PAUL QUINN (National) : Where was I with that speech? I think I had got to “Hurricane Hughes” at half back. We thought that he would be a problem. We reviewed a couple of extra tapes, and on closer examination we found that he had been dropped from selection, so there is no problem there. Of course, in relation to the rest of Labour’s backline—I am sorry, its backbench—our new protégé and wonder kid, Nikki Kaye, at first five will have no problems at all—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have moved on to the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I ask the member to address the question, if he wishes to use his time. The House has moved on.

PAUL QUINN: I am sorry; I have done so much speaking recently.

I join with those who spoke last night in support of the bill, because it provides an avenue that has been established within our semi-judicial process by way of tribunals to enable people—particularly those in small business, but also others—to pay a fee and access justice when they are experiencing some difficulty or disagreement with another party. I am talking about electricians or plumbers, for example, who are sole traders and have great difficulty, at times, in trying to get paid, particularly when they have contracts with bigger corporates. The process of access to a tribunal has been used, and has very successfully been established as an avenue for assisting individuals, particularly those in small businesses, to recover payments, or to have their day in court—but without the expense of court. We all know that courts can be very litigious places and very expensive, particularly when a corporate has big resources and can confront a sole trader who has very limited resources.

The critical thing is that the thresholds that are established in the Disputes Tribunals Act date back to 1988 and are way out of kilter with the real cost; they are way out of date. The bill endeavours to shift the threshold from $7,000 up to $15,000 automatically whether or not one party agrees, and to shift the threshold from $12,000 up to $20,000 where both parties agree. During the debate last evening there appeared to be a difference of view—let me put it that way to be kind to the Opposition—about what those increases represented. I think Ms Ardern said the threshold was too high, but I may be mistaken. I tried to reference the Hansard but, unfortunately, it was unavailable. I think the member complained that it was too high, whereas Ms Pillay thought it could be higher. I am sure the select committee will have an interesting debate on that issue, and that there will be robust discussions.

The important thing is that we are in the right headspace about lifting the threshold to ensure that it keeps up with modern times. The disputes tribunal is important because, as I say, lawyers can be very expensive, particularly where one party is better resourced than the other. That level of moneys can be used by one party to drag the process out beyond the resources available to the other party. The bill is very good in terms of disputes tribunals; the National Party supports the concept of bringing this process—or dragging it, if you like—into the 21st century. We look forward to the select committee’s receiving the submissions, which I am sure will be robust but also very supportive of the bill. I think the main area of contention will be around the adequacy of the thresholds to take cases to the disputes tribunal. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : I come to the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill as probably one of the very few people in this House with any experience—admittedly, not personal—with the disputes tribunal. I venture I am definitely one of the few former lawyers in this House to steer clients away from litigation and towards mediation through the disputes tribunal. I come with a particular preconceived view, which is that disputes tribunals are fantastic. This is high praise indeed, but it is also a reflection of the fact that those tribunals are an excellent mechanism for keeping people out of the courts.

Unlike other political parties the Māori Party has no tolerance of the obsession with building up the court docks and prison cells by getting tough on crime. We promote restorative justice systems, and our actions in this House show that the Māori Party has consistently supported legislative changes that increase access to justice. It is our view that any real move towards increased access to justice is a community benefit and warrants our support.

The key benefit in keeping people out of the courts is that it is a significantly cheaper approach for claimants, not to mention the long-term costs saved to society. The process is mediated and, as a consequence, can be more restorative in nature than a court setting. There are no lawyers, so the setting is more accessible and less alienating as a result. Rather than being scared off by the legalistic vocabulary, people can actually understand what is going on; a peculiar concept, I know, but true. Another benefit that we consider to be of high value is the fact that there can be whānau support and/or advocates to talk on behalf of claimants, if they are not confident to do that themselves.

One piece of information that did not come up during the debate in the House last night is a more comprehensive analysis of who actually uses these tribunals. A survey commissioned by the Ministry of Justice as part of the tribunal reform project interviewed some 813 people, both applicants and respondents, who had used the disputes tribunal amongst a range of other tribunals. The figures showed that the key users of tribunals were more likely to be European, with under-representation of both Māori and Pasifika; to be male; to have an income of $50,000 or more; and to be aged 40 to 59 years rather than aged 15 to 29 years. That analysis was very informative in demonstrating some specific issues that clearly needed to be addressed in any reform process.

Just to test my theory I went to the Māori Legal Service to gain a flaxroots, on-the-ground, perspective of how well this all works. In the last 12 months the service has had three clients seeking remedies with the disputes tribunal. None of those clients knew what the tribunal did or what to do to pursue a complaint. As a consequence the service needed to educate those clients about the tribunal and to assist them to write their application. In the end, however, the service was unable to confirm whether any of those clients had filed their forms, as each of them thought the $100 filing fee was too expensive. There is no current ability to waive that fee at the tribunal.

My suspicion is that the tribunal is not well known to Māori people. Perhaps it is not well profiled in Māori communities. I suspect that even the $100 filing fee is a barrier to access to the tribunal, as well. I would like to seek further clarification from the Minister of whether the changes will increase the filing fees, which will inevitably increase barriers to justice for our community. Also I note there is no concerted effort to profile the tribunal to Māori communities, and I wonder whether that will also increase barriers.

As other speakers have mentioned, the purpose of the bill is to allow more individual and small business claimants to have access to this—hopefully—affordable justice forum by enabling a larger number of cases to fall within its jurisdiction. We believe the process could be improved by requiring the referral of claimants to community law centres, where appropriate, to assist people in filling out the forms and perhaps gaining better access to the law.

The process is comparably user-friendly already—that is, in relation to trying to deal with the complexities of litigation through the District Court or the High Court. But we in the Māori Party believe that the disputes tribunal process could be made even more user-friendly. Given that there are forms to fill out, it would be helpful to have someone to explain the procedures and what needs to go where on the forms. This is where organisations like community law centres come in. We would like to see the court staff routinely referring parties to community law centres for help with this. Although this is done now on an ad hoc basis, it would be a positive move for it to be a requirement where appropriate.

We also believe that the process could be far more Māori-friendly. Disputes tribunals offer a mediated process, they can be more restorative, they try to avoid legal language so that people can understand what is going on, they can have whānau representation, and they are significantly less expensive than going to court. A tribunal may permit someone to be present at the hearing to assist the party in the presentation of his or her case if it appears to the tribunal to be proper in all the circumstances and if the tribunal approves such persons. In approving a representative, the tribunal can also impose conditions to ensure that no other party is substantially disadvantaged. The tribunal either can help the parties to come to their own solution or will determine the dispute. Any ruling it makes is binding and will, if necessary, be enforced by the courts. All of these aspects are a very positive foundation for providing a positive way in which Māori can access dispute procedures other than the formal courts. Therefore, the process is something that we wish to support.

Aside from the general context that disputes tribunals offer to the legal environment, the purpose of this bill is ostensibly to increase the maximum claim level. The last time the claim levels were set for the tribunal was in 1998, so it makes plain common sense that the relative value of this level has inevitably eroded due to inflation and the rising cost of litigation. Other speakers have canvassed the figures, such as the increase of the maximum claim to $20,000, but the point we simply wish to make is that we support the intention that the maximum claim level should be increased in order to restore it to the original level set a decade ago. The level needs to be updated to allow more people to use the disputes tribunal. At present claimants are faced with a choice of reducing the value of their claim, facing the increased costs associated with District Court proceedings—which may not be a viable option, given these costs—or not pursuing their claim. None of these options seems viable, hence the reason for this bill.

We need to maintain accessibility and to ensure that the level of protections is relevant and appropriate in order to ensure that the groups of New Zealanders affected by this bill will still be able to access the tribunals without unnecessary barriers being introduced. Every party to a claim is entitled to attend and be heard, and to our mind this is the very hallmark of a democratic and fair justice system. However, with some exceptions, no party is entitled to representation unless the tribunal considers it proper to allow it and approves a representative. We want to ensure that the tribunal will continue to operate on its current basis, balancing the required protections for parties against the need to provide simple, cheap, and fast access to justice.

Finally, the last set of issues that we believe are reflected in this bill is that the legislation will allow more individual and small business claimants to have access to this affordable justice forum by enabling a larger number of cases to fall within its jurisdiction. The bill should be seen in the context of the package of proposals designed to assist small and medium sized enterprises.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution to the first reading debate on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill 2009—

Hon Darren Hughes: Tell us about your dispute with Anne Tolley.

ALLAN PEACHEY: I also note that the troublesome fourth former on the other side of the House has started again.

This legislation is just one more example of this Government, which was overwhelmingly elected in November 2008, keeping the promises it made to the electorate. The National Party, now the Government, promised to increase the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals in order to reduce pressure on the District Court system. This bill keeps that promise. The disputes tribunals are divisions of the District Court, so they are very, very important bodies. Their jurisdiction is exercised by referees who are appointed under warrant by the Governor-General for 3-year terms, and those terms are renewable. Disputes tribunal referees have the same status as justices of the peace in criminal cases. The proceedings of the tribunals are judicial proceedings. In general, tribunal decisions are enforced as a District Court decision. So the bodies that we are dealing with, and the increased jurisdiction that we are providing, are very, very important parts of the New Zealand judicial system.

The bill has two main provisions. The first is to increase the maximum amount of claims from the current $7,500 to $15,000 or, with the consent of all parties, from $12,000 to $20,000. This is a sensible, logical move, particularly given that those thresholds have not been changed in 10 years—not since the last National Government did so in 1998.

The bill does something else. It makes consequential amendments to a number of other pieces of legislation: the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Fencing Act 1978, the Minors’ Contracts Act 1969, and the Retirement Villages Act 2003. Just as an aside, when we go through that list of legislation that has to have consequential change made to it, we realise what an over-governed country this is. However, that is a subject for another day.

The raising of the thresholds will do a number of things. Firstly, it will reduce the pressure on owners of small to medium sized businesses and individuals who are trying to collect disputed debts. This will allow more parties to access the tribunals and thereby reduce the costs to all parties of resolving disputes.

It is anticipated that about 3,600 more cases each year will be heard by the disputes tribunals as a result of this amendment than is currently the case. As more and more cases are dealt with by the tribunals, we will have a system that is much more cost-effective than otherwise would have been the case. In other words, the tribunals will, for more New Zealanders, now provide a cheap, simple process with fast access to the justice system, and in a forum that avoids the legality and the formality of the District Court room. An additional 3,600 cases a year will be able to be heard in the disputes tribunals, rather than having to go to the District Court, with everything that that involves.

The second effect of raising the thresholds is that more businesses and individuals will benefit, because filing fees are significantly lower in the disputes tribunals than they are in the courts. No lawyers are allowed. That in itself greatly reduces the costs of taking claims. The fact that third parties like lawyers are not involved means that the cost of using the disputes tribunals is considerably less than New Zealanders have to incur when working through the courts.

The third result of the raising of the thresholds will be to reduce pressure on District Courts. We know that there are major workload pressures on our court system. By increasing the maximum level of a claim and allowing an increased number of New Zealanders to use the disputes tribunal system, less pressure will be put on the District Court system, and that will result in more New Zealanders experiencing the timely delivery of justice. This must always be an underpinning point of the judicial system: the timely delivery of justice, the timely hearing of disputes, and the timely hearing of cases. I think it is widely recognised that not all New Zealanders enjoy access to that timely delivery of justice. For many New Zealanders, the timely delivery of their rights through the processes of the District Court is not up to standard. This bill will take a small but significant step towards rectifying that. In other words, one of the effects of the bill will be to speed up the delivery of justice, not only to those who are seeking to use the disputes tribunal but also to other New Zealanders who are involved in the court system.

Fourthly, by making the enforcement of debt easier as a result of the disputes tribunal system, small to medium sized businesses will benefit from the increased cash flow that results. It is interesting to listen to Labour members sniping away; it brings home to me the understanding and realisation that members opposite just do not understand the significance of businesses and the cost structure of businesses. I would have thought that, given the outcome of the last election, it would be wiser for members opposite to sit quietly and not show their ignorance.

There will be significant and noticeable improvements in the operation of dispute resolutions as a result of this bill. It is just one more item on the list of initiatives that this Government has announced to help businesses and individuals. In conclusion, I invite the House to reflect on this: the last time the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal was increased was 10 years ago.

Todd McClay: How long?

ALLAN PEACHEY: It was a long time ago—10 years. It was when National was last in office. Labour did nothing for 9 years, and now, this afternoon, Labour parrots away with little understanding of what this bill is all about. I commend this bill to the House.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : The Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill brings in changes that will allow parties to resolve their disputes in a more cost-effective manner. Unfortunately, disputes are a part of life, business, and politics, as we know in this House. Though we will never be free from disputes, how we handle them is very important. A process that is simple, easy to access, and cheap enables people to resolve disputes and get on with the business of earning a living and getting this country growing again.

That is why this Government is putting through this measure as part of our economic relief package during a time of recession. The last thing we want is to be caught up in a process that is toxic, complicated, expensive, and destabilising for citizens and their businesses. Right now, there is a gap that some disputes are falling through. The cases are too big for the disputes tribunal, yet they are not big enough to take to a District Court because of the associated costs involved.

Do we really want to have a heavily litigious society or do we want to seek a process of mediation when the costs of dispute resolutions are excessively high? When the level for resolution in a disputes tribunal is too high, it leaves people feeling that they cannot access justice. It leaves people angry and dissatisfied about the issues they are facing.

Part of the reason for people wanting to live in New Zealand and not move overseas is having a process whereby a proper and just resolution of disputes can take place that is not going to break the bank. We do not want people moving overseas to work because they feel they cannot do business in a just and successful way in New Zealand because it is just too hard. This gap is there because inflationary pressure has made the present maximum level of claims of less value. This bill brings through an inflationary adjustment to lift the maximum level of claims to an amount more in keeping with what it should be. Back in 1998 this maximum level was lifted from $7,500 to $12,000. This bill proposes that the maximum level be lifted to $15,000 or, by consent of both parties, to $20,000.

If we do not make these amendments, it means that the costs of recovering anything over the maximum amount of $12,000 would incur the associated litigation costs of going to a District Court, which would make it unviable for many. The result is that some people would simply walk away from their claim, but, sadly, in the case of many people, if they walk away from their claim, it could put their business in jeopardy. There are still many businesses in New Zealand where $12,000 to $20,000 is a large amount of money. For many, it would be the difference between success or failure, or employing a person or not. Businesses want to spend their money on productivity and growth, not on a litigious process of going to a District Court, hiring solicitors, and going through all the filing fees they would incur.

We need to make the resolution of disputes more accessible, simple, and cheap. This amendment bill makes the disputes process more accessible. As my colleague Allan Peachey said, 3,600 more New Zealanders would be able to access this process than are able to now.

Simon Bridges: How many?

JONATHAN YOUNG: Three-thousand six-hundred more New Zealanders would be able to access a process to resolve disputes than are able to at present. The disputes tribunal offers that ability. It avoids the legality and formality of the courtroom, filing fees are significantly lower, and lawyers are not allowed. Therefore, the costs of taking a claim to the tribunal are significantly lower than in the courts.

