military justice system in Aotearoa. As the Waitangi Tribunal commented in 1996: “the initial military action against Maori was an unlawful attack by armed forces of the Government on Maori subjects”. Further, it said: “If war is the absence of peace, the war has never ended in Taranaki”. Those beginnings of our military justice system influence our discussion today, as we look to create a new and more just military justice system.

Having lived for many years in Taranaki, and having a wife of Taranaki descent, I am only too familiar with the catastrophic and long-lasting effects of the armed forces’ unlawful attacks on Taranaki Māori. In the decade of the 1860s there was no such luxury as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to build on. In a war waged by the country on its Māori citizens in the interests of its settler citizens, the question of whether the military system was effective and fair, with regard to the brutalities that occurred, was never raised or addressed. That history on which this nation is based, a history of unlawful and violent attack on Māori subjects, is a very compelling rationale for why we should support a reform of the military justice system in line with developments in human rights laws.

But other factors have also convinced us of the significance of this legislation. We know of the strong representation of Māori in the Army and Navy, but there is an under-representation of Māori at officer level across the board. In terms of real numbers, that equates to a massive 1,104 Māori in the Army, just 66 of whom have reached the rank of officer. There are 162 Māori in the Air Force, 16 of whom are officers. There are 462 Māori in the Navy, and, again, a mere 17 have officer status. So when one in four in those services are tangata whenua, and when there appears to be a glass ceiling operating, it is only appropriate that the Māori Party takes up the issue of Māori representation in this bill.

Another issue that has arisen in our reading of this bill is one that is a prevailing concern for the Māori Party—that is, due access to justice. In August 1999 the then Chief of General Staff, Maurice Dodson, said he was concerned about slipping standards of behaviour occurring in the armed forces: “Recent events at Linton and in other camps have caused me serious concern about the current standards of discipline. There are disturbing trends emerging … offences involving dishonesty, morality and those of a sexual nature are becoming more prevalent within the army. These types of offences would not be tolerated.” The opportunity to promote basic human rights, and the entitlement that fairness and justice be extended to the employees of the armed forces as much as to civilians, must be uppermost in the reform of the military justice system.

But it is not just a matter of being consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and international instruments. The issue is also about the promotion of essential values, such as manaakitanga, and the aspiration to promote a fair and just society, to work for the elimination of poverty and injustice, and to create an environment where collective care and responsibility are important. In terms of indigenous justice, such a kaupapa of collective responsibility is articulated worldwide—for instance, in the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. Article 28 of that declaration states: “Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a significant threat to relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous peoples concerned. … States shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous peoples concerned … prior to using their lands or territories for military activities.” That is another part of the puzzle in understanding the rationale for this bill.

The objective of this bill is to improve the system in order to achieve, amongst other things, consistency, fairness, and simplicity. Was it fair that the Muriwhenua people had their lands appropriated in 1941 for the purposes of building an aerodrome at Kaitāia? The return of that land is still under negotiation in the Waitangi Tribunal. Was it fair that land taken at Raglan for an emergency aerodrome was never returned to its people when it was no longer going to be used as an airfield in 1953? Twenty-five hectares by Raglan harbour were taken by the Crown for defence purposes during the Second World War and later converted into a golf course. It was not until 1978, and subsequent to the arrests of 17 people, that the land was returned, finally, to the people of Tainui Āwhiro.

Finally, I want to refer to the issue of court martial dismissals, referred to by Mr Mark, that occurred in the armed forces and are referred to in this bill. In 2003-04 the Army made 33 court martial dismissals, the Navy discharged five people, and the Air Force dismissed four. We would be interested in learning the ethnic breakdown of those dismissed, and we hope that information will be available to the select committee. The regulatory impact statement for the bill suggests that approximately 10 courts martial are held per year. In view of that, we look to the Minister to provide a rationale to explain the blip that obviously occurred when 42 court martial dismissals occurred in the 2003-04 year. We know that for those 42 individuals, the convening officer of the court martial system was a member of the executive, was responsible for the prosecution, and indeed, appointed all of the court members. We know also that no appeal system was in place. That was hardly fair. It was not impartial, and it was certainly not independent. At the same time as those courts martial were proceeding, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act specified that anyone charged with an offence has the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court. Although the provisions of this bill propose to address those anomalies for the future, we would ask that the select committee gives some consideration to compensation mechanisms or redress for those individuals who have suffered the injustice of those inconsistencies subsequent to the introduction of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

We will be supporting this bill with, as always, the challenge that Tāmati Kruger made when he reminded us of the importance of the pursuit of justice to attain human rights and to achieve our own self-determination: ka warea te ware, ka area te rangatira; hongi, hongi te whewheia, hongi, hongi te manehurangi; kei a au te rangatiratanga.