The best outcome of making the disputes tribunal more accessible to more New Zealanders is that we will see our country and, particularly, small businesses get going and get growing. The best outcome of this amendment bill is to enable businesses, in particular, to get back into business, instead of tying up their resources and time in litigation.

This move will also reduce pressure on District Courts, as we have heard. This bill is part of the measures introduced by the Government to fulfil our election promise that we would expand the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal. It is also part of our commitment to helping small businesses through the economic downturn.

The most recent increase in the maximum level of claims was back in 1998—11 years ago—under the previous National Government, so the proposed increase is well overdue. I particularly like clause 6 of the bill. In clause 6 we have an amendment to section 14 of the Disputes Tribunals Act, to lift the provision to $15,000. Clause 6 enables a person to abandon part of a claim in order to bring the claim within the tribunal’s jurisdiction. A person with a claim of $16,000 may choose to forgo his or her right to claim the full $16,000 and may claim only $15,000 instead. The thinking is that this would enable that person to claim $15,000 and to save perhaps $1,000 on legal costs. For many people that becomes a very workable solution.

We need to understand that having such a process gives people access to a process of resolution, but there are limitations of protection, and we must understand that. In order for the disputes tribunal to provide cheap, simple, fast, and less formal access, there are limits to the protections that would normally be found with a court. Referees’ decisions are not necessarily based on law but rather on the substantial merits and justice of the case. Grounds for appeal are extremely limited. Appeals can be made only if the proceedings were conducted in a prejudicial manner. The disputes tribunal does not allow the legal representation of parties, etc. Proceedings are held in private and the decisions are not published.

This bill makes available a process that is cheaper, quicker, and simpler for people to be able to resolve their disputes in a timely manner. As we know from the research, it gives 3,600 New Zealanders the opportunity, essentially, to get back into business, to use their resources for productivity and growth, and not to lose their resources in a litigious way.

The bill proposes an increase in claim levels from $12,000 to $15,000, or to $20,000 with the consent of both parties. This will achieve the objectives of improving access to the tribunal and of allowing an increased number of New Zealanders to be able to reduce their costs when resolving small, civil claims. This bill will increase access without compromising the nature of the tribunal. The current level of protections would continue to be relevant and appropriate for the amounts of money involved in disputes. The only changes to the tribunal will be operational, in managing the increased number of cases coming before it.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand in support of this amendment bill. Thank you.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2009, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

• Motion agreed to.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) : I move, That the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge the previous Minister of Māori Affairs for the work on which this bill is based. Tēnā koe, Parekura. Nāu i para te huarahi i tēnei pire. This bill is extremely significant, not in the least because of the scale of what is involved. As of March 2007 the Māori Trustee acted as a trustee or agent for over 188,000 owners and more than 2,094 properties covering 11,658 acres.

The concept of a Māori Trustee is one that has an interesting history. The need for a Māori Trustee arose because of the intergenerational effects of successive colonial and post-colonial land policies. There is no dispute over the fact that Māori customary rights over land are complex. Different kinship groupings and sub-groupings can have rights to use land or resources in different ways or at different times in the same area. By contrast, the English-based legal system that came to apply in New Zealand put in place exclusive and individualised title to land. I guess it is the difference between the right to occupation and the right of ownership. In this process tangata whenua—literally, the people of the land—were permanently separated from their land. The whenua was extracted from the tangata. In other cases, children succeeded to their parents’ individual interests in Māori land. Inevitably, much Māori land became scattered, small blocks, each with many owners. In many instances today the Māori Trustee looks after land because the owners cannot be found or cannot manage the land themselves. It is important, therefore, that the Māori Trustee is an effective organisation, able to carry out its many functions. The bill introduces significant changes relating to the Māori Trustee. In particular, it establishes the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, and changes the way in which income is paid to the beneficiaries.

When the original Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill had its first reading last year, the Māori Party did not support it. We did not support it, because we were concerned about the proposal that was then included in the bill to transfer $35 million of the Māori Trustee’s general purpose fund to a new body promoting Māori economic development. It was also questionable whether the Māori Trustee would, in fact, be able to be independent.

During the last term of Parliament, I had the privilege of being the deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, which considered the bill. The Māori Affairs Committee looked at the very issues that concerned us. So last year, after careful and at times agonising scrutiny, the Māori Affairs Committee divided the original bill into two. The bill now before us, the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, sets up the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. This bill received the unanimous support of the Māori Affairs Committee. The provisions relating to the establishment of a new statutory corporation to promote Māori economic development and to transfer money from the general purpose fund are in the second bill, the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill.

I will be giving careful consideration to the best ways of encouraging Māori economic development and to what, if any, legislation will be required in this area. I thank the 15 submitters who provided submissions to the original bill, and the approximately 2,000 Māori who came along to earlier consultation hui in 2007 to discuss the proposals to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation.

The bill returns to the House with a small number of minor amendments that clarify aspects of the bill, and I shall refer to these later. I also intend moving some minor technical amendments to the bill in the Committee stage. These will mainly tidy up the effects of dividing the original bill and will change a date in the bill to reflect the passage of time.

One of the key changes progressed by this bill is in establishing the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. Submissions to the select committee and earlier consultation with Māori stakeholders indicated widespread support for having a stand-alone Māori Trustee, provided that the trustee was funded at a sustainable level. I am committed to ensuring that the new stand-alone Māori Trustee is able to operate as an effective organisation and is able to fulfil the trustee’s responsibilities to Māori. That is very important to me.

Last year decisions were made to significantly increase the operational funding of the Māori Trustee. Ongoing operational funding has been effectively doubled. Additional transitional and capital funding will also be provided to the Māori Trustee. Decisions were also made to write off the Māori Trustee’s accumulated debt to the Crown once this bill is passed. This debt was $61,343 million at the end of June 2008. These significant funding decisions will ensure the sustainability of the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone entity and will enable the Māori Trustee to provide enhanced services to Māori. I am confident that these initiatives place the Māori Trustee in a sound financial position for the future.

As a stand-alone entity, the Māori Trustee will be listed in schedule 4 of the Public Finance Act 1989. The Māori Trustee will be required to produce an annual report and statement of service performance. This provides a balance between the Māori Trustee’s need for independence and the need for reporting arrangements that provide accountability for public funding.

At present, the Māori Trustee is an office conferred on a public servant employed in a Government department. In future, the Māori Trustee will be a person appointed specifically to that position. The appointment will be made by the Minister of Māori Affairs, and will be based on merit. I have previously had concerns about the process of appointing. However, Ministers are accountable to the public and to Māori through well-established administrative, political, and legal processes. Many significant appointments, such as the appointment of judges, are made by Ministers or on the recommendation of Ministers. I will ensure that the processes supporting appointment include appropriate consultation. I want to make that commitment very clear here today. I intend to give priority to the consultation process to ensure that the beneficial owners of Māori land have due notice to advise me on what will best meet their needs from the office and role of the Māori Trustee. The Māori Trustee Amendment Bill also gives the Māori Trustee the power to appoint a Deputy Māori Trustee. This will help the new stand-alone organisation to operate efficiently.

The bill makes another reform that is very important to Māori. The Maori Trustee Act 1953 currently requires the Māori Trustee to pay interest rates set by regulation. At present these are set at 3, 4, and 5 percent, depending on the amount of money. The bill provides that the account holders will be paid the amount the Māori Trustee gets from the investment of money that is held in trust in the common fund, less a management fee where applicable. The Māori Trustee will also be required to report to the account holders on these payments. Some amendments were made at the select committee to better clarify the intention of these provisions. The term “distributable income” replaces the term “interest”, as this better describes the money to be paid to the account holders. The way in which the common fund money is routed through the Māori Trustee’s accounts will be simplified. The bill currently states that these particular changes must take place by 1 July 2009. Due to the passage of time, I will be proposing an amendment to allow the Māori Trustee 6 months to adjust the necessary systems.

The bill was also amended through the select committee process to repeal sections 19 and 21 of the principal Act. These sections provide that the Māori Trustee account can be operated on only by cheques or other instruments signed by the authorised officers. New powers of delegation in clause 7, and the proposed application of section 158 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, make these sections unnecessary. Section 41 of the Maori Trustee Act gives the Minister of Finance the power to require the Māori Trustee to pay back funds advanced for salaries and other expenses of the Māori Trust Office. Once the Māori Trustee’s historical debt to the Crown has been written off, this power will no longer be necessary. The bill has therefore been amended to repeal section 41 of the Maori Trustee Act 1953. A new section 29A further provides for continuity in tax-related matters.

As a stand-alone entity, the Māori Trustee will be well positioned to provide quality services to Māori. All employees of the Māori Trust Office will be transferred to a stand-alone entity on terms and conditions no less favourable than their existing terms and conditions. This will provide for continuity for clients as well as for staff. We recognise that there is an ongoing need for a Māori Trustee for the benefit of Māori. The changes proposed in this bill position the Māori Trustee to be able to fulfil that role for the future.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : E mihi kau ana ki te Minita Māori mō te take nei. E tika tonu ki te tautokotia atu ngā mihimihi i puta ā-waha i a koe, Hēkia, mō tō tātou kaiwhakahaere a Helen. E mōhio atu tātou e tautokotia atu te katoa o Māori. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[I acknowledge the Minister of Māori Affairs in respect of this matter. It is fitting indeed that I endorse the acknowledgments expressed by you, Hēkia, about our leader, Helen. We know that all Māori are in total support. So, greetings to us.]

I recognise the Minister of Māori Affairs for bringing the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill through to this stage. Hopefully, after further discussions, he might clip on the other part of the bill that has been cut off, because this was a whole package. I certainly want to recognise the Minister for doing that.

The Māori Affairs Committee stated in its report: “The bill as introduced addresses two distinct subjects. First, it would introduce changes to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. … the bill sets up a new independent statutory corporation to further Māori economic development”—and I repeat, “Māori economic development”, which seems to be the buzz in the air at the moment—“by utilising the resources available to Māori. Having considered and heard submissions on the bill, [the committee] concluded that the first intention of the bill, to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, has considerable merit and support. We believe, however, that the arrangements proposed for the statutory corporation to further Māori economic development are contentious and deserve further consideration.” I further quote the select committee: “The new bill, which would establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, has been renamed the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. The new bill to set up the independent statutory corporation to further Māori economic development will continue to be known as the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill.”, and the committee has recommended changes to the bill.

This has been a long, drawn-out exercise. There have been reviews and more reviews in relation to the Māori Trustee, to those aspects that align with Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, and to the complications, I suppose, of both ownership tenure and intergenerational adjustments by new lots of Māori who may not have the old tikanga in relation to land tenure and what happens to it. There have been complications. Multiplicity has brought some of those about. There have been complications with legislation in the sense that sometimes only 75 percent has to be in agreement to do any development. That is why I again recommend to the Minister that he should consider the tail end of this bill, which should really be the front end, and the issue of a revolving fund to ensure that the enterprise generated off the land is aided and abetted.

We support the changes introduced to establish the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. The bill provides for robust accountability for public funding by including the Māori Trustee on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act. This will have the effect of applying appropriate reporting and other accountability provisions that were not there before. In respect of funding provided by the Crown, one of the things that was never really understood by the nation was that the Crown continually purchased certain aspects that the Māori Trustee managed on its behalf. That money was paid in, and it was supposed to be returned. It accumulated to a fine figure of nearly $63 million, and the previous Government had agreed to write that off in exchange for other developments. That is something that needs to be tidied up, and I was pleased to hear that the Minister will continue to tidy that up. There has been a long debate between successive Governments and the Māori Trustee about whether it is a true debt, a loan, or a fund of ours. I think that it needs to be tidied up. The fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act is quite interesting; other organisations have similar arrangements. The Māori Trustee will be given autonomy, but also be allowed to do those things it is struggling to do within confining legislation.

The bill provides that the Māori Trustee will be appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs—and that is right, because it is the Minister’s responsibility—for a renewable term of up to 5 years. Further amendments will enable the new stand-alone Māori Trustee to employ his or her own staff. The previous Māori Trustee was part of the ministry of Te Puni Kōkiri. This bill splits the Māori Trustee apart from Te Puni Kōkiri, giving it its own entity and the opportunity to choose staff. On the staff matter, then, that should give the Māori Trustee the flexibility to get those skills and expertise we need, around a very large opportunity, in the sense of enterprise development on the land.

The bill also makes changes to the way in which interest on money held in trust in the common fund is determined. It has been the past practice that interest earned by the Māori Trustee was split and banked, and the minimum, which at times was between 3 and 4 percent, was returned to owners. This legislation will give more opportunity for owners to have a more participatory role, in the sense of the fund, so that it can help to trigger the capital needs they may have.

One of the real flaws, tensions, and strains—no different for Pākehā or Asian businesses—is the availability of capital. One thing we had been discussing, which was discussed at length at hui around the country, was the attempt to put together a revolving fund, accumulated up to about $200 million. That is real because it would have been Māori money, whether it came from the Poutama Māori Business Trust, the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, or the Māori Trustee. The Government was prepared to make a commitment of $40 million. I recognise, encourage, and understand what the Minister of Māori Affairs has now done with his commission, and so on, but I strongly recommend to the Minister that that revolving fund should be reconsidered. It has a whole lot of answers that we would struggle to go and find elsewhere, in the sense of chasing and buttering up to people to give Māori some money. We are talking about Māori money—real Māori money—in a revolving fund. I thought I would mention that, seeing that the bill is being split.

The common fund is where the difference has been—between banking the interest or using it. This bill now gives the Māori Trustee the flexibility to be more innovative and at least to have a template so that people can understand what they can go along and get support for. I see the Māori Trustee in the future as being one of the key conduits in relation to enterprise and development, because, again, those seem to be the buzzwords everywhere else. We should understand that a lot of Māori are already there, whether in kiwifruit, or beef and cattle. It is no mean feat that Māori are the biggest exporters of meat in this country—the single biggest. They are heading towards being the single biggest forest owners, and they have a huge say in the kiwifruit area.

The real question is whether the bill goes far enough. Māori were consulted on proposals to set up the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation, as well as on the changes to reporting arrangements. During consultation with Māori on the proposals for a stand-alone trustee, a wider discussion emerged at hui in relation to the revolving fund. Māori are feeling the sharp edge of the recession, and I hear the Prime Minister and his Ministers continually saying that they want to engineer and engender an economy that is strong and that can be sustained in this country. This bill is one way to do that. By utilising the Māori Trustee and the assets there, Māori can really help themselves and ensure that their contribution to the economy is of their doing, is from their capital support, and is not from having to wait, cap in hand, for everybody else.

The operation of the accumulated debt to the Crown write-off is important. Section 41 of the Maori Trustee Act 1953 allows the Minister of Finance to recover amounts paid for the expenses of the Māori Trust Office—that is, before 1 July 2008, which is when the previous Government moved to have the debt written off. The money held in the common fund needs to be invested. I suggest that the fund is a great platform for Māori. Everybody else tries to use it—for example, major companies in this country, with the products that come from them. This is a major opportunity, and here is one of the rare examples we have of Māori having money in a fund.

I am certainly encouraged by the Minister of Māori Affairs’ continuation of this bill, in ensuring that it gets to a place where it is better off. I certainly want to recommend it. We will be supporting the bill.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I am reminded of Sir Winston Churchill’s speech: “Never before in the field of human conflict have so many been—”. What is it?

Hon Darren Hughes: “—have so many owed so much to so few.”

Hon Mita Ririnui: Was he Ngāpuhi?

Hon TAU HENARE: Actually, I think he was, but that is another matter. “—owed so much to so few.” Do members know who those so few are? They are the beneficiaries. They are the beneficiaries that the former Minister of Māori Affairs Parekura Horomia talks about and gets it wrong. He thinks—and the Labour members think—that the beneficiaries’ money is Māori money. It is not; it never has been and never should be.

Hon Darren Hughes: It’s Tory money.

Hon TAU HENARE: It has nothing to do with Tory money; it has everything to do with Māori money and beneficiary money. There are two differences. If it is Māori money then it belongs to everybody and it belongs to all those so-called urbans. But if it is beneficiary money then it belongs to those people it comes from. It is like me saying to a trust “Well, actually, because you sort of represent me I’ll have some of your dividends.” But the dividends of that company or trust belong to those beneficiaries; they do not belong to anybody else. The former Minister of Māori Affairs can get up on his feet and pontificate about this being a great time, but at the end of the day, at the close of play, and in the final analysis, what that side tried to do last year was to pilfer, purloin, steal—whatever members want to call it—$35 million of beneficiaries’ money. That is what they tried to do, and this side stopped them. This side, with the help of the Māori Party and the good leadership of Dr Pita Sharples, stopped them in their tracks.

What the former Minister failed to say in his speech when he said he consulted—he consulted iwi leaders and a few other people—was that he did not consult the beneficiaries. My question is whether, if Labour was truly interested in finding all of these people and getting those benefits out to the beneficiaries, then why it did not call in the Inland Revenue Department or Bay Collection Agency, or a place like that, which within 5 seconds can find anybody, apparently, who owes money. The Inland Revenue Department is able to find someone who owes it money. Why not use the apparatus of the State to try to find some beneficiaries for this fund? The former Minister said it was a long-drawn-out process. Well, of course it was a long-drawn-out process; Labour was in Government for 9 years. It is no wonder that it was a long-drawn-out process. But let us not quibble.

Hon Darren Hughes: What happened in your day?

Hon TAU HENARE: I had only 3 years and got most of my work done. There might even be some more work to do.

But this bill is not about me; this is about the poor beneficiary, who has been waiting for the odd $400 payout and for the odd $3,500 payout because he or she has had some land shares or value in land that has been held by the Māori Trustee, and the Māori Trustee—not him personally but the Māori Trustee Office—has not been able to find him or her for some reason. The bill introduces a whole new level of transparency and accountability, which will not go amiss in these days of hard times and the recession that is upon us. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If Labour members want to go outside and have a conversation, they surely can, but standing up and having a conversation—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Continue with your speech.

Hon Mita Ririnui: It’s not about you.

Hon TAU HENARE: You know, it is not about me; it is really about how useless that lot were for the last 9 years. But this is not about them either; this is about an opportunity, as the former Minister of Māori Affairs has said. He wants a revolving fund.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Hon TAU HENARE: As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the dinner break, it is interesting that the former Minister of Māori Affairs Parekura Horomia has said that this is a great opportunity to get $35 million to set up some sort of bank, some sort of revolving fund. But I ask what he was doing during the 9 years of the previous Government. If he had sequestered $5 million a year for those 9 years, he would be just short of $50 million. If he had sequestered from the Budget $10 million a year, he would be just short of $100 million. But what did he do in his last year of office—in the 9th year?

Nathan Guy: What?

Hon TAU HENARE: He tried to purloin $35 million of beneficiaries’ money. He rose in the House today and had the temerity to ask us not to forget the add-on. When the Māori Affairs Committee reported to the House last year, it recommended that the bill be split. The former Minister was told that, time and time again. Even in the first reading of the original Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill, he was told that the provision we are discussing now was not a problem and should go through—that it was easy peasy lemon squeezy, or whatever the saying is. It was an administrative issue that could have been sorted out without too much problem.

In fact, the bill would have passed in the last Parliament, but the Minister was so entrenched. That led me to believe that the real reason behind Labour’s promotion of the original bill in the last Parliament was not the stand-alone, transparency, and accountability issues of the Māori Trustee, but to get its hands on the $35 million. There is no doubt in my mind. Now, when Labour members know that the Māori electorate and the electorate of New Zealand said they did not want them to come back on Monday, they still have the gall to ask us to take $35 million from Māori beneficiaries to use as a revolving fund. That was the first time, in 10 years, that I heard the former Minister talk about a revolving fund. Why did he move so late in the piece? It is because he had nothing to show for 9 years.

National is absolutely in favour of this bill—of having a stand-alone Māori Trustee. We support the independence—or move towards the independence—of the Māori Trustee, which will, hopefully, one day be appointed by the Minister of Māori Affairs or some other body that is more representative than just an offshoot of Te Puni Kōkiri. Who would not be in favour of that? I would be quite surprised if anybody in this House voted against the bill tonight. If it was coupled with that other rubbish, then we would not be supporting it.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : Otirā, kia ora tātou. Wāhi tuatahi anō, e tika ana kia tautoko i ngā kōrero whakatau nei i runga i te wahine o te motu i tēnei hāora, ā, te hōnore a Helen Clark. Kua kōrerohia e te Pirimia tāna kōrero ki te whakanui i te tūranga kua whiwhi mai rā i tēnei wahine rangatira. Nō reira, tēnei nā ko te tū ake ki te tautoko ake.

[Greetings, indeed, to us. But, first and foremost, it is fitting that I endorse the congratulatory messages bestowed upon the lady of this hour and of the nation, the Rt Hon Helen Clark. In his congratulatory address the Prime Minister extolled the position that this great leader had secured. I rise to support it.]

Before referring to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, I join the Prime Minister and other speakers in the House today in congratulating the Rt Hon Helen Clark on her magnificent achievement in gaining the position she now holds. As was said on the 6 p.m. news tonight, it was good to see this House unanimous in its support for her in acknowledging her great achievement. Naturally, we all wish her well.

I refer to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill before us this evening. This is the second reading of the bill. I am in some ways amused and bemused, in particular, by some of the comments made by the previous speaker, Tau Henare, whom I see has now left the House, which is fine.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot comment that a member is not here.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I apologise for that, Mr Deputy Speaker. No offence was intended.

I acknowledge the support of the Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, for this bill. In particular, I acknowledge the efforts and foresight of the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, who basically listened very, very carefully to a number of leading Māori commentators who have been saying for a number of years that the Māori Trust Office needed to be a stand-alone organisation. In other words, it should not be an attachment to the Ministry of Māori Development, whose primary role is to provide policy advice to the Government, whichever Government it may be.

The role of the Māori Trustee is to administer multiple-owned Māori lands that have not been succeeded to, and over a number of years considerable pūtea, or returns, have accumulated. I have on many occasions heard Māori leaders say that this fund needs to be utilised. I am sure that during my years employed at Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Māori Development, the then chief executive, Harawira Gardiner, also expressed those views.

I am glad that this evening we are debating this particular matter. Part 1 sits comfortably with a number of people in this House. However, Part 2 has met with some considerable resistance. I can go back to the comments made by a former Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Tau Henare, who basically exaggerated a lot of the comments made at the Māori Affairs Committee. I am amused, or bemused, by the fact that he is opposed to Māori utilising this particular fund when it has been sitting there for a number of years, underutilised. It could be utilised in a positive way to promote Māori development, particularly in the area of business development. That is what is intended in the case of Part 2.

I recall that Mr Henare worked during the 6 years when he was out of this House—when he was on the bench, as we might say—for an organisation that was partly established by this fund. I am wondering why it was OK back then but that now, when we are looking to formalise the utilisation of the fund, it is not OK. In fact, he described this bill as stealing money from Māori landowners. This is their money; there is no dispute about that. What he overlooked is that many of those who would be able to utilise this fund are also the beneficiaries of the fund. Why Māori have not succeeded to their interest in Māori land is a question that will be around for a very, very long time. I remind that member that he needs to show some consistency. If it was all right for him to be employed by an organisation that utilised this fund for its establishment, then I ask why he is so against Māori across the board using the fund for economic development. It certainly eludes me.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What was that organisation?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I do not want to name the organisation, because it is a very, very credible and honourable organisation—may it reign for a very long time.

I also acknowledge that since the change in Government there has also been a change in the membership of the Māori Affairs Committee. That committee had a very, very difficult task, given the opposition of the National members on the committee. The National members had their own reasons, and we have no issue with that, but, as I said, there needs to be consistency.

There certainly needs to be an acknowledgment of the efforts of the officials from Te Puni Kōkiri and, in particular, of members of the Māori Affairs Committee. Dave Hereora is no longer in Parliament, but he managed to facilitate and chair a very, very difficult committee through a difficult time.

Nathan Guy: What’s he doing now? What’s he up to?

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I tell the member to keep quiet, as he might learn something. I also acknowledge the Hon Mahara Okeroa, who is no longer in this House. He provided some very, very sound advice to the Māori Affairs Committee. The New Zealand First member, Pita Paraone, also had a lifetime of experience in Māori development with the Ministry of Māori Development and the Māori Trust Office. Those people brought valuable information, knowledge, and skills to the table when we were discussing the merits of this bill. Those people could tell the members stories of a number of organisations that have, in the past, accessed this fund.

I am concerned that when people in some organisations are out in the community working they have a particular point of view, as they should, but when they come into this House and take over the Treasury benches their view is completely different. In fact, what is good for them is not good for everybody else. That is the whole issue here. The fact that this accumulated fund with the Māori Trust Office has never been properly utilised to facilitate Māori economic development is a tragedy.

As the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, highlighted in his speech in the House this afternoon, a lot of work has gone into the development of this amendment bill. A lot of discussion has also taken place, not just in the last few months of 2008 but over a number of years. I personally take offence when the Hon Tau Henare says that the previous Minister of Māori Affairs did nothing prior to the 2008 election. That is not true, and if that member had not been out of here and on the bench the past 6 years, then he would know that for a fact. I am sure that other Māori members in this House, of whichever persuasion, are aware of that, as well.

The previous Minister of Māori Affairs made it very clear when he became the Minister of Māori Affairs that his intention was to find innovative ways to assist Māori economic development. This bill is one of the ways in which—with the assistance of his Cabinet colleagues and, particularly, the previous Prime Minister and the previous Minister of Finance—he was able to do that. The previous Government was going to make a considerable contribution to this particular fund, not only to assist in the development of Māori economic development but also to accelerate it. Now that opportunity may be lost.

By the way, when the former Minister of Māori Affairs became the Minister, he enjoyed an appropriation in excess of $300 million annually for Māori development, but when he left office it was below $57 million annually. I would like to ask the member, who is not in the House, how that happened. I think it was because, as members have heard in the House this evening, he has a do-nothing attitude—of not making the hard decisions, because he may have to live with them. Well, what is wrong with that? That is why the member is here. He should learn to suck it up and get on with the job. That is what people expect from him.

This bill is very similar to other pieces of legislation that have come before the Māori Affairs Committee, and those are too numerous to name. But I find that the attitude from some members has been the same—do nothing, because it is too tough to make the right decision. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I am happy to stand today in support of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill for a number of very good reasons. First, the bill deals with issues that have been the subject of successive reviews and considerable debate. Second, it tidies up matters that have been contentious and controversial for many Māori for a very long time. Third, the bill brings the longstanding review of the Māori Trustee to a conclusion. Fourth, it helps set a more positive path forward for the Māori Trustee and the many Māori who have interests administered by the trustee. Fifth, by supporting the bill I get to support the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, co-leader of the mighty Māori Party. He is the very first Minister of Māori Affairs in the 155-year history of the House to present a bill as a member of an independent Māori party, and as a member of the independent Māori Party itself—the parliamentary wing of Te Ao Māori.

The Māori Trustee has touched the lives of large numbers of Māori and their whānau since it was first established back in 1920, when it was known as the Native Trustee. It has had a chequered and not always popular history over the years, including its involvement in the passing of the Maori Trustee Act in 1953, decades of massive social and economic upheaval for Māori, and the many policy changes affecting Māori land, such as the 1993 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, with its recognition of the importance of land to Māori.

The Māori Trustee has been publicly slated, as well, like when it was roundly criticised in the Ngāi Tahu report of 1991 for its successive failure, as the Crown’s appointed trustee, to administer reserved land properly. This included the failure of the trustee to consult with owners, failure to act as a prudent trustee, failure to take action to amalgamate land titles and develop lands, and failure to prevent land from being taken for public works. There was also the submission from Ngā Ruahine that stated that right from when the Māori Trustee was established it did no favours for Māori people and actually lost large tracts of Māori land through trustee mismanagement. So this bill has been a long time coming.

One feature of this bill is that it sets up the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation—a proposal that had been widely supported by those making submissions and those involved in the consultation hui held throughout the country in 2007 under the previous Minister of Māori Affairs. The bill also addresses one of the key concerns repeated through many of the submissions, which is for the Māori Trustee to become more independent of the Crown, because although the Māori Trustee is controlled by Government departments, there can be very little accountability to Māori. In fact, 20 years ago, people recommended that many of the functions of the Māori Trustee be devolved from the Department of Māori Affairs to hapū and iwi. Others have also argued that if the Māori Trustee were to continue, then independent appointment and monitoring of it would be critical to the credibility of the office.

Currently, the job of Māori Trustee is given to a public servant employed by Te Puni Kōkiri. I acknowledge the role that my whanaunga John Paki played in steering the waka forward to this point. As everyone in this House knows, there was some pretty dynamic debate about this issue all around the country and at the select committee, with some submissions calling for beneficial owners to have a say in the appointment of the Māori Trustee. So it is great to know that under the new arrangement, with the trustee being appointed directly by the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Minister has already signalled a commitment to consult with beneficial owners about the appointment procedure, and to ensure that their voices are included as part of the whole process. I give big ups to the Minister for being willing to front, to listen, and to be accountable to the very people who give the Māori Trustee its power.

It is good to hear the Minister give a commitment to working with the owners of Māori land under the guardianship of the Māori Trustee and to revitalising the Māori Trustee’s ability to provide good service to its beneficial owners, given that the Māori Trustee looks after the interests of many owners who are not known, cannot be found, have not succeeded to their land interests, may not even be aware that they can succeed, or may not know how to. It is also good to know that the Minister will be focusing energy on finding many of those owners to ensure that they are able to re-establish their links to their land and to receive the benefits to which they are entitled.

That brings me to another important aspect of this bill, which is the change to the way the returns on money held by the Māori Trustee are paid to the beneficial owners so that instead of being specified by regulation, owners will get returns paid on a pro rata basis of that received by the trustee. That is another plus for beneficial owners.

As a bonus, it is really great to note that the historical debt to the Crown for servicing the Māori Trust Office will also be written off. So a massive debt has also been wiped through this new bill. That is another plus for the beneficial owners whose returns will not now be diminished by major debt-servicing.

Finally, I note the new reporting arrangements for the Crown funding, which will ensure transparency and accountability for the funding and services provided. That is another plus for beneficial owners, who will now have a clearer idea of the future costs involved in the running of the trustee’s office.