[Ignorance is the oppressor, vigilance is the liberator; know the enemy, know the destiny; determine our own destiny.]

• Kia ora tātou.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I certainly agree that ignorance is the oppressor. I have never heard such an ignorant series of facts as those just touted out on the floor of this Chamber by the previous speaker, who used to teach the children of this country. I am very glad that he is now in this House so we can bring him to heel and tell him the truth. For example, when I think of my contacts with the military, my observation would be that it is colour-blind. People in the military in New Zealand are colour-blind and anybody who thinks that they are not is off the planet.

I can recall that back in the late 1960s Major General Brian Poananga was head of the New Zealand military force, and today I think of Lieutenant General Jerry Matepārae who, equally, has the most senior position in our military. When that member talks about glass ceilings, it just shows that he is speaking from ignorance, and I am delighted that he is no longer putting bad ideas in the heads of our children.

I will now come back to the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill. Parliament is looking at this bill, and the National Party will be supporting it, because there has been no substantial reform of the military justice system in New Zealand since the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971. As my colleague Dr Worth pointed out, it took 12 years before that Act came into force, in 1983. We also have to focus on the fact that our domestic and international developments in human rights law—and by that I particularly mean the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990—have necessitated a thorough review of the military justice system in New Zealand. This bill results from the review of the military justice system that was conducted by the New Zealand Defence Force, probably under, I think, Kevin Riordan. It amends the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971, the Courts Martial Appeals Act 1953, and the Defence Act 1990.

I have sat through a certain amount of drivel coming from a number of earlier speakers here in this House this afternoon. Having been personally involved in peacekeeping operations involving New Zealand Defence Forces in other countries, I can tell members that the sort of reason that we need our lawyers engaged in these processes is to do the exchange of letters with other countries. For example, if New Zealand sends the HMNZS Endeavour across to Bougainville to engage in peacekeeping operations, there are rules of engagement and there are standard agreements between countries. But that is not what we are here to discuss today; we are here to discuss military discipline.

We need this bill for two reasons. First, we need it because at the moment there is a discrepancy between our three services in the disciplinary procedures that exist. Although the Army and the Air Force are in sync, our Navy is not. Secondly, we have to ensure that our disciplinary procedures, especially courts martial, are comparable with those of like-minded partners like Australia, Canada, and Britain. I think that this is particularly important, given the increased level of deployments that have involved those other countries over the past 10 years. This will mean, I think, an improved court martial procedure, including a new role of presiding judge and more appropriate Court of Appeal procedures.

One issue that is bothering me, and one that we will be looking at very carefully as the bill is considered in this House, is the fact that the Defence Force’s legal directorate now has 28 officers, compared with four just a few years ago. I keep wondering to myself whether this is part of a Government make-work scheme. It is certainly consistent with the huge growth in bureaucracy that is occurring under the tenure of Helen Clark and the “Green” Government—reflecting on Keith Locke’s comments, I am not sure whether the Green Party will actually support this bill; time will tell.

One aspect of this legislation seems problematical to me, as well. I note that in the comment on consultation in the explanatory note of the bill, the Government departments and agencies that were consulted are listed. As my colleague Dianne Yates read out, these include Treasury, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Law Office, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The note also states: “There have also been a number of meetings between the New Zealand Defence Force and both the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Law Office to settle policy.”

I find it astonishing that there has been no consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, given the strength of its legal division and its engagement, on an international platform, with many other countries. So I will also be looking, as the bill progresses, at why there has been such inadequate consultation.

Those are the main points that I would like to register here in the House this afternoon. I reiterate National’s support for this bill’s progression through the House.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) : Very briefly, I want to place on record that I consider the Armed Forces Law Reform Bill to be an excellent piece of work. It has been 5 years in the making, and, reading through it this afternoon, I can see that it is very carefully structured, in terms of its presentation to members of Parliament, and covers its impact and the consultation undertaken. We as a House should recognise it as a model of its type. The work of the select committee and the Minister, Phil Goff, leading up to this point reflects that.