This is a big bill, it is an important bill, and it is a bill for Māori. If managed well, it will also benefit all New Zealanders by providing more certainty to the operations of a major Māori financial support institution in times when uncertainty and insecurity are dominating influences in our world. Sure, there will always be areas that can be improved, and over time we hope to improve them with the support of all Māori in this House, but this bill will provide certainty to the office and positive benefits to the beneficial owners. Importantly, the bill will go down in history as the first bill ever presented to a New Zealand Parliament by a Minister of Māori Affairs representing an independent Māori voice in Parliament and an independent Māori party in the nation’s House of Representatives. For that we can all be grateful, and we can look ahead to bigger and better things. For all those reasons, the Māori Party will support this bill. Tēnā tātou katoa.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and indeed to all of us.]

I rise to speak in support of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill in its second reading. I think it might be helpful to provide a little bit of historical context to the Māori Trustee and the Māori Trust Office so that we might better consider the particular provisions of the bill before us. I can do no better than to remind members of that snippet of historical context that was provided in the first reading by my colleague, now the Attorney-General, the Hon Christopher Finlayson.

In 1882 the Native Reserves Act was passed. It provided for the vesting of Crown administered Māori reserves in the Public Trustee. The Public Trustee was the first trustee of these lands. That trustee later had added to the office two Māori trustees, but the reading of history suggests that that was a very unsatisfactory arrangement because the board failed to meet regularly and did not provide an opportunity for its Māori members to represent Māori interests.

In the early 20th century the majority of the accounts vested in the Public Trustee came under four principal Acts: the Native Reserves Act of 1882, the Westland and Nelson Native Reserves Act of 1887, the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act of 1892, and section 185 of the Native Land Act of 1909. However, because of the concerns on the part of Māori owners at the administration of their reserves by the Public Trustee, the whole issue was reviewed—as is the way of many Māori enterprises—in 1913. There was a commission of inquiry into the Public Trust Office and it was latterly recommended that an independent body should be established. That is how the first Māori Trustee was born in 1920 after the First World War.

In 1932 an amendment Act saw the amalgamation of the office with the department itself, and under the 1932 Act the position of trustee was combined with the position of under-secretary of the department. That history directly leads us to the consideration of the bill before us today. This is the second reading of this bill; the first reading occurred under the previous administration.

Hon Shane Jones: A brilliant administration it was.

HEKIA PARATA: Previous speakers tell us that it was not as brilliant as the member opposite is suggesting.

In fact, there were two parts to the bill, the second part directly proving the necessity for the first part. The first part suggests that the Māori Trust Office should be stand-alone so that it may be untrammelled in its focus on protecting the beneficial owners and their interests. In the first reading of the bill there was provision for the establishment of a new entity that would basically become a capital fund for lending, and moneys from the Māori Trustee were going to be used to capitalise that fund. Thus a decision was being made—yet again on behalf of the beneficial owners, without their full consultation or understanding—that there was a better way of using their moneys and their interests. One would venture to suggest that it was one of the last vestiges of the paternalistic bureaucracy that Māori have suffered under for many, many long years.

I stand to heartily endorse this second reading now that the two parts have been separated. I just say that the former Minister talked about the desirability of maintaining the second part of the bill, and I completely understand that the intent of that part of the bill was honourable and that it was intended to be of assistance to Māori. However, I continue to believe that it would have been a misappropriation of the beneficial owners’ moneys and their interests. So now that this Minister is proposing that the second part be taken out of the bill and that the stand-alone provisions for the Māori Trustee be the focus of our attention instead, I am delighted to support it.

Hon Judith Collins: Very good.

HEKIA PARATA: Thank you. I now turn to an overview of the bill. Following the deliberations of the Māori Affairs Committee a number of amendments have been made, principal amongst which is the one that I have already referred to—the Māori Trust Office being a stand-alone entity. The second is that the appointment of the Māori Trustee should occur—

Hon Shane Jones: Who will he be accountable to?

HEKIA PARATA: Well, I say to Mr Jones that it may not be a he. The person appointed will be a person capable of carrying out the role, independent of their gender, and the Minister must observe the rules of natural justice in exercising that power.

The term “interest” is to be replaced with the term “distributable income”, which is a far more accurate description of how moneys are to be paid to account holders. The bill instructs that income from the investment of money in the common fund form part of the common fund rather than being transferred to the existing general purpose fund and distributed from that account. The Māori Trust fund is as complex as most trust funds are, and so the opportunity to clarify and simplify as much of that complexity as possible is a highly desirable outcome.

The bill allows for the accumulated debt of the Māori Trustee to be written off, and so it should, because the accumulated debt has occurred as a result of the Māori Trustee trying to observe the many restrictions and constraints upon the actions of that office that have been largely—if not exclusively—imposed by the Crown. The bill requires that the Māori Trustee conduct a quarterly comparison of the distributable income and fair market value of similar distributions with similar funds. Again, this allows the beneficial owners to achieve the priority and the considerations of the Māori Trustee, which they should always have enjoyed, by ensuring that there is an explicit benchmark by which comparisons can be made as to the funds that beneficial owners should be receiving.

I take a moment to remind members that the appropriate vocabulary when discussing the people who have interests in these is “beneficial owners”. I trust members have noticed that I have been labouring on this term. There has been use of the term “beneficiaries”, which is quite a different category of people—no less, no more—but the point is that the trust provides for people who have a property right, an ownership interest, and the opportunity to receive distributable income from that.

Hon Shane Jones: Oh, they don’t even know it’s there.

HEKIA PARATA: I say to Mr Jones that that is precisely why we have a trustee whose responsibility it is to ensure that whether or not a beneficial owner knows he or she has a property right, it is incumbent upon that office-holder to make every attempt to ensure that the beneficial owner is made aware of the potential for receiving some interest off that ownership right.

The bill goes on to introduce a requirement for disclosure by the Māori Trustee to account holders of the amount of distributable income payable, the management fee charged or retained by the trustee, the net amount of distributable income to be paid, and other matters that the Māori Trustee considers necessary or desirable.

Quickly coming to my peroration, I say that generally the bill introduces a level of accountability for the office of the Māori Trustee that has not been previously required. The bill allows for the Māori Trustee to be free from political pressure by establishing it as a stand-alone organisation. It provides for better, more open communication between the Māori Trustee and its beneficial owners.

The provisions of the bill mean that the beneficiaries of the Māori Trustee can be sure they are receiving equitable income from the common fund. Our support for the bill shows our commitment to property rights, to the recognition thereof, to the fair market rate at which those interests should be recognised, to removing complicated bureaucracy, and to ensuring that Māori have the opportunity to be independent in respect of their own property. It also shows that in the current financial climate it is important that all public entities be seen as transparent and accountable.

Moreover, it demonstrates the commitment in the National-led Government to our coalition with our partners, the Māori Party, together with whom we are committed to ensuring that there are fair and equitable outcomes for Māori, and that the legislation we pass in this House has the opportunity to realise some of the values that our Prime Minister has talked about, such as putting real discipline around Government spending.

Finally, I point out that the trustee’s assets are collectively owned by, and for the benefit of, the trust’s beneficial owners. Those assets are not owned by anyone else but them, and therefore they deserve to have the best machinery possible to defend them.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnei au e tū ana ki te tāpiri atu āku nei whakaaro ki ērā kua mihia ki tō tātou nei rangatira wahine, ki a Helen me te tūranga i whiwhi i a ia. He hōnore tēnei mō tātou katoa. Nō reira, ka nui te mihi atu ki a ia.

[Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to add my thoughts to those expressed to this great stateswoman of ours, Helen, and the role she has gained. This indeed is an honour for all of us, so I acknowledge her greatly.]

I will add to the many remarks made by colleagues in this House to acknowledge the role that has been gained by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. She will do a fine job for New Zealanders, and we should be proud of her. I certainly endorse the many comments made in this House.

I rise to speak to the second reading of the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, and I support the intent with which it was introduced by the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia. Although statements have been made in regard to the full intent of the bill, I will come back to that point later, because there are some salient aspects of the intent with which he wanted to ensure that the Māori Trustee, existing as a stand-alone entity, could also contribute to opportunities in Māori economic development.

I have spent some time listening carefully to the debate in the House and I have to say that the comments made by a former Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Tau Henare, who got one shot at it—

Hon Shane Jones: Who?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The Hon Tau Henare, who, in his time as Minister, did not attempt to do anything in this space. So I found it a little rich to hear his iterations in the House that, really, for a whole 5 minutes, had nothing to do with the bill and everything to do with anything else except the bill. But therein probably lies his future. He will only ever get one shot at being the Minister of Māori Affairs, and he will always only ever be a backbencher in his own Government.

The point Tau Henare raised was, essentially, that we should not be spending the money of unidentified beneficiaries—in fact, he says we should do nothing at all. I find it incredible to believe that he, as a former Minister, would promote a tread-water type of scenario. But when we look at his term in office, we should be under no illusion: a do-nothing approach from that member is what one could expect.

More important, Tau Henare talked about all these unidentified beneficiaries. Members in Māori electorates will know that when they get the book of unclaimed moneys from the Māori Trust Office every year, it is a very difficult task to go through it and identify in their rohe who might be eligible to receive something. I have done this many times and it is actually a very hard task. If it is hard for a member in a Māori electorate to find those people, then it damn sure is hard for the Māori Trustee.

Even though we know that is the case, no members of the current Government have asked what more they could do, or said how they would help the Māori Trustee to improve this demand that we must try to find those unidentified beneficiaries. No one in the House actually offered a solution, and as members of the Government they have the capacity to try to strengthen any opportunity the Māori Trustee has to identify those beneficial owners for all the moneys those members claim can never be used—money that just sits and waits in abeyance as part of a do-nothing approach.

I have to go back to the earlier comments of the Hon Parekura Horomia. I believe that, yes, his intent was honourable. Every day in our tribal authorities we allow our organisations to exercise responsibility for those tribal members, whether or not they are identified, to make collective investments for our beneficial interest and opportunity going forward. Yet we deny that opportunity to the Māori Trustee, and all he was asking is why have funds sitting there doing nothing when they could contribute to the collective economic development of Māori as a whole—not any one particular group of Māori, but Māori as a whole. What we know when we talk about economic development, when we walk down that path, is that if we are making a good, strong contribution in that area, then what is good for Māori is good for everybody. That is all it was. There was nothing sinister about it.

I need to acknowledge the contribution of former members of the Māori Affairs Committee to the debate. It was vociferous. We received a lot of feedback.

When one goes back to a community and asks the people whether they would rather that somebody’s unclaimed $5.24 sits in a fund and does nothing, or that we try to do something to build the opportunity for all of us, the answer is easy. People will put that $5.24 into a bigger pūtea to try to do something good for all of us. It is a no-brainer.

Tribal organisations face that question every day when they look at how to better utilise their Treaty settlements. They could ask every tribal member whether they could aggregate the amount of the settlement to every tribal member. We did that back in 1995 in Waikato-Tainui when we got our settlement and tribal members were to get about $9.56 each. We tried to convince them that rather than take out their $9.56 each, we should put it into the collective pool, and do something for all of us.

It is the same question that the Māori Trust Office should face and must answer. That really is the challenge, because when we look at a lot of the issues around the way in which the Māori Trust Office operates and at how it invests this funding, we can only hope and expect that it will be accountable for the investments it makes, that it will make a valuable contribution to Māori economic development, and that it will be accountable to, obviously, those whom it can identify as beneficial owners, but, more important, that we free up some of the constraints around its role to be able to accelerate and support Māori economic development.

The difficulty with multiple-owned Māori land—and I am not saying anything new to those Māori members in the House who know the constraints—is that it is often very difficult to identify every owner who has a stake in a bit of land, to try to get hold of them, and to then agree to a decision on what is happening on that bit of land. That is why so many parcels of land around the country cannot have anything done on them, because it is such a hard task to try to get everyone to agree to make something happen. Every Māori member in this House knows that this is the reality. It is the same reality that the office of the Māori Trustee faces when it tries to do things, so let us not bring to this House a high moral principled approach that because we cannot do this, we should not do anything. Let us free up the underutilised capacity of a whole lot of pockets of Māori land that could better contribute to economic development in this country.

I am pleased that Pita Sharples, as the Minister of Māori Affairs, has taken up the task of continuing the work started by our Government in terms of the rating and valuation of Māori land. That is a valuable piece of work that the National-led Government should look to when it continues to arrest the failure of the underutilisation of Māori land in our country. I hope the Government will support that work to free up the opportunities on unutilised Māori land so that it can better contribute to the economic opportunities in our communities and regions.

This is a second reading of the bill. Many of the changes have been referred to. Once again I commend the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, and the current Minister of Māori Affairs for seeing fit to introduce the bill and then bring it forward for its second reading. I hope that in the third reading debate there may be some opportunity for the Government and the Māori Party to demonstrate what their contribution will be to accelerate Māori development. Members on this side of the House know that the previous Labour Government had solutions. We are just waiting to hear solutions from them. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

PAUL QUINN (National) : It is my pleasure to be able to take a call on this very important legislation, the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill.

I start by making a couple of comments about what I have heard in the debate. We are a very responsible Government but a number of times Opposition members have criticised us for not providing the opportunity to thoroughly debate bills as they pass through the House. I have been sitting here for some time and so far have heard only two members of the Opposition rise to speak; they were supposedly speaking to this bill, yet neither of them actually spoke to it. I sat patiently and listened with great intent and interest, hoping to hear some pearls of wisdom from my second cousin Mita Ririnui, because, of course, one looks up to the elders to be inspired by their learned knowledge. All one can say in summary about what he had to pass on was that it was a whole lot of valedictions to members who have departed from this House—most of them booted out at the last election. I am not sure why he went through the process of mentioning them all and, I guess, embarrassing them by drawing the House’s attention to the fact they are no longer here. I am not quite sure, but I guess he had his reasons. So I did not learn anything about the bill from him. We have just had a contribution from Ms Nanaia Mahuta, and again, sadly, Ms Mahuta spent most of her time slagging off the National Party about its non-contribution, if you will, to Māori development and singing the praises, in a wayward fashion, of the previous Minister of Māori Affairs.

Having been on the edges of the bill’s formation—if I can put it that way—one of the things that struck me is that it was introduced into the House in November 2007. I note also that an enormous amount of work was done prior to its introduction, with lots of to-ing and fro-ing as to what would be in the bill in respect of getting it before the House. The simple fact is that although the name of the previous Minister, the Hon Parekura Horomia, is attached to the bill, I suggest that it is there in name only.

I say that because in the first reading debate the bill was fundamentally in two parts. One aspect dealt with the separation of the Māori Trustee from Te Puni Kōkiri and making it a stand-alone organisation. The other aspect was about rolling that organisation into some sort of Māori incorporation. At that time the National Party opposed the bill, simply because of the second limb of the proposal. The Māori Affairs Committee considered this bill and deliberated on it, and it is pleasing to note that the intellectual grunt provided by the National Party members and Māori Party members on the committee at that time—now members of the current Government—clearly drove the restructuring of this bill.

The bill before us now in its second reading is actually what the National Party wanted. That is, the concept of a Māori incorporation—if I can phrase it in such a way; sort of a money-laundering thing—has been removed. It was the sort of thing that Shane Jones was probably keen to get his hands on, simply because he is the master of double-dipping. In that respect I can enlighten the House that in 2006-07 he was double-dipping to the extent of an annualised figure in excess of $100,000 in his role at Te Ohu Kaimoana. When he talks to me about double-dipping—for volunteer work, in fact—I remind him of the large fees that he was earning not only at that commission but also from the taxpayer. He was taking from Māori people and the taxpayer to continue the lifestyle that he chose. I notice that he did not have his way because we removed the Māori incorporation—

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the member should be reminded to stick to the point of this bill and leave the testosterone alone.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments.

Nathan Guy: The member raising the point of order has been a member for a long time, and she will realise that a first, second, or third reading is a wide-ranging debate. My colleague, like the rest of the House, is engaging in this robust debate under the Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for those comments. I will ask the member, however—

Hon Shane Jones: Mr Speaker—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?

Hon Shane Jones: Yes, it is. I would like to point out the key difference between that member and myself: I was good at my job.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I ask the honourable member Paul Quinn to continue and to confine his comments to the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill.

PAUL QUINN: I think the Hansard will demonstrate that I was talking about the separation of this bill at the moment the junior Labour whip stood to take the point of order. To say that I was not addressing this bill is not correct. Perhaps the member should have her hearing checked.

I will get back to the point that was so rudely interrupted. The second limb of the proposal, which I was talking about before I was interrupted, has now been removed thanks to the leadership shown by the National Party and the Māori Party, which are now the Government, in taking responsibility for this bill. We are dealing now with only the reorganisation and the stand-alone nature of the Māori Trustee.

I turn more specifically now to some of the detail in this bill. As I just said, it establishes the Māori Trustee as a stand-alone organisation. The second intention of the original bill was to propose arrangements for a statutory corporation, which, of course, we have now removed. So the two limbs that we are now talking about are, first, a stand-alone organisation, and, more important, transparency—proper reporting back by those who must do so. The bill allows the Māori Trustee to be free from political pressure, which, of course, was a concern given the way the previous Government used to appoint all its cronies—like Dianne Yates—to various boards, as it tried to silently move those members on. Judith Tizard might have turned up on a board somewhere—who knows? The bill provides for better, more open communication between the Māori Trustee and the beneficial owners.

It is, indeed, with some pleasure that I stand and support the Minister of Māori Affairs, who is now responsible for driving this bill through the House, and who is showing outstanding leadership in that role—one that we are all very proud of as a Government. It gives me great pleasure to be able to join with my colleagues who spoke previously in giving my full and unequivocal support to this bill. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : Ā, te mea tuatahi māku he tāpiri i ōku mihi ki tō tātou nei whaea rangatira ngā mihi kua ūhia ki runga i ōna pokohiwi i te ahiahi nei. First of all, I would like to acknowledge and support the words that were heaped upon our previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark, on her gaining her new job with the United Nations.

I am not a member of the Labour Opposition who gets annoyed with Mr Quinn’s speeches. In fact, I quite enjoy them, and I can see a number of months ahead of us where—late into the night—we will need the likes of Mr Quinn speaking just to keep us awake. But I want to correct a terrible injustice that occurred earlier this evening—we were not speaking about the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, which I will get to shortly—when Mr Quinn drew an analogy between the Labour Party and a rugby team. A terrible injustice occurred to our good colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia when a terrible stereotype was perpetuated by referring to him as a prop. Parekura’s feelings were terribly hurt and he signalled to me that he will not play for the parliamentary rugby team unless he gets to play on the wing. He was prepared to have a sprint-off against Mr Quinn, and to give him a 10-yard handicap.

Coming back to the bill, I refer the Hon Tau Henare’s comments earlier this evening when he wondered why the Labour Government had not found the beneficiaries and distributed the money owing to them. He said that it would take 5 seconds for a debt collection agency to locate these people. Based on that estimate I have figured that it would take 54 days—24-hour days I would have to say—to locate those 188,000 owners of this money. Because the Labour Party would not expect people to work a 24-hour day, it would mean 164 40-hour days! That means that in less than 6 months National will be able to find the beneficiaries and return all this money to them. To some extent, this bill is actually a waste of time because in 6 months’ time the National Government will have distributed all this money, so there is not much point in continuing the debate. However, we know that is silly logic. It is difficult to find the 188,000 beneficiaries of all this money.

One of the big problems is multiplicity: the number of Māori owners owning a bit of land or whatever. I would like to use my own family as an example. My father has 94 first cousins—we are pretty prolific breeders. Each of those 94 cousins has, on average, five kids, so if we roughly multiply 94 by five there are 500 of my generation. If those 500 have five kids of their own there is another 2,500. Members can now understand how quickly there are a number of multiple owners and multiple beneficiaries in Māori whānau.

I support, in particular, the purpose of the bill. The bill, as introduced, was intended to make changes arising out of a review of the Māori Trustee and Māori Trust Office to bring together functions supporting Māori businesses undertaken by Te Puni Kōkiri, the Māori Trustee, and perhaps other organisations. The bill also provides for robust accountability for public funding by including the Māori Trustee on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act. I have nothing against accountability; we have to be accountable. But the part of the bill where I think we are really missing an opportunity was in splitting it. Where it is difficult to distribute those funds to the beneficiaries, we do not make use of those funds. It is really important that those funds be used to invest in Māori enterprise, Māori business, and, of course, Māori employment. When those funds are used, and Māori businesses become successful, it would not take much thinking outside the square to create a facility within this bill for those people to return a dividend to the fund.

I would like to describe a project that my whanaunga in Ngāti Hine, up north, have participated in. The project has taken a lot of initiative, and it has taken a lot of effort, money, and resourcing to get off the ground. It would have been really good if some of this type of funding was used to support this Māori initiative to get off the ground. It is the taunahanaha project, undertaken by our whanaunga in Mōtatau, which is very hilly country, whereby they have developed a plan of the land using mapping where they can identify particular areas of the farms that suit particular crops or particular yields. So, instead of planting potatoes they should be planting corn on particular blocks of land, or raising sheep instead of planting pine trees. For that sort of initiative there is a lot of investment, there is a lot of development, and it has taken a lot of time. It would be really good if we could use the funds from the Māori Trustee to support that sort of Māori development.

I also got a call from a mate of mine who runs an oyster farm in Te Hāpua. He is upset that the Northland Regional Council expect oyster farmers to pay a bond of $22,000 per hectare in case the farmers walk off their oyster farms for whatever reason. The oyster farms up north are very successful enterprises. However, with a $22,000 bond per hectare—and my mate has a 13-hectare oyster farm—it will cost him $286,000 just to pay for the bond. This is an instance where the Māori Trustee funds could be used to support Māori enterprise to pay this bill. When that enterprise is highly successful, then it would be really cool if we had a facility in this bill where it could pay part of that back.

Another cousin of mine set up a Māori enterprise in Moerewa called the Tuna Café, where different types of Māori food are for sale. For example, instead of having egg bolognese and things like that—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Egg whatever.

KELVIN DAVIS: Whatever it is. They have tuna and kūmara and those sorts of Māori-based recipes. It was not bolognese—I apologise for that one. But they have formulated a menu that is based around—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member. There is a lot of chit-chat going. I am having difficulty hearing the member. If members want to converse, please go to the lobbies. I am sorry to interrupt the member.

KELVIN DAVIS: To conclude, I think there is money from the Māori Trustee that could be used to support Māori initiatives. We are in a recession, and this is a great time to invest money from the Māori Trustee in order to create jobs, to create employment, to support Māori businesses, and to help us just get on with life. It does not take much thinking outside of the square to use this bill in a positive way so that Māori are able to be highly successful participants in our society.

I finish by saying that I support the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, and I would like to think that the second part that was cut off the bottom of the original bill will be included. Kia ora.

AARON GILMORE (National) : I rise to support the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill. As previously mentioned by many speakers tonight, this is a largely uncontroversial bill. It was introduced in the previous Parliament, before my time. The key change to this bill from the Māori Affairs Committee is the removal of what the previous speaker, Kelvin Davis, was talking about—the splitting-off of anything to do with the $35 million of trust moneys into what, essentially, could have become a Labour Party Māori development slush fund.

Paul Quinn: They’re thieves.

AARON GILMORE: Yes. The bill separates the Māori Trustee as a formal, separate body from Te Puni Kōkiri, and it provides associated governance administration methods for this to occur. I must admit to recently not knowing much about what the Māori Trustee does or its role. Upon further investigation, I was surprised and I now consider the separation in a legal sense from Te Puni Kōkiri to be a step in the right direction for the Māori Trustee and for Māoridom.

The role of the Māori Trustee is broad. It can be seen as basically a body that bridges the gap between the Māori people and communities, and the rights and assets that the Māori Trustee holds on their behalf. Over 111,000 hectares of land is controlled by the Māori Trustee, and there are over 186,000 owners, who have land across 2,000 properties. That is about 50 hectares per owner, per property. That makes the Māori Trustee effectively one of the largest landowners and land managers in New Zealand, with land covering an area about the size of Banks Peninsula—where my family is from—but spread over the entire country.

The land is, on average, mostly unproductive rural land. For that reason the Māori Trustee acts to obtain the economies of scale from a single office across large numbers of owners. The Māori Trustee also manages a number of scholarships, and that is something that has not been mentioned much tonight and that I wish I had known about when I went to university. In particular, the prestigious Sir Apirana Ngata Memorial Scholarship honours one of our truly greatest New Zealanders. If the work of the Māori Trustee can inspire more young New Zealanders, through that scholarship, to strive to achieve what he did, then I think that, as a nation, we would be better for it. The Māori Trustee being separate from Te Puni Kōkiri should allow that to happen more, and it will not be cluttered up with the other issues that Te Puni Kōkiri has to deal with, such as similar Government agency scholarships.

One of the more interesting issues I found over the past day in research on the Māori Trustee was that in Te Wai Pounamu there are over 300 people who have money owing to them, including $67,000 in one instance to one individual. Many thousands of others are owed money, down to $200 or $300 in some instances. I was shocked by this, and I recommend that every member of this House review that list to find family or friends who may have money owing to them. For myself, I found one cousin who is owed some money and I intend to ring him tomorrow to make sure he follows up on it.

It is interesting that we annually see ads from the Inland Revenue Department. We see “Get your tax refund now!” advertised in local shopping malls, on TV, and in newspaper ads, but we do not see any similar type of thing for the Māori Trustee. Maybe this bill will allow the Māori Trustee to have more flexibility and freedom to make such innovations in order to get more funding to people who deserve it. Perhaps more creatively, it will allow the Māori Trustee to think, and to get out from under the skirts of Te Puni Kōkiri so that many more people, and Māori in particular, who are entitled to this money, and who are generally poor, can efficiently and effectively get access to the money that they need.

It is interesting that, following the consultation on the Māori Trustee that was undertaken up and down the country, many iwi wanted this Māori Trustee to be more independent of Te Puni Kōkiri—for many reasons that Hone Harawira and others spoke about tonight. There is a distinct benefit in having more independent governance for the Māori Trustee, especially in reporting and controls so that people can see where the money goes, how it is spent, and what it is used for in terms of administration. The bill appoints the Māori Trustee for an initial period of 5 years, and allows the Minister of Māori Affairs to appoint a person to act as effectively the chief executive officer of the Māori Trustee. The bill also undertakes the associated tidy-up of a large number of administrative issues to enable the Māori Trustee to effectively and efficiently undertake its role on behalf of Māori. The bill also enables the Māori Trustee to have surety of income by making it clear how the Māori Trustee can get its costs recovered and what will eventually go through to those people who are beneficiaries.

The other important aspect that has only been touched on by one speaker tonight is the removal of the debt that exists with the Māori Trustee. About $52 million dollars of debt exists, and that is a massive debt. This allows the Māori Trustee to instead focus on value creation for the benefit of Māori, rather than on the issues that exist around trying to resolve that debt issue.

For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to seeing the results of the Māori Trustee improve. Then people will be more comfortable with the role and results of the Māori Trustee, and they can get the money that they deserve in an increasingly effective and efficient fashion. The Māori Trustee can deliver what it was set up to do in education, in land management, and in terms of getting money to those people who deserve it and are in need. Thank you.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. The Government recognises that in an increasingly difficult economic environment, we need to take positive steps to improve the international competitiveness of New Zealand businesses. The bill contributes to this aim by assuring our international business partners that their customers’ personal information will be protected. To this end, the bill amends the Privacy Act 1993 by introducing new provisions to govern the cross-border transfer of personal data, and to facilitate the cross-border enforcement of privacy laws.

As things stand, there is nothing in the Privacy Act to prevent data received from overseas being transferred outside New Zealand to a jurisdiction without adequate privacy protection. Nor does the Privacy Act allow foreign nationals who are resident overseas to make privacy information requests. In an era of increasing globalisation and e-commerce, our inability to assure our international business partners that their customers’ personal information will be protected is a potential impediment to growth. This is a serious risk for New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses that wish to enter into international arrangements. Currently, the only option is for those companies to enter into special contractual arrangements for privacy protection, resulting in additional transaction costs.

This Government is committed to doing all that it can to enhance New Zealand’s competitive advantage—for example, as a supplier of information, communications, and technology services in the international business arena. This bill will enhance New Zealand’s case for a finding by the European Union that we have adequate data protection and privacy laws. Countries that have an adequate privacy legal framework may be given so-called white list status, meaning that data from Europe may be sent and received freely. EU approval will mean that New Zealand businesses face reduced red tape and costs when doing business with Europe.

Although the changes aim to more closely align New Zealand’s privacy laws with the current EU directive on privacy, the bill is not solely Eurocentric.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I was going to say that!

Hon SIMON POWER: I thought you might. It has wide international application. Recognition by the EU will assist New Zealand to gain recognition by other countries and trading blocs that maintain data export controls. Although such countries do not generally have formal approval processes, they are likely to recognise an EU finding, given the stringent standards involved. The changes will also enhance New Zealand’s standing as a privacy-conscious and privacy-protective country with our existing and developing international business partners.

The bill authorises the Privacy Commissioner to issue a data transfer prohibition notice if he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds that personal information received from overseas is being routed through New Zealand, to circumvent another country’s privacy laws. It will be an offence to fail to comply with a transfer prohibition notice, but existing appeal rights to the Human Rights Review Tribunal will be available to affected parties. An essential part of all privacy regimes is ensuring individuals are able to access and correct the data that agencies hold about them. The bill will enable foreign nationals who are not in New Zealand to access any of their personal information that is held here.

The bill also looks to future international arrangements with overseas privacy enforcement authorities. The amendments dealing with the cross-border enforcement of privacy laws will complement the European Union directive on privacy. The bill is the first step in facilitating the adoption of the OECD’s mutual assistance framework and compliance with the APEC privacy framework, which, when fully implemented, will contribute to APEC’s efforts to increase cross-border trade and grow regional e-commerce.