On occasion we in this Parliament can agree on matters and work together to best effect. I place on record the contribution made by Commander Chris Griggs, the military justice review project officer, who has been working within the New Zealand Defence Force for a considerable period to produce this work. He is highly professional. This bill was obviously a labour of love as well as a labour of excellence. I trust that over the next few months the select committee will do good work on the legislation.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.referred to Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : Thank you for the opportunity to again speak on Part 1 of this Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill. This bill has a very unfortunate history, when one notes that the Labour Government, which is promoting it, has just brought in an amendment that extends the transition period. This goes a little way—but does not go nearly far enough—towards sorting out the numerous flaws in this bill.

I have been in close contact with the sheltered workshops, and they are deeply concerned that the transition arrangements that the Labour Government and Minister Dyson said would be sorted out simply have not been sorted out. They will affect adversely New Zealand’s most vulnerable workers, and they will affect the sheltered workshops, which go to great extent and great effort to provide choice to disabled workers who might otherwise not have a job.

It is interesting to see that the Minister, in her latest Supplementary Order Paper, dated 13 March, wishes to extend the date in clause 4, from 30 June 2007 to 30 November 2007. Clearly, Minister Dyson is admitting that there were basic flaws in this bill’s transitional arrangements. She should know that, because I have just spoken to people from two of the sheltered workshops who say that the problems they have had with their workers, in terms of both the exemptions and the taxation abatement regimes, have just not been sorted out by this Labour Government and this Minister.

Two or 3 years ago this Minister grandly said that these things would be sorted out by 30 June, but clearly they have not been. I think what is really important is that a very sensible Supplementary Order Paper was put in by Dr Paul Hutchison as long ago as last November, which meant that the Government would be able to enact this bill from as soon as when it had sorted out the flaws that are within the bill. The real question is whether the Government can sort out the problems by 30 November 2007, and given its track record, I would say no. What does the sector say? The sector says that the Government has simply had a dismal track record over the last 3 years. In fact, one of the sheltered workshops was due to have Department of Labour inspectors in this week to sort out the exemptions, but suddenly, at the last moment, they said they could not turn up and it would be another month or so. Once again, Minister Dyson is great at putting out the ideological legislation that she is so prone to, but she is very bad at sorting out the practicalities.

The sheltered workshop told me the labour inspectors had come along for a bit of a chat and had said the exemption rules were going to change, but when asked when they would change, they said they did not know. That is the difficulty that has plagued the people who have been trying to look after disabled workers for the past 3 years. Clearly that difficulty will go on month after month, unless the Minister decides that she actually will get these things in place. Apparently, the inspectors were asked whether more money would be available. There was a reply that there might be, but they did not know when. How can that be, when we read in the foreword to the bill that these transitional requirements would be sorted out, but they failed to be?

Let us have a look at some of the things that were claimed. It states there are costs associated with repealing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act. These fall on Government agencies and providers. Broadly, the direct costs to the Government are from transition and management costs such as the costs of administering minimum wage exemption permits. Well, I have heard from the substantial sheltered workshops that almost every worker requires a minimum wage exemption, and that in doing that, their paper-shuffling will quadruple. This is typical Labour Government bureaucracy at its worst.

Sandra Goudie: Absolutely, totally.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: “Absolutely”, as my colleague Sandra Goudie, the excellent member from the Coromandel—

Chris Tremain: Very hard-working.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: —and a very hard-working member says. She has taken a great interest in the disability sector. These are the practical things.

The document further states that the direct costs to providers are because they will have to comply with the Minimum Wage Act 1983 and the Holidays Act 2003. It states that providers will also face some compliance costs. I say we have never really worked out exactly how much those compliance costs are, and when one goes to places like the Abilities Group workshop on the North Shore or Workforce Auckland in Māngere one is very much impressed by the terrific work done by the managers of those sheltered workshops. They are clearly humming. The workforce love their jobs. In fact, as I was told by Peter Fraher of Abilities Group, under the present system some of the workers are so keen on their jobs that they come early, they stay late, after the holiday period they turn up for work the day before they are due back, because they are so keen to be there.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Don’t pay them wages!