The bill also authorises the Privacy Commissioner to consult with overseas privacy enforcement authorities like the Privacy Commissioner where there is a potential for overlapping jurisdiction or where it appears that the overseas authority has sole jurisdiction. The Privacy Commissioner will be able to transfer all or part of a complaint to an overseas authority, but only if both the complainant and the overseas authority agree. Likewise, New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner may receive complaints transferred from an overseas privacy enforcement authority. The cross-border privacy enforcement provisions establish a mutual assistance framework between enforcement authorities that will benefit individuals both here and overseas.

The Privacy Commissioner has stated: “Globally, businesses are becoming extremely aware that information is an asset and are seeking to put measures in place to protect that information against loss or misuse.” I agree, as I am sure the Hon Lianne Dalziel does, with those comments. New Zealand cannot continue to do what it has always done, if we wish to foster greater competitiveness in an increasingly international economy. The changes to the Privacy Act that are proposed by this bill, which are no doubt supported by many parties in this House, will directly benefit New Zealand from both a business and an individual privacy perspective. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I do not know why I feel as if I have nothing left to say before I have even begun, but, never mind, let me try my best. I am absolutely delighted to be able to speak in the first reading of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill. I just said to one of my colleagues that perhaps I could spend a few minutes explaining why the Minister Simon Power says “priv-acy” and why I say “pry-vacy”, but we would just call the whole thing off, I think!

The reality is that this legislation had its genesis way back when I first entered Parliament, actually—in 1993, when the original legislation was passed.

Hon Simon Power: Surely not; the member looks too young to have been here in 1993.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, I was here even before 1993, as the member knows. I sat on the select committee that dealt with the original Privacy Bill. In fact, I think the Hon Peter Dunne, who was my colleague in those days, introduced a member’s bill, but it was superseded by a Government bill, which the select committee considered at the same time.

A lot of people get hung up on the whole issue of privacy. Quite a lot of people use that expression “political correctness” when the Privacy Act is used to protect people’s right to privacy. But, in fact, a lot of the legislation we already have in this country, with its many flow-on effects in terms of our economy, comes from the fact that it is about protecting private information. It is data protection that drives the European Union in terms of its response to other countries and their mechanisms that are in place to protect data that is collected. Given the period of time that I have been in Parliament, the ability to gather information with the surveillance systems we have in place now has increased enormously since the Act was passed. Even when we travel, a large amount of information is held by airline databases and customs organisations in various countries. All of that information is held in huge databases that enable a lot of searching to be undertaken in terms of people’s movements.

So what we do today is monitored in quite a significant way. What we do with information when we gather it is very, very important, and this bill is so important because it is about data protection in terms of how we are seen to be dealing with other nations. The Minister quite rightly said that this bill is not purely Eurocentric, but it does stem from European Union requirements and the fact that if we want to have trade relationships with other countries, then we must have data protection provisions that are up to scratch and are accepted by those countries as providing sufficient protection—or adequacy, to use the correct word.

I will go back to quote a speech that I gave on 28 March 2003—that was not so long ago, was it? Only 6 years ago, almost to the day, I stated: “My appointment as Minister of Commerce has meant that I have taken a particular interest in trade matters. Most recently, my officials have been working on the Privacy Commissioner’s proposals to make changes so that we can advance our request to be granted a ruling that our data protection laws are ‘adequate’ for the purposes of the European Data Protection Directive. The EU Directive is likely to prove highly influential outside the EU because of the data flow controls that it instigates. Our trading partners from Europe will obtain a measure of satisfaction from knowing that our data protection laws meet their standards for data protection. Accordingly, a ruling of ‘adequacy’ will enhance New Zealand’s position in world trade.” Well, we have been a little bit slow in getting that up and running, but finally the day has come when I can stand in Parliament to talk about this bill. Tragically, I do not stand as the Minister introducing the bill; otherwise, I would have had a very, very good speech to deliver. But I thought that the Minister delivered the introduction speech very well instead.

The point is that this legislation has been on the agenda for quite some time. We can be flippant about the fact that it has taken a number of years, but I think it is important to realise that it is hard to get relatively minor amendments to controversial legislation on to the agenda at any time.

I will spend just a minute explaining why I think the Privacy Act comes out of this as controversial legislation when it ought not to be. I have heard members in this House talk about privacy laws as if somehow we are, firstly, protecting the politically correct attitudes that we might have—nanny State—and, secondly, acting so that people cannot pass on information about other people without their consent. But I think people need to realise that important trade implications come from our not allowing overseas nationals to apply for information held by New Zealand databases, and from our not having security around what happens to information that is transferred out of New Zealand and, perhaps, into the hands of those without adequate data protection laws. This legislation is designed to address those two features of our privacy law.

I will use an example I used back in 2003 when I was talking about why it was important to have privacy legislation in place. I talked about how easy it was to make flippant comments about giving up the right to privacy, and to argue that somehow the legislation is something that is imposed on people by Governments. The example that I always used was the sign that appeared on airline counters after the law was originally passed in 1993. I remember seeing this sign on the stand outside the Air New Zealand counter as I went up to buy my airline ticket or to confirm my booking. The sign said that the airline would not give out information about passengers, due to the operation of the Government’s Privacy Act 1993. The airline made it very clear that the reason it would not give out passenger information was the Government’s requirements under the Privacy Act, which had just been passed. My view is that the sign, if it was honest, would have read: “Because we value our passengers’ right to privacy, we do not give out information about our passengers to anyone without their permission.” By saying that, the airline would have said what it had always said before the Privacy Act was passed. Members would have noticed that Air New Zealand never gave out information about its passengers, but, hey, it was really convenient for it to blame nanny State and the Government for imposing this requirement on it, to the inconvenience of all.

I want my privacy protected. I do not want people to be told information about when I am travelling, where I am travelling, or what I am up to. What is on the public record is on the public record, but for private matters I believe that it is important that we maintain privacy. I am prepared to stand up in this House to defend the principles that lie behind the Privacy Act, and to say that I support these amendments to it, because they will advance New Zealand’s interests at the same time. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the first reading of this bill. I hope people realise that it is not worth making flippant asides in respect of privacy, and that privacy is an important human right that Parliament should protect.

In protecting privacy, we are motivated by different reasons. On my own side, I believe that it is a valuable human right. It is my right to privacy, and I am the one who gets to decide what private information about me is put on the public record. If others are collecting private information about me, I have the right to request to see that information, and I have the right to correct that information if it is incorrect. Our law allows that to happen. This bill is an extension of that. It makes it a commercial right as well. If we do not have adequate data protection laws in this country, we will not be able to enter into trade negotiations with countries that require our exporters to have that security. If we leave it up to individual companies to negotiate it, then that will add an unreasonable compliance cost on to their businesses.

I support this bill. I am glad that after 6 years we are finally able to get to it, and I look forward to its progress through the House.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : It is great to be in the House on a day when we all seem to be agreeing on so much. As has been articulated by previous speakers, it is interesting to see the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill finally come before the House after such a long preamble. It is good to see it here. It is anticipated that it will facilitate trade and give security to people who travel to New Zealand that their travel arrangements will remain private. That is a good thing. It is something that is expected when we live in such a global community, and when people travel between countries with such frequency. The amendments are intended to assure our international business partners that their customers’ personal information will be protected when they deal with businesses in New Zealand. They are designed to ensure that personal data that originates overseas and is sent to New Zealand is subject to New Zealand’s privacy protection.

It has always amazed me that New Zealanders are so besotted with privacy, and, at the same time, so besotted with obtaining information. It is interesting to think for a moment about the debate we had on the Māori Trustee Amendment Bill, when we heard that over 183,000 people are unidentified, while money sits waiting for them in the account of the Māori Trustee. Funnily enough, information that would identify well over half of those people, if not damn near all of them, actually lies on Government records at the moment. If we had half a dozen police officers checking in their down time, for instance, the National Intelligence Application database that is held within the New Zealand Police, we would find that most of those 183,000 people have a firearms licence, own a motor vehicle or have an interest in one, have been a witness for the police or have had their name recorded, or have been issued with a traffic ticket or a notice for some other infringement within the last 10 years. Their names, addresses, ages, occupations, and dates of birth would all be sitting there on the database. It would be a relatively easy matter for someone to find out just where those 183,000 people are, but we will never know that, because we are not allowed to look. Our privacy laws prevent us from doing that. So it seems to me that on many occasions our privacy laws act against us, but on this particular occasion the privacy legislation will act for us.

I note that the Privacy Commissioner, Marie Shroff, said on 2 July 2008 that she welcomed the introduction of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill, saying it would have benefits for New Zealand’s trading opportunities and would enhance personal rights. She said: “The bill will have two main impacts: first, it will help ensure New Zealand law meets the expectations of our trading partners and second, it will remove an anomaly so that people living overseas can access their personal information held in New Zealand. New Zealand business is operating in a global data processing economy and our data protection law needs to be recognised as stacking up internationally.” She also said: “It is important that our privacy law keeps pace in order to facilitate international trading opportunities. These changes should help to secure a finding from the European Union that New Zealand law offers an adequate standard of data protection.”

It is important that we, as a smaller country and especially in fairly tight times, are able to punch above our weight, as we continue to do on the international stage. That means that our systems and protections must have the integrity of those overseas and of our larger trading partners. It is important to note that the amendments dealing with cross-border data transfers aim to substantially reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of the privacy laws of other countries. I am sure that members can relate to the information that we have had over recent times about the lengths that people will go to in order to infringe the law in other countries by using New Zealand as a safe haven or conduit for either sending goods on to another country, because New Zealand is seen as a fairly benign country—

Sandra Goudie: A soft touch.

CHESTER BORROWS: Or as a soft touch, as my friend and colleague Sandra Goudie says. Other countries that see goods coming in from New Zealand, and that see information coming from New Zealand into other countries, do not take quite as much notice as maybe they should.

The amendments also aim to increase the competitive advantage for trade between New Zealand and the European Union and other current developing trade partners. The Law Commission and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner agreed that the bill should go ahead at this time. It is good to be part of a Government that has recognised the need for this bill, and that is kicking on with legislation that is not contentious, at least among the bigger parties in the House. It will be interesting to see, for instance, just where the Green Party will go on this bill, bearing in mind the stance it has sometimes taken in the past in relation to data collection and privacy information. Largely, the bill seeks to enhance New Zealand’s opportunities as a trading nation. It seeks to prevent the malicious acquisition of private information, and the use of that information against those whom it would identify. The Privacy Act also makes it clear that there are important trans-border dimensions to the application of privacy legislation. This bill is a useful addition to the Act. The Law Commission’s view on the bill was sought, and it has indicated that it supports the bill, as well.

It is my pleasure to be able to endorse the process of this legislation, which acts in New Zealand’s best trade interests, and uses all opportunities it can to enhance our position as a global trader.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) : I rise to support the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government on 2 July 2008. Before I address the bill I say that I have taken a bit of a poll of my Labour colleagues, and I think the consensus is that we say “pry-vacy” and members on the opposite side of the House say “pri-vacy”. I think that says something about the differences between us.

Tim Macindoe: What exactly?

Hon Steve Chadwick: Make what you will of it.

CLARE CURRAN: Yes.

This bill is a Labour bill and, therefore, we support it. It is a good bill. It amends the Privacy Act 1993 by introducing new provisions dealing with the cross-border transfer of personal data. To complement these changes the bill includes new provisions that facilitate the cross-border enforcement of privacy laws. The aim of the bill is to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand’s being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of other States’ privacy laws. Currently, the Privacy Act does not allow foreign nationals resident overseas to make information privacy requests, and, further, nothing in the Act prevents data received from overseas from being transferred outside New Zealand to a jurisdiction that does not have adequate privacy protection. That means New Zealand is unable to provide the assurance requested by overseas trade partners that we can fully protect their privacy and their customers’ privacy.

As previous speakers have said, in an era of increasing globalisation and e-commerce our inability to give this assurance is a potential impediment to trade. So getting our privacy laws right is important both for individuals and for businesses. Major advances in technology have changed the way personal data is collected, stored, and used. The challenge for businesses is to ensure that the benefits obtained through using new technology do not compromise individuals’ expectations about the security and use of their personal information. Businesses must be able to assure their customers that their privacy will be respected.

This bill complements a privacy review currently being undertaken by the Law Commission. I will talk a bit about that. The Law Commission is undertaking a review of privacy values, technology change, and international trends and their implications for New Zealand law. The terms of reference for the review were released in October 2006. The project is proceeding in stages, with reports being made at each stage. In stage one of the project the Law Commission is undertaking a high-level policy overview to assess privacy values, changes in technology, and international trends and their implications for New Zealand’s civil, criminal, and statute law. The Law Commission will conduct a survey of these trends in conjunction with the Australian Law Reform Commission, and a report on the overview will be published.

In stage two of the project the Law Commission is considering whether the law relating to public registers requires systematic alteration as a result of privacy considerations and emerging technology. In stage three of the project the commission is considering and reporting on how adequate New Zealand’s civil law remedies are for invasions of privacy, including tortious and equitable remedies, and the adequacy of New Zealand’s criminal law to deal with invasions of privacy. In stage four of the project the commission will review the Privacy Act 1993, with a view to updating it, taking into account any changes in the legislation that have been made by the time this stage of the project has been reached. Stages one and two were completed in early 2008 with the publication of a study paper and a report, and the Law Commission is currently engaged in stages three and four of the project.

In commenting on the review and the introduction of this bill, the Privacy Commissioner, Marie Shroff, last year welcomed the introduction of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill, saying it would have benefits for New Zealand’s trading opportunities and would enhance personal rights. She said the bill would have two main impacts: “first, it will help ensure New Zealand law meets the expectations of our trading partners and second, it will remove an anomaly so that people who live overseas can access their personal information that is held in New Zealand.” She said: “New Zealand business is operating in a global data processing economy and our data protection law needs to be recognised as stacking up internationally. It is important that our privacy law keeps pace in order to facilitate international trading opportunities. These changes should help to secure a finding from the European Union that New Zealand law offers an adequate standard of data protection. The Bill will also give the Privacy Commissioner the ability to cooperate with overseas privacy authorities when dealing with, or transferring, privacy complaints. This reflects a priority area in the privacy work of both APEC and the OECD.”

Labour supports this bill. In essence, it will remove the current restrictions on who can make an information privacy request, it will enable public sector agencies to charge for making personal information available to overseas foreign nationals, it will provide for the referral of cross-border complaints to the appropriate privacy enforcement authority, and it will establish a mechanism to control the transfer of information outside of New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws of the country from where the information came.

This bill is a Labour bill. We commend it to the House but we wonder to ourselves where National’s ideas are and how this bill will stimulate the economy, save jobs, and lift us out of a recession. There are important things the Government could be putting before us in the middle of a recession—not that this bill is not important. It is important, but we have to wonder—particularly in light of a global financial crisis of which the likely effects have been described as the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression and the most severe recession since World War II: job losses; businesses going to the wall in many countries such as the US, the UK, and those in Europe; financial companies falling over; and thousands of small investors losing their savings. To some extent, that is happening in New Zealand. The International Monetary Fund chief economist has advised world Governments to commit whatever it will take to avoid a depression, which means making clear policies and acting decisively—doing too much rather than too little. Gee, where is the Government’s plan and where are the measures that are being put into place immediately to deal with the financial crisis?

This bill is a good bill and we support it. As the Hon Lianne Dalziel talked about, data protection is extremely important and it has important trade implications. They are both extremely important issues that this legislation is designed to address. The bill has been on the agenda for some time and we commend it to the House.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party is supporting the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill. We are very keen on protecting people’s privacy, and this bill goes some way towards achieving that. It is driven mainly by the requirements of the European Union countries, which are at the forefront of the world in protecting databases and privacy. In order for those countries to exchange data, they make it a condition for the countries they exchange it with to be up to the required standard. We have some country-to-country arrangements with European nations’ Governments, such as the Netherlands.

As the previous speaker, Claire Curran, indicated in her description of what the Law Commission is up to on the privacy issue, and also the Privacy Commissioner herself when one reads her stuff, this bill is touching only the edges of the problem. The issue goes much deeper than what is in this bill. But it is good that we are updating our law to fit in with the European Union requirements and be on, what was called earlier, its “white list”.

One of the problems is that so much information is international these days that it is very hard for any one national jurisdiction to really get a handle on the problem and to protect the privacy of databases. If one listens to people like Marie Shroff, the Privacy Commissioner, one hears them talk now about what I believe is called cloud computing, whereby people are not storing information so much on their own computers and hardware but on the Internet. That does not mean it is in the middle of space; it is on a server somewhere. But sometimes one cannot work out which country the server is in, and in that respect it is very hard to protect the privacy of databases.

We also know, and it is happening in New Zealand, that call centres are going to overseas locations. In New Zealand, call centres are now basing themselves in countries like India or the Philippines in particular. Although the countries might have data protection—they are supposed to have passwords and the like to get into the system as well as firewalls; you name it—if one deals with countries like the Philippines, the governance is not particularly strong, and the workers are not unionised. One cannot necessarily guarantee the privacy of the New Zealand data when there are call centres, or data being processed, in the Philippines, using cheap, non-unionised labour in many cases. There is a big problem there.

Lianne Dalziel talked about the advanced passenger processing system and the protection of data within that system. Airlines have to keep the data secret so that people do not know where travellers are going, except that under some of the laws brought in over the last couple of years, the airlines have to hand out the data. They have to hand it out not only to New Zealand agencies but to overseas agencies with which New Zealand has an advanced passenger processing agreement. Information such as the details of a passenger’s 28 days of travel, or projected travel, on either side of the date of departure goes all around the world.

The European Union, which as I said is at the forefront of a lot of this privacy stuff, had a big fight with the United States over the passenger processing system. One of the problems was that the American law enforcement agencies said they were after terrorists around the world and, therefore, wanted information on passengers coming from Europe to America. The European population got a bit upset. So the European Parliament passed motions about, for example, situations when Europeans—and it would be the same with New Zealanders—paid for an airline ticket with their credit card. The American law enforcement agencies said they wanted, as part of their advanced passenger processing, terrorist-checking system, the credit card numbers on their database for people who paid with their credit card when they booked flights in London or Brussels. The Europeans said that that was all very well except that the Americans did not have any serious data protection systems. They do not—that is one of America’s big weaknesses. New Zealand has an advanced passenger processing exchange with America, but we do not really know where the data we are exchanging ends up.

When we were discussing legislation in Parliament 3 or 4 years ago to guide the advanced passenger processing system, we added a provision to tighten it up. The provision said that if information were given to, say, the US customs or immigration departments, the departments could not pass on that information—there was a whole pile of about 20 bits of data on each individual, including nationality; you name it—to some other agency unless it was for a continuation of the original purpose. In reality, how could that ever be worked out? Since that time, the US has set up the Department of Homeland Security, which incorporates all the different agencies. The last I heard, it had on its database the names of about 70,000 people whom it considered a security risk. So there is a lot of room for error, discrimination, and leakage of data in that whole US system.

There are cases when people think they are transferring personal information just from one country to another, but really it goes around a big circuit of other countries. There was the case about 5 years ago of a man in Auckland called Mohammad Abbas, who had a sick relative in India. He wanted to send the relative some money for help in getting hospital treatment. He went into Western Union—an American company—in Auckland to transfer the money. But it did not get to the other end, which caused big distress to his family in India. Then it was discovered that Western Union had put the information through to an American Government database, and that Mohammad Abbas’ name had come up as having terrorist links, so the money never got through. In fact, it was just a confusion of names. Mohammad is a very common name, and Abbas is a very common name. There will be a whole lot of common names in any database of doubtful people. Abbas had a hell of a problem. There was no guarantee that Mohammad Abbas’ information would not circulate in directions he was unaware of when he first went into Western Union in Auckland.

There is also the problem of financial data relating to individuals and companies. It is very important private data. It is circulated and exchanged through banks around the world through a computer system called SWIFT. Although it is operated out of Brussels, it is American-owned, with a mirror of the data running in America as well so that the American agencies can get hold of the information if they want to use it to track down terrorists. Sure, we want to track down money transfers between terrorists, but in the process currently used to do so, the whole privacy system tends to break down. The Europeans have been a bit upset about the SWIFT system and some of its problems.

There is another problem with the internationalisation of data through law enforcement agencies, and even with what information comes up in newspapers. Poor old Ahmed Zaoui had this problem in a different way when he arrived here several years back. The Refugee Status Board did the first processing of his refugee status application, and it was much criticised by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority afterwards. An officer at the Refugee Status Board did a Google search and came up with a whole lot of newspaper clippings about Ahmed Zaoui in Belgium and France. The officer thought that Ahmed Zaoui must have some links with terrorism and denied his refugee status application on the basis of media information from abroad that was untested.

I have been involved as an advocate in other immigration cases. Police files have emails and stuff from agencies overseas that have come through. Supposedly, the information is about things like people’s job background, but none of it is tested or verified. People have been discriminated against because of that information. There is a free exchange of very personal information between, in particular, Government databases and, going beyond that, private databases, as well. Sometimes people can get a raw deal because of that. It is good that the European Union is trying to set the pace in terms of protecting privacy. The Green Party supports this bill and wishes the Law Commission and the Privacy Commissioner well in trying to deal with these very difficult and complex issues of protecting people’s privacy.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : There are a lot of bus stops between here and Auckland, and there are a lot of bus stops around the world that our data travels through. Sometimes people at those places open packages in order to find out what they can see. The aim of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill is to amend the Privacy Act 1993 in order to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as a bus stop for the avoidance of other States’ tougher privacy laws. Where there is a hole in a net, fish will swim there in order to get through to the other side. Right now, New Zealand has a hole in its regulatory regime that is attracting fish that might have slipped through the privacy laws of their own countries.

This bill brings consistency with overseas States’ requirements with regard to the transference of information and data across their borders. With consistency of standards come confidence and trust. It is important for New Zealand to be seen as a trusted trading partner, especially with the European Union—we need its confidence. The changes proposed in this bill address the concern of some of New Zealand’s trading partners—especially European Union members—that overseas businesses have been locating operations and computer servers in New Zealand in order to benefit from our more flexible regulatory environment.

The Privacy Act became law in 1993. Like the privacy laws in many other jurisdictions, it was formulated in the 1990s, and at that time personal information was, largely, stored manually. With the advent of the power and the reach of the Internet, information about all of us is far more easily collected and disseminated throughout the world. An example of that is the spam scams that hit our email in-boxes on occasion. Even last week, I received email correspondence yet again from Nigeria, where people have copious amounts of money that they want to distribute around the world to worthy individuals. They want to bestow the magnificence of their generosity on such people. Well, they found me—although I do not consider myself worthy enough to benefit from their spare millions of dollars. I suggest that members on the other side of the House would be far more worthy than I. So I will not be sending the Nigerians my bank account number. Fortunately, I am not a member of Twitter, so I am no twit.

The Nigerian letter—also called the 419 fraud, Nigerian bank scam, or Nigerian money offer—originated in the early 1980s, as the oil-based Nigerian economy declined. Several unemployed university students first used the scam as a means of manipulating business visitors interested in shady deals in the Nigerian oil sector, before targeting business people in the West and, later, the wider population of the planet. Scammers in the early to mid-1990s targeted companies, sending scam messages via letter, fax, or telex. But then the spread of email and easy access to email harvesting software significantly lowered the cost of sending scam letters by utilising the Internet, and greatly increased the opportunity that spammer-scammers had. Hence the invitation that I received—and I am sure some of the other members of the House received it—last week. Somehow the spammer-scammers have accessed nearly every email address I have had.

In the 2000s, the 419 scam has spurred imitations from other locations in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. More recently, there have been imitations from North America and Western Europe—mainly the UK—and even from our cousins across the Ditch in Australia. The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 now deals with that sort of practice, but what it highlights is the open window that the Internet has provided to the world to access our private information. The collection, use, storage, and disclosure of one’s personal information can happen unnoticed, across borders, and at lightening speed.

I was visiting my brother, who is a medical researcher, in San Diego in the early 1990s. We went to a famous American department store called Sears, where there was a computer available to shoppers. One typed in the name of a friend who was getting married, and up came a list of preferred gifts—a Ferrari, a Porsche, and a red Corvette soft-top would be on my list. So I typed in my name. Surprisingly—and I say “Surprisingly” because I did not think that I was a person with a very common name—up came eight Jonathan Youngs who were all getting married in the US. I do not know how they managed to steal my identity. I did not know that I was as prolific as that. I must admit I left the department store dazed and depressed, both at the same time.

Tim Macindoe: I went to all eight before I found you. Cost me a fortune, too!

JONATHAN YOUNG: That is right—broke, but depressed at the lack of my uniqueness. That, too, demonstrates the power of computerisation and the ability to identify people’s information across the world.

Hon Steve Chadwick: You can even Twitter!

JONATHAN YOUNG: Exactly.

The main purpose of this bill is to assure our international business partners that their customers’ personal information will be protected when dealing with businesses in New Zealand. That is a very important thing—we need to give our international traders confidence that they can trust our systems. The bill is intended to ensure that personal data that originates overseas and is sent to New Zealand is subject to New Zealand’s privacy protection. The amendments dealing with cross-border data transfers aim to substantially reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of the privacy laws of other countries. We are stitching up the hole in the net, so to speak. The amendments aim to increase competitive advantage for trade between New Zealand and the European Union, and with our other current and developing trade partners.

The bill has wide support. We note that the Law Commission and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner agree that the bill should go ahead at this time. The Privacy Act makes it clear that there are important trans-border dimensions to the application of privacy legislation. This bill is a useful addition to the Act. The Law Commission’s view was sought on the bill, and it has indicated that it supports it. We want and need to protect our data here in New Zealand, and to protect what comes to New Zealand from around the world. We need to repair the hole in the net, so that international traders feel confident in the protection we offer. Then New Zealand businesses can become, and will continue to be, the trusted traders and partners they seek them to be. I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour) : I rise to support the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill, another bill introduced by the Labour Government, and it was introduced in July 2008. Speaking on this bill at its first reading, I want to emphasise two points. The first one is, in an era of increasing globalisation and e-commerce, how can privacy law in New Zealand be better adapted to enhance our trade opportunities and assist our businesses in gaining access to international markets? The second is, how can our privacy law be better drafted to reflect the notions “privacy is your business” and “good privacy is good business”?

The Privacy Act 1993 currently does not allow foreign nationals living overseas to make information privacy requests. What is an information privacy request? It is a request made to obtain confirmation of whether an agency holds personal information, to be given access to personal information, and/or for the correction of personal information. There is also nothing in the Act to prevent data received from overseas being transferred to a jurisdiction without adequate privacy protection outside of New Zealand. That means New Zealand is unable to provide the level of assurance requested by overseas trade partners that it can fully protect their privacy and their customers’ privacy. In today’s world of increasing globalisation and e-commerce, our inability to give that assurance is a potential impediment to trade.

In that regard, this bill is primarily designed to address two main issues: firstly, to ensure that New Zealand’s privacy law meets the expectations of New Zealand’s trading partners by assuring them that their privacy will be protected; and, secondly, to enable people living overseas who are not citizens or permanent residents of New Zealand to access their personal information held in New Zealand. Currently, the Privacy Act provides that an individual must be a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand, or be in New Zealand, to make such a request.

There are four main provisions in this bill. The first concerns the transfer of personal information outside of New Zealand. One purpose of the bill is to establish a mechanism for controlling the transfer of information outside of New Zealand where the information has been routed through New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws of the country where the information originated. The bill provides the Privacy Commissioner with a discretion to prohibit, on reasonable grounds, the transfer of personal information from New Zealand to another country. Secondly, the bill removes the residency restriction from persons who may make an information privacy request. Thirdly, the commissioner may authorise a public sector agency to impose a charge. Fourthly, the bill provides for complaints about breaches of the Act to be referred to overseas privacy enforcement authorities.

The changes proposed by this bill reflect the fact that the movement of personal information increasingly transcends national borders. The current Privacy Act 1993, like the privacy laws in many other jurisdictions, was formulated in the 1990s. At that time, most personal information was stored manually and it was not easy to copy or disseminate written information. Things have changed dramatically. Individuals may be perceived in a millisecond as a piece of information in an email or on a website such as YouTube or Facebook. Participants in a transaction may be on the other side of the world from each other. In my own case, for example, my maiden speech was broadcast live via the Internet as far away as Beijing, Hong Kong, and Taipei.

Tim Macindoe: To an internationally wonderful welcome.

RAYMOND HUO: Thank you. My subsequent speeches in this House, as I have learnt, were also watched, reviewed, and reported overseas on Chinese language websites.

With the extensive use of technology, it is much easier to collect, copy, or distribute information than it was in the 1990s. By extending the scope of persons who may request access to personal information in New Zealand, the bill is especially relevant to the growing number of New Zealand businesses that trade offshore.

An aim of this bill is, of course, to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of other States’ privacy laws. The changes in that regard are considered necessary because many States will not allow personal information held within their borders to be transferred to a jurisdiction where the personal information will not receive equivalent protection. One might infer that entities might have been locating operations and computer servers in New Zealand to benefit from a more flexible regulatory regime. Having said that, and with some trepidation, I suddenly had a feeling that we may need to get this bill passed with some sense of urgency.

I tell members to look at other jurisdictions; regulators seem to be seeking enhanced powers. In European Union countries we see signs of more stringent laws sought and enhanced enforcement penalties planned. Across the Ditch, the Australian Law Reform Commission initiated in August 2008 a comprehensive review of its privacy and confidentiality laws. Similar measures have also been implemented in Hong Kong. This bill is therefore necessary, and is expected to provide a timely boost to our businesses trading offshore. The history of New Zealand’s privacy legislation lies in part in the desire to be consistent with the OECD guidelines. I recall that our Privacy Commissioner once said that good privacy is good business. Indeed, businesses can help themselves by developing top-down privacy-conscious cultures.

To conclude, I support this bill because it will help ensure New Zealand law meets the expectations of our trading partners, and it will remove an anomaly, so that people living overseas can access their personal information held in New Zealand. The bill also complements the privacy review currently being undertaken by the Law Commission.

Overall, business is global and politics is local. I am pleased, indeed, to see that this bill, originally introduced by the previous Labour Government, seems to have received bipartisan support. I am sure that it is only the first part of a more extensive modernisation of our privacy laws. Thank you.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I rise in support of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill. It is important in an increasingly global economy that New Zealand is able to compete without burdens or barriers. This bill improves data collection and the security of information.