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: We see the Minister across the House chipping in and harping on, yet she is the one who has failed to bring in the practical realities to make these choices work for disabled people. I am glad Minister Dyson has at least postponed the date to 30 November, but I doubt very much whether this will, indeed, allow the workshops, under her regime, to get back to the system they wish to.

One of the other points that is noted by the States Services Commission is that approximately $44 million over 4 years was committed in Budget 2002 to improve the quantity and quality of vocational services. That has obviously been great, but it has not gone towards helping the sheltered workshops who provide this extremely valuable choice for disabled workers today. I note that one of the sheltered workshops pointed out what would happen if, indeed, it paid an average of $2 per hour extra. It found out that a great deal of that money would actually go back to the Government. The workshop said: “It’s morally unacceptable for a Government to siphon these funds out of the disability sector, which is already significantly underfunded. Government has an obligation to support disadvantaged people and the organisations that employ, care and develop them, not make their lives and enjoyment more uncertain.” This is what they have been living under for the last 3 years. It is unnecessary uncertainty. The Supplementary Order Paper I have put in would at least make it sure for them that the bill would be enacted when the Government has actually ironed out the flaws. The Minister, once again, has given an unrealistic time line and that is particularly regrettable. Thank you, Madam Chair.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I move, That the question be now put.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora Madam Chair, kia ora tātou. When this Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill first came before us as a caucus we got the opportunity to get a briefing from Minister Dyson on it. As a result of that briefing I was quite keen on the bill.

Then our co-leader Tariana Turia suggested I have a look at a place called the Abilities Group over on the North Shore. So I went across to the group to have a look at the operation and I spent quite a bit of time talking to the management, to some of the staff, to some of the disabled workers, and to some of their whānau. I was mightily impressed with what they were doing. In particular, I refer to some of the comments raised by Dr Paul Hutchison in respect of the keenness of a number of those disabled people to want to actually be there, and also to note the comments from a number of the whānau, that the Abilities Group did not just provide somewhere positive for their family members to go to during the day, it also provided them, as families, with a break—with an opportunity to get themselves together, get their homes together, and get things organised for later on when their family members came back.

My concern was that any threat to an organisation like the Abilities Group to continue to provide a place of employment that is very positive—and I am not just talking from a management point of view, but from the workers’ points of view as well as from the families of the workers’ points of view—I think needs to be taken into consideration. If what Dr Hutchison is suggesting gives us the opportunity to give greater consideration to the issues that are raised by positive organisations such as the Abilities Group, then I think we should take up that opportunity, because once it becomes law it then becomes a little bit too late for the poor old disabled person.

I know, too—and not just from the Abilities Group but from other areas—of situations where people have been recommended out into the workforce because the nice labour inspector said that person was ready to go out into the workforce. Unfortunately, when that person goes out into the workforce, there is nobody in that normal workplace who has any sense of the needs of the disabled person who has just come through the door. As is the case in many situations like that, they are teased, they get bullied, and very, very quickly they are back into the sheltered workshop from whence they came, except they are often a lot more hurt by the experience of going out there. Although the Labour inspector might say that this person is able to work in a normal mainstream environment, quite simply, the inspector is not there on a day-to-day basis to ensure that those needs are going to be met. Also, it is unrealistic to expect normal workplaces to provide the support systems to ensure that disabled persons’ specific needs are going to be met on a day-to-day basis.

The Māori Party will be supporting the legislation because we support any attempt to improve the lot of the disabled. We will also be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper from Dr Hutchison to see whether it is possible to extend the time frame within which the legislation will be put into place so that we can give proper consideration to ways and means of protecting the needs of those providing the service, those requiring the service, those whānau who are directly affected by this legislation, as well as the Labour inspectors who, quite frankly, from my understanding, are not really sure how best to deal with this once it hits the streets.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : I move, That the question be now put.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am very pleased to be able to speak to this part, because one of the things it covers is exempt organisations. In looking at that, I am reminded of a comment that was made in the Southland Times, a glib explanation from the Minister for Disability Issues, Ruth Dyson, in regard to the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill—by gee, that is a mouthful. The Minister’s explanation implied that assessors will go into sheltered workshops to evaluate the percentage of productivity of each individual, then will inform those individuals whether they qualify to earn a percentage of the minimum wage. Where else in the workforce environment of New Zealand do we see people being assessed on whether they are actually capable of working? Someone will actually be assessing these people individually.