If we think back to 1993, when the Privacy Act was first passed, and if we compare the technology that was used in 1993 with what we use now, we see that it is vastly different. I want the House to reflect for a moment on the sorts of ways that we used to collect information. It may have been on paper cards or it may have been in notebooks. It definitely was nothing like what we have the capability to do today. So it is really important that we review the legislation and make sure it keeps pace with the speed of technology, and that it is relevant and puts in place the appropriate security nets.

I was going to talk about some points of interest that have been made by Opposition members tonight, but, in reality, of the points I have heard, there is really not too much in dispute. So I will move on instead. I support the comments made by my colleagues Simon Power and Chester Borrows, and made so well by Jonathan Young. The aim of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill is to amend the Privacy Act 1993 in order to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand’s being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of other countries’ privacy laws.

I will reinforce the points that have been made this evening, so that we are all clear about what this bill would achieve. Firstly, it will remove the current restrictions on who may make an information privacy request. It will enable public sector agencies to charge for making personal information available to overseas foreign nationals. It will provide for the referral of cross-border complaints to the appropriate privacy enforcement authority. It will also establish a mechanism for controlling the transfer of information outside of New Zealand where the information has been routed through New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws of the country from where the information originated. At present, the Privacy Act does not allow foreign nationals resident overseas to make information privacy requests, and does nothing to control the transfer of information outside of New Zealand in cases where information has been routed through New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws. This bill addresses both of those deficits in the Privacy Act.

I will give members a couple of examples to make this amendment bill a bit more relevant. I will start with clause 5, which repeals section 34 of the Privacy Act of 1993. I was fortunate in 1994 and 1995 to work with the then Privacy Commissioner, Bruce Slane. The former Privacy Commissioner made the following comment during an address to the 13th annual Industrial Relations Conference meeting: “First, section 34 of the Privacy Act restricts making information privacy requests (requests for access to personal information) to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents wherever they are and to other individuals who are in New Zealand. So, a European who has formerly lived and worked in New Zealand has no right of access to information held about him here unless he is in New Zealand when he makes his request.” Bruce Slane recommended that the standing requirements in section 34 be abolished, and that is what we are doing today. The bill will also enable any individual to make an information privacy request. That means individuals do not have to be New Zealand permanent residents or citizens, or here in New Zealand at the time the request is made.

I will look at another example, which was raised in NZ Marketing Magazine by a business owner, who queried how the privacy laws work. The owner stated that he had a database that included a customer’s personal information, which is what most New Zealand businesses hold. However, the owner had affiliations with offshore companies, and he wanted to know whether he needed to change the way he handled the customer’s personal information. This bill seeks to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for avoiding privacy laws in the United States—an important thing indeed.

Under this bill, the Privacy Commissioner will have authority to prohibit the transfer of personal information from New Zealand to another State, if he or she is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, on three points. First, the information has been, or will be, received in New Zealand from another State and is likely to be transferred to a third party where it will not be subject to a law providing comparable safeguards to the Act. Second, the transfer of the information may circumvent the privacy or data-protection laws of the State from which it has been, or will be, received. Third, the transfer would be likely to lead to a contravention of the basic principles of national application set out in part 2 of the OECD guidelines. Prohibition of the transfer of the information is effected by the commissioner, when he or she uses a transfer prohibition notice to the agency proposing to transfer the personal information. If someone failed to comply with a notice, that person would be liable and could be fined up to $10,000. It is important to note that the bill enables any individual to make an information privacy request. As I stated before, individuals do not have to be New Zealand permanent residents or citizens, or here at the time that the request is made.

The collection, use, storage, and disclosure of personal information can happen unnoticed across borders and at phenomenal speeds. If we think for a moment about the significant advancements of technology, data collection, data sharing, and data transfer, we realise it is vital that the legislation keeps up. With our legislative process, it is doubtful that our legislation will keep up at the same speed as technology advances, as that advance happens on a daily basis. But this amendment bill takes us a good way down the track in terms of protecting that information.

The amendments are intended to assure our international business partners that their customers’ personal information will be protected when dealing with businesses in New Zealand. We need to make sure that New Zealand is seen and recognised as a safe, productive, and competitive place to do business. The amendments are designed to ensure that personal data originating overseas and sent to New Zealand is subject to New Zealand’s privacy protection. The transfer prohibition notice mechanism will ensure that foreign personal data cannot be sent via New Zealand to jurisdictions without adequate privacy protection. The amendments will enable New Zealanders and New Zealand companies to assure their important trade partners that the New Zealand law will ensure their privacy is protected. The amendments dealing with cross-border data transfers aim to substantially reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of the privacy laws of other countries.

I am delighted to support the first reading of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill, which is sponsored by our very capable and hard-working commerce Minister, Simon Power. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I would like to take a brief call on the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill. I will begin where Louise Upston left off, by congratulating Simon Power, the hard-working and diligent Minister in charge of the bill. I will take only a brief call because I know that the Minister is eager to get on to the next bill on the Order Paper, which is also in his name, as is the bill after that. Tony Ryall is allowed a brief turn on the Order Paper, then the next three bills are in the Minister’s name. As a matter of fact, if we count all of the bills on the Order Paper, we find that 15 out of the 35 bills are in the name of Simon Power. It could be that the reason we are discussing so many of Simon Power’s bills is that a significant number of the other bills are in Richard Worth’s name and he has been told he is not allowed to participate in the debate at the moment.

I note that this bill, like all of the other bills I can see on the Order Paper, was introduced by the previous Labour Government. Although Simon Power is a conscientious and hard-working Minister in charge of this bill, he does appear to be somewhat advantaged by the fact that a significant number of bills in his portfolios were introduced by the last Labour Government.

Hon Simon Power: Somewhat advantaged!

CHRIS HIPKINS: That is right.

This debate today is fairly topical because privacy is integral to avoiding issues around identity theft. As we have heard in the House today, identity theft can apply to anybody. Politicians and members of this House are not immune to issues of identity theft. Changes in technology have made identity theft so much more possible, and we saw that just this afternoon, when the Government aided and abetted a right-wing blogger’s attempt to be passed off as a member of this House in order to discredit that member. I am sure that is something we would like to avoid and that we would not encourage in any way.

The issues around privacy have been heated. I, for one, do not profess to be an expert on privacy issues in any way, shape, or form, but I like the idea that any information stored about me is kept securely and will not be passed on to somebody who is not entitled to have it. I understand that private information that comes into New Zealand as a result of our trading relationships with people from overseas should also have that same protection. I like the thought that if the private information stored about me is incorrect, I will have the ability to access that information and to correct it. When international trading partners and their customers are involved, those rights should be extended to them also.

I agree with Louise Upston that the environment we live in now is very, very different from what it was in 1993, when the Privacy Act was passed. We do not have file cards, and things like that, so much any more. The information is all stored electronically, and that introduces a whole range of new challenges.

As this bill progresses through the House, I will be interested in the enforceability of this law and in how it will be enforced. Again, I do not profess to be an expert on privacy issues, but if we look at the provisions in the bill, and the powers given to the Privacy Commissioner, it is difficult for us to see how some of those things will be enforced. For example, if the Privacy Commissioner prohibits the transfer of a certain amount of personal information, the ruling would be difficult to enforce, given how easy it is in the current technological climate for information to be exchanged very quickly.

The aim of the bill is to reduce the likelihood of New Zealand being used as an intermediary for the avoidance of other States’ privacy laws. The bill removes the current restrictions on who may make an information privacy request, by enabling public sector agencies to charge for making personal information available to overseas foreign nationals, by providing for the referral of cross-border complaints to the appropriate privacy enforcement authority, and by establishing a mechanism for controlling the transfer of information outside of New Zealand where the information has been routed through New Zealand to circumvent the privacy laws of the country where the information originated.

Getting our privacy laws right is important for both individuals and for businesses. Major advances in technology have changed the way in which personal data is collected, stored, and used. The challenge for businesses is to ensure that the benefits obtained through the use of new technology do not compromise individuals’ expectations about the security and use of their personal information. Businesses must be able to assure their customers that their privacy will be respected. Currently, the Privacy Act does not allow foreign nationals resident overseas to make information privacy requests.

Further, nothing in the Act prevents data received from overseas from being transferred outside New Zealand to jurisdictions without adequate privacy protection. This means that New Zealand is unable to provide the level of assurance requested by overseas trade partners that we can fully protect their privacy and their customers’ privacy, in an era of increasing globalisation and e-commerce. Our inability to give this assurance is a potential impediment to trade.

This bill complements the privacy law review currently being undertaken by the Law Commission. It is a good bill. It was introduced by the previous Labour Government, and I commend it to the House.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) : It is good to have an opportunity to speak in a debate that has been conducted in a positive and constructive spirit and that clearly enjoys bipartisan support in our Parliament. As other speakers have noted, the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill aims to protect the rights of New Zealanders and to reduce the possibility of foreign personal data being sent via New Zealand to jurisdictions that do not respect the high standard of “priv-acy” or “pry-vacy” protection that we in this country hold dear.

Clare Curran: “Pry-vacy”?

TIM MACINDOE: I use both pronunciations of “privacy” because, although I note that, apparently, members on this side of the House are meant to pronounce the word one way and members opposite another way, my parents were always divided over how to pronounce that word—and I can assure Ms Curran that neither of them ever voted Labour.

Listeners to this debate—including those in the packed public gallery, and television viewers with a shortage of alternative channels—will be relieved to know that this House is, for the umpteenth time since the change of Government, completing the unfinished business of the last Parliament. I have to say that as a new member I am at a loss to understand how the previous Labour Government so comprehensively lost control of its own legislative agenda. But I guess that is history now and the important thing is that we have a Government that is getting things done and mopping up Labour’s mess.

For Ms Curran to ask where National’s ideas are is unbelievable. A responsible Government finishes important business even when it was started by a previous Government, and we are doing just that. A responsible political party campaigns on the issues that matter and offers solutions to problems that concern the electorate at large. That is what we did last year, it is why National was elected to lead the Government in November, and it is what we have been doing, I say to Ms Curran, ever since. So to ask where National’s ideas are, when Ms Curran repeatedly complained about how quickly we got on with the job during our first 100 days of action—and have continued to do so subsequently—will fool no one up in the gallery tonight or in the country at large.

The country knows what National stands for and what our ideas are, and people are delighted to have a Government that knows what it is doing and that has such excellent Ministers as the very energetic member for Rangitīkei, the Hon Simon Power. When we consider all that Mr Power has achieved since the change of Government, and the myriad of marvellous measures he has managed so magnificently in this House since he took up his ministerial warrant, the suggestion that he is somehow lacking in ideas is patently ridiculous.

It is clear that the international business community not only expects legislative protection of this kind but depends upon it. Several previous speakers have rightly explained that point in some detail. I will focus for a few moments on the extra challenges that rapid technological advances have generated. They significantly underline the importance of achieving the enactment of the Privacy (Cross-border Information) Amendment Bill as soon as possible.

My excellent colleague Jonathan Young represents the fine people of New Plymouth not only in this House but also on the world stage. That reminds me that I would like to add my personal congratulations to the Rt Hon Helen Clark on her significant appointment that was confirmed this morning and to note that she, as a prolific texter, will also benefit from the extra security provided by this bill—but I digress, and that is totally out of character. The very fine Mr Young, as I was saying—who apparently managed to find eight brides in the United States last month alone, such an outstanding and popular public figure is he—drew attention to the plague of bogus email and other seemingly unstoppable spam, which drives us all nuts on a daily basis. The sad fact is that many innocent people have been taken in by such nonsense as the endless Nigerian money offers, the apparent Eastern European bequests, and the amazing lottery wins from Uzbekistan that arrive on a daily basis. Although the discovery tonight that I shall have to share my winnings with Dr Blue is a shattering one, I would come to terms with my grief if someone could stop me from receiving any more such glad tidings of dubious joy.

Seriously, this is a vital and widely supported measure. Let us get on and add it to Mr Power’s list of stunning achievements. I commend this bill to the House, and thank the gallery, and my mother—who is glued to her radio at home—for their rapt attention.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration.

Sadly, this bill was born from tragedy. Members of the House will recall the senseless death of Karl Kuchenbecker at the hands of paroled murderer Graeme Burton. Members may also recall that in January 2008 Karl Kuchenbecker’s former partner received a letter from the Legal Services Agency. The letter set out the theoretical maximum amount of $19,000 that she would be required to repay in respect of legal aid granted to her for representation at the coronial inquiry into Mr Kuchenbecker’s death.

It is not acceptable that victims should be treated in this way, adding insult to injury by raising the prospect that they may be liable for significant repayments. Within days, the then Minister of Justice, the Hon Annette King, said “If the legal aid system is producing this sort of result for victims, it has to be changed urgently. I have already spoken to the Secretary for Justice and asked for an urgent report that will examine what changes are needed to ensure that victims are treated in a caring and compassionate way. I am very serious about this. Victims should not be re-victimised under any circumstances.” I give credit to Mrs King for taking that stance.

Unfortunately, we were told that the bill would be introduced in May and passed soon after that. May rolled around, and the then Prime Minister said that it seemed outrageous that Mr Kuchenbecker’s widow would face such a steep bill, and that legislation was ready to be introduced into Parliament very quickly. On 14 August, 7 months after the letter was received by Karl Kuchenbecker’s widow, the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced to Parliament. In our first 100 days, we have introduced a bill to Parliament to levy offenders to pay for enhanced services to victims. I can tell the House that the review of victims’ rights that we promised at the election is also under way.

This bill amends the Legal Services Act 2000 to change the way the legal aid scheme operates for victims of crime who apply for legal aid in respect of coronial inquests and Parole Board hearings. The Act generally requires an applicant to meet financial eligibility criteria and to make repayments in respect of aid granted. There are existing exceptions to some of the general requirements in the Act, notably in relation to victims’ claims proceedings. This bill ensures that victims affected by an offence, including alleged offences not proven in court, who seek legal aid to attend a coronial inquest or Parole Board hearing will not be subject to financial eligibility tests. It also ensures that no repayment of legal aid will be required.

The bill also makes amendments of an administrative nature. Currently, the Legal Services Agency has discretion to write off legal aid debt on a case by case basis, if the agency considers it is just and equitable to do so. However, this may occur only at the end of any legal proceedings. This bill enables the Legal Services Agency to decide not to recover legal aid debt at any time during the process. This will provide certainty for applicants in circumstances justifying a write-off, as the agency will be able to let them know as early as possible that they will not be required to make repayments.

The bill also introduces a regulation-making power so that the Governor-General can, by Order in Council, exempt particular classes of persons or proceedings from the financial eligibility tests and repayment conditions. There may be further unforeseen classes of persons or proceedings for which the requirements regarding financial eligibility for and the repayment of legal aid are not in the public interest, do not facilitate access to justice, and are not just and equitable in the circumstances. A regulation-making power will enable a swift response to unforeseen situations like the tragic Kuchenbecker case that may arise in the future—a swifter response, I have to say, than the time line this bill was on.

We now rectify that matter, seek the referral of the bill to a select committee, and trust that the House will support this bill on such a delicate, but important, matter. I commend this bill to the House.

• Debate interrupted.