In the first instance, I am concerned to hear that labour inspectors are looking at changing the parameters of that assessment now, before the legislation is even passed. They are saying the assessment parameter will be looked at down the track and there will be some changes made to it; I am concerned about that. Secondly, I think it is a concern anyway that we have labour inspectors going in and making those judgments. They are standing there and talking to someone about his or her level of ability to work.

Poor little Sammy is going into the sheltered workshop every day, and he thinks he is really fantastic. He is rocking up, saying “Hi, guys.”, and being looked after by those who run the sheltered workshop. He has friends there and he has work there—or what he calls work. It may not be all that much, but it is a big thing to Sam. Then some people come along, say they do not think he is very capable of doing any work at all, and give Sam an assessment. The assessment says that Sam will be exempt from earning the minimum wage because those people do not think he deserves it.

That is pretty much what will happen as a result of these assessments. Do members think that is fair? How do we convey to an individual that message about his or her ability in a way that person can understand, and not have that person suddenly feel totally valueless as a result? Where is the respect for people who work in sheltered workshops as individuals in the process of this bill? I do not think it is there, at all.

The assessment for exemption totally devalues these people and their capabilities as individuals, and it totally devalues their self-esteem and dignity. Ruth Dyson has not mentioned or acknowledged the most important daily therapeutic needs of people who go to what we call a sheltered workshop—needs of socialising, learning, and sharing. Those individuals go to these environments and they feel valued. They feel they have contacts and friends. They feel they are making a worthwhile contribution, no matter how small that contribution is.

We should be talking about how those people feel; we should not be talking about what we think and feel. Why should we, the able-bodied, be dictating to people who do not have the same degree of cognisance, understanding, or ability as ourselves, but, none the less, do have cognisance and ability of their own?

To say that these people were consulted is an absolute farce—they were not. These workers—we will call them workers—and their families were not consulted properly. The Government says there was consultation undertaken by People First, but it was peer reviewed and found to be an absolute disgrace. So to even assume that these people have been consulted in any way, shape, or form—certainly, in any meaningful way—is very, very far from the truth. They certainly have not been consulted. These people are being denied the very basic human right to choose—that is, to choose what they will do each and every day.

There is the suggestion that repealing the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act will make everybody equal, but that is not right. That will not happen. Repealing the Act will mean that suddenly a group of people in this country will now be assessed and told either that they are capable of earning the minimum wage or that they are not. Those who are going for exemptions because they cannot work all that much will be told they are no good and not up to snuff. How do we tell them that? I ask whether there is any nice way to say that we are giving them an exemption.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I listened intently to the member who has just resumed her seat. She seemed to be talking about clauses in Part 3. I am under the impression we are debating Part 2 at this moment.

Sandra Goudie: That’s all right; you can think that.

PETER BROWN: She is glad I noticed. At least someone was listening to her.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. It certainly looks as if she could have been referring to some of the clauses in Part 3. I just remind members that we are talking on clauses 6 to 11.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) : It is a pleasure to take the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill. It is very interesting to see that we are debating something rather noble here, but that is not the major point of concern. Nobody would dispute that enabling everybody to reach their potential is a noble gesture to aspire to, and that is no doubt the core motivation behind this bill. However, I was very disturbed to find, at the report back to Parliament after the hearings of the Social Services Committee, that there were major, and practically unanimous, concerns from the other parties—namely, the National Party, New Zealand First, the ACT party, and United Future—over the actual practicalities and methods that have been designed to implement this policy.

I must say that I am convinced by the arguments of the very good members on this side of the Chamber—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Name them.

COLIN KING: Dr Paul Hutchison.

Dr Richard Worth: An excellent member.

COLIN KING: He is an excellent member. Sandra Goudie, the member for Coromandel, has wonderful argumentation. I also acknowledge the member of the Māori Party, Hone Harawira, who said he saw a lot of wisdom in this matter being progressively implemented.

I have huge concerns that when we look at the grand plan around Part 2 we see that it is very complicated. The fact that Minister Dyson has capitulated in the last hour and extended things out to 30 November 2007 is a sign that she was losing her nerve when speaking earlier about the noble expectations of the New Zealand strategy moving forward. We are dealing with some very vulnerable situations here. We are dealing with people who are vulnerable. We learnt about the expectations of those people from Sandra Goudie, the outstanding member for Coromandel. She encapsulated the satisfaction that is achieved by people as they reach their thresholds and are then nurtured through to do greater and better things. That is one of the vulnerable aspects in this whole thing.

One of the other vulnerable aspects I see as I look at Part 2 is the organisational structure and goodwill that is there at present. I see that goodwill going out the window, to some degree, because of the climate we are expecting these organisations to compete in. An enormous amount of community goodwill goes with these organisations. When I was given the responsibility to get to my feet and speak on this bill—I had not been on the select committee—I immediately rang home to Blenheim to check out just how things were going. I was saddened to see that a lot of the people there did not know what was going on, and I was directed over to Nelson. On that basis, I was not able to get too many answers. I had to ring somebody at home to get a bit of an idea—one of those people who come on board and support the community. That person supported those people and was very committed to a number of families.

We are talking not only about a fundamental move forward on a noble aspiration of a minimum wage but also about maintaining the infrastructure and value that presently exists inside these organisations. There are a lot of unmeasurables. We do not know the consequences of implementing what could be described as a noble gesture. It involves measurement of the value and worthiness of a person to receive the minimum wage, or a percentage thereof, and of the obligations that that puts on the whole system of things—the smooth running of the operations, and the requirement for calling in extra support when there are difficulties inside these establishments. I am hugely concerned about the exemption of organisations. The system will be wide open to abuse. We have to think carefully about this.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : For those who might be listening to this debate, we are debating the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill—and specifically debating Part 2, “Repeal of Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960”.

Without exception, everybody I have spoken to in the industry—that is, administrators and management—has said that the 1960 Act has to go and that it has to go as quickly as possible. My goodness me! Many of them really put the pressure on to say that the sooner we get rid of it and replace it with proper legislation the better.

New Zealand First supported this bill at its first reading. But after what we were told at the select committee and after we saw what came back from the select committee, we had reservations and decided to oppose the bill. We liked the look of Dr Hutchison’s 2-year transitional period. But it is too long. We have to get rid of the current 1960 Act soon and replace it with a new Act. This bill will do the job. We needed to be convinced that it could come into place on 30 June, and we were not convinced of that. We spoke to the Minister Ruth Dyson, we laid our cards on the table, she gave us a very good hearing, and an alternative date was put up that was not acceptable. Finally, we agreed on a date that is 5 months later—30 November—and that is some 8 or 9 months from now. We think this legislation can be put in place by that time.

There are two remaining issues. The first issue concerns the guidelines. I understand that the department is working on guidelines now. We have asked the Minister to use the influence she has to prevail on the department to get the guidelines completed, albeit in draft form, and out to the sector in rapid order. I am hopeful that the sector will get those guidelines in the not too distant future—as in a few weeks away.

The third—and probably the most important—issue is funding. There has to be adequate funding. I am not privy to the Budget, but I have spoken with the Minister on this subject. I believe her when she assures me that there will be funding for this area. So New Zealand First, in discussions with the Government, has achieved three things: the guidelines will come out, the funding will be there, and there will be ample time to address the concerns that have been raised during the select committee process and, indeed, in this Chamber.

I repeat that the current legislation has to go. Everybody I have spoken to in the sector in a management or administrative role tells me that. Those people have also told me that some of the statements made by some National members indicate that people will be kicked out of sheltered workshops. Those sorts of statements are alarmist, they are causing concern in the community and in families, and they are doing no good at all for the people who are depending on the workshops. I prevail on National members to keep their comments more credible and more fair. When we last debated this legislation, I heard a National member make really sweeping statements about closing workshops and kicking people out on to the street.

That is not going to happen. I give members the assurance that the Government, whatever National members think of it, knows far better than to do that. It is not unaware of the problems that this sector is facing, and I know for a fact that it will not let that occur. I have absolute confidence that the Government is well aware of the problems that this sector is facing, and will ensure that people are not kicked out on the street.

A more pressing problem is whether these workshops will let people come in at the right level of intake. I am hopeful that this bill, if we can get it in place by 30 November—or earlier, if possible—will address those problems and there will be no restrictions placed on those who need to come into these workshops coming in at the right time and at the right level.

I do not want to say much more, because New Zealand First has looked into this bill pretty thoroughly. We have had some very positive dialogue with the Minister. The fate of this bill is in the Government’s hands, and we will be supporting it.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : It was interesting to hear Peter Brown from New Zealand First talk about Part 2. He is absolutely correct that nobody is against the basic thrust of ensuring that all disabled people are given every opportunity possible. In the National Party we do support the New Zealand Disability Strategy and we do support Pathways to Inclusion. One of the things that Peter Brown did not understand about the excellent amendment I have suggested is that it would incentivise the Government to iron out the flaws in this bill. Then, as soon as it had done that, the bill could be enacted—2 years was the outer limit. The difficulty with what Peter Brown and New Zealand First have negotiated with the Government is that we have a finite date of 30 November, and people just do not trust this Labour Government to have sorted out the practical flaws—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Pull the other one!

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: We see the Hon Clayton Cosgrove over there. I ask that member what the chairman of Workforce Auckland says. He says: “Our support for Dr Hutchison’s amendment stems from our concern that the system proposed to replace the DPEP Act contains serious flaws.” He goes on to say: “We cannot be confident that these flaws will be remedied … given the dismal lack of progress in the nearly 3 years since they were first identified.” That is the record of the Labour Government—a dismal lack of progress. That record goes right back to 2001.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What’s your record? Cutting all the benefits. Cutting all the disability allowances.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Here we have Clayton Cosgrove questioning our record. I see in the chair the Minister of Corrections, Damien O’Connor. Has he come here because of the pathetic muck-up he has caused in respect of the Department of Corrections? Will he do the same thing to the disability portfolio? Well, I hope not.

The reality of this bill is that it must be taken seriously, and the machinery around the exempting of disabled people is not easy to apply. As has been pointed out by Peter Fraher from Abilities Group, this is a very exacting task. There is difficulty in terms of the assessments. The people who are required to do these assessments appropriately require a lot of time and a lot of skill. In the case of abilities, every single disabled worker will require an exemption. What is extraordinary about the Government’s amendments is that the Government has said that a labour inspector may revoke a permit at any time if the inspector considers it no longer reasonable and appropriate for the permit to remain in force. So here we have the sheltered workshop management carefully going through and assessing, as sensitively and appropriately as it can, every disabled worker. But the Labour Government is saying: “Don’t worry about that. One of our inspectors can come in and revoke the permit on a whim.” That clearly is not practical.

I think Clayton Cosgrove should be aware of the fact that this is driven, as always, by the trade unions, which just do not like the idea of exemptions. They will do everything possible to make it difficult for the sheltered workshops to be able to plan—and that is very much personified in the extra amendment the Government has put in.

But National is concerned about the fact that the Labour Government, given its dismal track record, will not be able to put in this transitional machinery by 30 November. That is why it is so concerning for the people trying to run these workshops, who have said to me that they need as long as it takes before the bill should be enacted. That is why it is such a tragedy that Minister Ruth Dyson has come in and admitted that it cannot be done by 30 June and has given only a finite time. That is the unfortunate part of that understanding of New Zealand First.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : In speaking to this part of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill, I simply ask the question of what is wrong with people being paid according to the work they do, rather than according to the place at which they work. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with people being paid for the work they do, rather than according to the place at which they work? There is no answer to that from the Opposition. The members of the Opposition do not meet that challenge. In that case, why are they stalling on this bill? This is legislation that is fundamental to human rights in this country. It is fundamental to the way in which we regard our fellow citizens. It is fundamental to lifting the cloak of paternalistic behaviour, which was redolent in the preceding speeches of those from the other side of the committee.

It is fundamental to every citizen of this county that he or she has the right to be paid according to the work he or she does, rather than according to the place at which he or she works. Dr Paul Hutchison has gone on and on about the disadvantage to the work centres that would be caused by the passing of this bill, yet time and time again in his speeches in this House he refers to just one workshop—he speaks of just one of 47 providers in the country.

Dr Paul Hutchison: No, two major providers.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: Two? Oh, well, two then. If there are two that indicates the lack of substance to Dr Hutchison’s argument. Forty-five out of 47 cannot be too bad, in terms of those providers who support this bill.

So I get back to the basic question we must ask ourselves: how do we regard our fellow citizens in this country? Do we regard them solely as an economic work unit to be exploited by organisations who are receiving better work than that for which they pay? Or do we regard them as equal citizens who should be paid fairly for the work that they do—not assessed on any inherent disability, but judged on the work that they can do and their output, and paid accordingly?

It is time we stopped branding fellow New Zealanders. It is time we stopped putting people into little boxes and then shoving them to one side. The time for passing this bill has come, and the time for delay is long past. So that is why clause 8 of the bill, which deals with the exemption for approved organisations, has a time frame that can be quite tight. But one can hardly say that it has not been without notice; this bill has been on the cards since 2001. The pathway strategy has been clearly defined, and consultation has been extensive. At the end of the day, National members can use all the words they like, but they will not answer the challenge as to why someone should not be paid for the work he or she does, rather than for the place at which he or she works.

So I am pleased to be part of a Government that is bringing in a repeal of a 47-year-old statute that was passed in the days in which the National Party is still firmly rooted—the days of believing that one can determine people’s worth by the way their employers regard them. That is an elevation of thought—an approach to life that says that those who pay the piper will call the tune. Well, there are some people in this country who need the protection of a Government that understands the different abilities of individuals, and the richness of life and the colour that people of all stripes bring to our society. The day we put to one side the branding iron that brands some people as being inferior and less worthy than others—saying that those who work in such and such a place get branded as inferior—is the day we emerge as a much stronger, more decent, and more humane society.

This is a bill whose time has come. This is a bill where the delaying tactics of Opposition members reflect only on them and no one else. This is a bill that says that all humans in this country, no matter their range of abilities, are entitled to respect, to an opportunity to work, to remuneration, and to the recognition of their ability to organise their own lives—not because of some institutionalised bias and not because of some patronising attitude that two out of 47 employers will find this difficult to apply. I say that those two out of the 47 employers had better take a long, hard look at the operation they run. They should take a long, hard look from the client base up, and say: “We employ human beings, and we shall regard these human beings as people worthy of an appropriate and decent wage.”

The time for delay is long past. The time to pay people of all stripes and abilities is here. This is the opportunity the National Party should be embracing. National members opposite should relieve themselves of some of their inhibitions and guilt and step forward up to the plate.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : It is interesting to read an extract from the New Zealand Herald of 10 February, where Mr Ralph Jones, the Chief Executive Officer of IHC New Zealand obviously believes he is selling his soul on this issue. When he was held to account by a Mrs Armstrong of Nelson, the mother of a disabled person—she was worried about the situation in respect of someone in her family—his response was: “Has the IHC become too PC in some areas? Yes, by being a service provider we have bought into the government expectation, standards and policies. The $140 million”—which is what IHC receives from the Government—“comes with a cost.” The cost is obviously too hard to swallow for Mr Jones.

The problem we have here is that the Labour Government feels it needs to stick to a philosophy—a philosophy that all people must earn a minimum wage, even at a time when that minimum wage may give them less, or at least nothing more, than what they are getting at the moment. So the disabled people who are working in the workshops in my electorate, and in workshops right around the country, have to be assessed as to how much they are worth in terms of a full unit; that is a pretty degrading way of going about assessing somebody’s work, especially somebody who is unable, probably, in most cases, to make an argument to the contrary or to seek some sort of appeal or review of what that is. So we have a situation where the people who are working with these disabled people, who care for them, and who have become their friends over long periods of time need to make what is quite a cold-hearted sort of assessment of people they care about. That assessment should actually be done by the inspectors; the trouble is that there are not enough inspectors to do the job, but no one seems to care too much about that. We can look at the case of a person who commented recently in the media. He had 86 members to assess, and no help from the department in doing that. He had to sit down and work with them, and they had to have a family member present. Then later the assessment had to be ticked off by an inspector, who would assess the job that that man had done—a job an inspector should have done. That man had spent hours and hours working on those assessments, and he had done only six; he had another 80 to go.

What has become completely apparent too is that for a lot of these workshops the cost of the attendance fee will be a lot more than what they currently pay, but it will give virtually nothing more—if anything—to those who are attending. Minister Dyson’s response to this was that she could see their problem, but she did not think it would continue to be a problem.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.